After the attacks of September 11, 2001, there was a flurry of action establishing and expanding the United States government’s infringements of freedom in the name of making Americans safer. Along the way, political writer James Bovard documented the vile developments. Speaking Tuesday at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Restoring Our Civil Liberties webinar, Bovard provided a biting, and at times funny, introduction to destructive and absurd actions the US government has pursued since the September 11 attacks.
Starting off, Bovard notes that while in the 1990s he had much criticized out-of-control government, including in his book Lost Rights, it has turned out that “the 1990s were practically a golden age for freedom compared to what’s happened after 9/11.” From there, Bovard, in his speech, addresses some of the new government powers and agencies that have come into being over the last 20 years.
A chunk of Bovard’s presentation is focused on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Bovard’s unfortunate interactions with this US government agency created soon after the September 11 attacks. Since this is Bovard speaking, a fair amount of humor is included into the telling. Sprinkled through the stories are details about the TSA and its insufferable practices.
Bovard also addresses in the speech other abuses of Americans undertaken by entities including the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that were asserted after the September 11 attacks to be necessary for keeping Americans safe and winning a war on terror. Concerning expanded US government activities overseas that came at the same time, Bovard discusses drone killings and torture as well.
Bringing things forward to the last couple years, Bovard, in the conclusion of his speech, discusses how pumping up fear has again allowed large expansions of government power at the expense of freedom, this time in pursuing a “war on covid.”
Watch Bovard’s speech, and stick around for the wide-ranging question-and-answer period with Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger that follows, here:
On the 18th of September, the government shut down Victoria’s entire public transport network into Melbourne’s CBD to stop lockdown protesters from rallying.
The unprecedented move failed miserably.
Thousands still managed to make their way to the protest, overwhelming police once again.
It’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and FEMA concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government or objecting to a COVID-19 vaccine could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
Indeed, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
The government also has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
It’s happened before.
As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.
One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain “order” in the homeland.
The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.
Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits its purposes. Pointing out that such blatantly illegal detentions could happen again—with the blessing of the courts—Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has long been part of the government’s budget and operations, falling under the jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA’s murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government’s disaster relief agencies into one large agency.
During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.
FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented.
But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with “mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.
Now if you’re going to have internment camps on American soil, someone has to build them.
Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be built, they rationalized the need for them in case of “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies such as “natural disasters.”
Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political dissidents.
So it’s no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation.
As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.
Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.
That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
These reports indicate that for the government, so-called extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is a target, which brings us back, full circle, to the question of whether the government will exercise the power it claims to possess to detain anyone perceived as a threat, i.e., anyone critical of the government.
The short answer is: yes.
The longer answer is more complicated.
Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it.
However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.
Frankly, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.
Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.
We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.
Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention. Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.
Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone—ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile—they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. A decade later, the cops largely have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal (mind you, in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the birds to growing exotic orchids).
Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the population today unconcerned about the government’s practice of spying on Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.
Indeed, it’s happening already, with police relying on surveillance software such as ShadowDragon to watch people’s social media and other website activity, whether or not they suspected of a crime, and potentially use it against them when the need arises.
It turns out that we are Soylent Green, being cannibalized by a government greedily looking to squeeze every last drop out of us.
The 1973 film Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.
Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, Soylent Green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”
Oh, how right he was.
Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us in prisons of our own making.
Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights when power, technology and militaristic governance converge, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted, and go where we wanted without those thoughts, words and movements being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.
People driving around the Texas cities of Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas over the last few days have seen new billboards along major highways encouraging them to resist the incessant bullying from politicians, media, schools, businesses, and employers related to the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots.
The huge billboards declare the messages “Make an Informed Choice!” and “DON’T BE BULLIED.” The billboards also display the image of a gloved hand holding a vial labeled “COVID 19 Coronavirus Vaccine.”
Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom (CCHF) put up the billboards recently in Texas. CCHF had put up similar billboards in Idaho, Minnesota, and Wisconsin before it announced, on August 25, its billboards public outreach effort. In its press release announcing the billboards public outreach effort, CCHF declared it had “the intent of raising awareness and building resistance to the vaccination mandates that are currently being used as an effort to coerce Americans into submitting to the ‘jab’.”
More power to CCHF in its effort to directly communicate a contrary view to people who are relentlessly bombarded with propaganda promoting not just the taking of experimental coronavirus vaccines, but the imposing of vaccine passports and vaccine mandates as well. The big money media and social media, acting like bullies, seek to prevent people from hearing the arguments that counter the propaganda. It is thus important for people trying to counter the propaganda to use alternative means, billboards among them, to circumvent the information gatekeepers.
In Texas, newspaper and TV station news stories about the new billboards have predictably used the “reporting” to condemn the billboards’ message while again trumpeting the party line on the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. Bullying, indeed.
“The idea that humans have free will, or a soul — these are over!”
Technocrats have not just declared war on humanity, they have declared victory in that war. From your vote in the election, to your diet, to your medical choices, these are no longer your decisions to make as the elites openly celebrate that they now know better and exercise near perfect control over our lives.
We still have the opportunity to NOT comply en masse with this rewrite of humanity — but we must be ALL IN, RIGHT NOW.
America is in the midst of an epidemic of historic proportions.
The contagion being spread like wildfire is turning communities into battlegrounds and setting Americans one against the other.
Normally mild-mannered individuals caught up in the throes of this disease have been transformed into belligerent zealots, while others inclined to pacifism have taken to stockpiling weapons and practicing defensive drills.
This plague on our nation—one that has been spreading like wildfire—is a potent mix of fear coupled with unhealthy doses of paranoia and intolerance, tragic hallmarks of the post-9/11 America in which we live and the constantly shifting crises that keep the populace in a state of high alert.
Everywhere you turn, those on both the left- and right-wing are fomenting distrust and division. You can’t escape it.
We’re being fed a constant diet of fear: fear of a virus, fear of the unmasked, fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, fear of people who are too religious, fear of people who are not religious enough, fear of extremists, fear of the government, fear of those who fear the government. The list goes on and on.
The strategy is simple yet effective: the best way to control a populace is through fear and discord.
Confound them, distract them with mindless news chatter and entertainment, pit them against one another by turning minor disagreements into major skirmishes, and tie them up in knots over matters lacking in national significance.
Most importantly, divide the people into factions, persuade them to see each other as the enemy and keep 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 is how free people enslave themselves and allow tyrants to prevail.
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, endless wars, COVID-19 mandates, etc., 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.
Turn on the TV or flip open the newspaper on any given day, and you will find yourself accosted by reports of government corruption, corporate malfeasance, militarized police, marauding SWAT teams, and egregious assaults on the rights of the citizenry.
America has already entered a new phase, one in which communities are locked down, employees are forced to choose between keeping their jobs or exercising their freedoms, children are arrested in schools, military veterans are forcibly detained by government agents, and law-abiding Americans are finding their movements tracked, their financial transactions documented and their communications monitored.
These threats are not to be underestimated.
Yet even more dangerous than these violations of our basic rights is the language in which they are couched: the language of fear. It is a language 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.
So far, these tactics are working.
An atmosphere of fear permeates modern America.
Each successive crisis in recent years (a COVID-19 pandemic, terrorism, etc.)—manufactured or legitimate—has succeeded in reducing the American people to what commentator Dan Sanchez refers to as “herd-minded hundreds of millions [who] will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.”
“I am not terrified of the terrorists; i.e., I am not, myself, terrorized. Rather, I am terrified of the terrorized; terrified of the bovine masses who are so easily manipulated by terrorists, governments, and the terror-amplifying media into allowing our country to slip toward totalitarianism and total war…
“I do not irrationally and disproportionately fear Muslim bomb-wielding jihadists or white, gun-toting nutcases. But I rationally and proportionately fear those who do, and the regimes such terror empowers. History demonstrates that governments are capable of mass murder and enslavement far beyond what rogue militants can muster. Industrial-scale terrorists are the ones who wear ties, chevrons, and badges. But such terrorists are a powerless few without the supine acquiescence of the terrorized many. There is nothing to fear but the fearful themselves…
“Stop swallowing the overblown scaremongering of the government and its corporate media cronies. Stop letting them use hysteria over small menaces to drive you into the arms of tyranny, which is the greatest menace of all.”
As history makes clear, fear leads to fascistic, totalitarian regimes.
It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. Fear prevents us from thinking. 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.
· The government is managed by a powerful leader (even if he or she assumes office by way of the electoral process). This is the fascistic leadership principle (or father figure).
· The government assumes it is not restrained in its power. This is authoritarianism, which eventually evolves into totalitarianism.
· The government ostensibly operates under a capitalist system while being undergirded by an immense bureaucracy.
· The government through its politicians emits powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
· The government has an obsession with national security while constantly invoking terrifying internal and external enemies.
· The government establishes a domestic and invasive surveillance system and develops a paramilitary force that is not answerable to the citizenry.
· The government and its various agencies (federal, state, and local) develop an obsession with crime and punishment. This is overcriminalization.
· The government becomes increasingly centralized while aligning closely with corporate powers to control all aspects of the country’s social, economic, military, and governmental structures.
· The government uses militarism as a center point of its economic and taxing structure.
· The government is increasingly imperialistic in order to maintain the military-industrial corporate forces.
The parallels to modern America are impossible to ignore.
“Every industry is regulated. Every profession is classified and organized,” writes Jeffrey Tucker. “Every good or service is taxed. Endless debt accumulation is preserved. Immense doesn’t begin to describe the bureaucracy. Military preparedness never stops, and war with some evil foreign foe, remains a daily prospect.”
For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary. In times of “crisis,” expediency is upheld as the central principle—that is, in order to keep us safe and secure, the government must militarize the police, strip us of basic constitutional rights and criminalize virtually every form of behavior.
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 have observed how quickly fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Postreports:
In the experiment, researchers taught male mice to fear the smell of cherry blossoms by associating the scent with mild foot shocks. Two weeks later, they bred with females. The resulting pups were raised to adulthood having never been exposed to the smell. Yet when the critters caught a whiff of it for the first time, they suddenly became anxious and fearful. They were even born with more cherry-blossom-detecting neurons in their noses and more brain space devoted to cherry-blossom-smelling.
Now consider the ramifications of inherited generations of fears and experiences on human beings. As the 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.”
Fear has been a critical tool in past fascistic regimes, and it now operates in our contemporary world—all of which raises fundamental questions about us as human beings and what we will give up in order to perpetuate the illusions of safety and security.
In the words of psychologist Erich Fromm:
[C]an human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love—that is to say, can man forget he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society into a human one?
Los Angeles, CA — For decades now, federal government and their cohorts in law enforcement have been carrying out theft of the citizenry on a massive scale using Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF).
The 1980’s-era laws were designed to drain resources from powerful criminal organizations, but CAF has become a tool for law enforcement agencies across the U.S. to steal money and property from countless innocent people.
As the following case out of Beverly Hills illustrates, no criminal charge is required for this confiscation, resulting in easy inflows of cash for law enforcement departments and the proliferation of abuse. This phenomenon is known as “policing for profit” and the latest example is exceedingly egregious.
Using bogus excuses, the FBI raided roughly 800 safety deposit boxes at a single location in Beverly Hills. They made random and apparently unsubstantiated accusations that the U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills was aiding criminal activity. The business was indicted in February on claims that it marketed itself to criminals to help them launder money and dodge government detection.
But no one was ever charged.
Instead, the FBI raided the place and confiscated, or rather robbed people like Joseph Ruiz and others of their life savings. These folks like Ruiz were then forced to prove their innocence in order to get their money back.
The FBI falsely claimed that Ruiz, who is a chef, made the &57,000 they stole from him from drug dealing because a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs on the cash.
In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that government does not have probable cause to seize cash from individuals based only on a drug-detection dog’s reaction; stating specifically that the majority of money in circulation has drugs on it.
But court precedents and ethical enforcement of the law apparently mean very little to the FBI who confiscated the life savings of hundreds of people for this very reason. Ruiz was forced to produce documents proving his innocence and show the source of the money was legitimate in order to get it back. In other words, he was guilty until proven innocent.
But Ruiz was one of many people robbed by these agents. In total, these thieving FBI agents robbed 800 people of $86 million in cash, jewelry, and precious metals. Hundreds of those involved have contested the government-sanctioned theft and 65 of them have filed suit.
“It was a complete violation of my privacy,” Ruiz said. “They tried to discredit my character.”
According to the LA Times, “prosecutors, so far, have outlined past criminal convictions or pending charges against 11 box holders to justify the forfeitures. But in several other cases, court records show, the government’s rationale for claiming that the money and property it seized was tied to crime is no stronger than it was against Ruiz.”
The feds claimed that the other robbery victims were guilty for the mere ways the money was stored and how it smelled. If it was wrapped in rubber bands, it had to come from drug sales. If it smelled like drugs to the dog, the owner was guilty.
“The notion that the old rubber bands mean they must be drug dealers is ludicrous,” one of the victim’s lawyers, Benjamin Gluck said.
Gluck told the Times that U.S. Private Vaults customers “included many immigrant business owners who escaped repressive regimes where banks are unsafe and have collected amounts of cash as their life savings over many, many years.”
In other words, the FBI is robbing innocent people of their life savings and using bogus excuses to justify the theft.
Unfortunately, this entire 4th Amendment violation carried out by the FBI is considered legal under current US law. Despite most everyone whose valuables were stolen being innocent, the U.S. Attorney’s office said “nothing requires the government to ignore evidence of a crime that it sees” while taking inventory of seized goods.
And this is why in the last 30 years, the amount of “profit” stolen through civil asset forfeiture has skyrocketed.
According to the US Department of Justice, the value of asset forfeiture recoveries by US authorities from 1989-2010 was $12,667,612,066, increasing on average 19.5% per year.
In 2008, law enforcement took over $1.5 billion from the American public. While this number seems incredibly large, just a few years later, in 2014, that number tripled to nearly $4.5 billion.
When we examine these numbers, and their nearly exponential growth curve, it appears that police in America are getting really good at separating the citizen from their property — not just really good either, criminally good.
To put this number into perspective, according to the FBI, victims of burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses in 2014.
That means that law enforcement in America, in 2014, stole $600,000,000 more from Americans than actual criminal burglars.
When government surpasses the criminal accomplishments of those they claim to protect you from, there is a serious problem. We’ve seen horrible instances of criminal cops and feds using this legal doctrine to rob everyone from grandmas to musicians, and in fact, we have even reported on cops stealing tens of thousands of dollars from an orphanage and a church. Seriously.
As TFTP reported at the time, to “keep society safe,” sheriff’s deputies in Muskogee County, Oklahoma robbed a church and an orphanage of $53,000. Real American heroes.
The good news is that Americans have been waking up to this Orwellian notion of police robbing the citizens, and they are taking a stand. Hopefully, the court finds this seizure illegal and puts these FBI agents in their place.
cover image credit: A video screen capture taken from U.S. District Court documents show federal agents executing search and seizure warrants in late March at the U.S. Private Vaults store in Beverly Hills.(U.S. District Court)
A few dozen protesters showed up to last weekend’s “Justice for J6” rally in Washington DC, but that did not stop the authoritarian Washington Beltway establishment from spending millions to again turn the area into a fortress, complete with a militarized Capitol Hill Police force and an army of undercover FBI agents. The protesters were easily outnumbered by reporters desperate for another “insurrection” story and by police officers who looked like they were ready for military combat.
Of the reported four people arrested at the event, one turned out to be an undercover FBI agent who was then escorted to “safety” by police after showing his badge. As conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza Tweeted, the comedy of the event was that “there were so many undercover cops they were arresting each other by accident.”
Earlier, former President Trump warned that the rally was a set-up by an FBI, Homeland Security Department, and Capitol Hill Police Department eager for more trophies in their war against “insurrectionists.” He advised people to avoid the event and it appears their advice was taken.
They did not get their “Second Insurrection.” In fact, as we know from the FBI itself, they did not even get their First Insurrection. Though the Left elites continue to use that term, the FBI affirmed last month that there was no organized plan among the January 6th protesters to overturn the presidential election.
The media’s non-stop hysterical reporting about the January 6th “insurrection” – repeated endlessly by Democratic Party politicians – did serve an important propaganda purpose: anyone with concerns about the way the 2020 presidential election was conducted was immediately demonized and silenced.
But to me it seems a little too obvious that Biden backers and their allies in the deep state would hold a fake rally just to set-up more “insurrectionists” to be arrested. It’s possible that they believe conservatives and Trump supporters are dumb enough to walk into a trap – or perhaps another trap – but I find it unconvincing.
Instead, perhaps this rally was in reality a kind of psychological operation. After all, such an exercise would be a win-win for the planners. On one hand if a massive crowd showed up it would give new life to the now-discredited narrative that an attack on “our democracy” more serious than 9/11 (as President Biden laughably claimed) was operating just below the surface of society.
Authoritarians must be able to point to “the enemy” to consolidate their power.
On the other hand, if no one showed up, as it turns out happened, the real organizers could laugh and crow about how support has evaporated for the hundreds originally arrested after January 6th (many still held without bail, but none charged with “insurrection”). And also, they can claim that support for Donald Trump, who for some reason continues to mortally terrify them, has likewise disappeared.
Maybe that’s just a crazy conspiracy theory, but then again anyone claiming just a few weeks ago that Biden would implement a vaccine mandate was also considered a crazy conspiracy theorist.
This failed rally is a success for Team Biden on one front: very few would now dare to hold a rally calling attention to the shocking injustice that continues to stain the prosecution of so many January 6th protesters. But we must not let enemies of justice win. All liberty lovers must speak out for the unfairly persecuted. Even when it’s politically risky. We must not be silent!
As governments and their public health brigades become more vindictive in their drive to crush small and independently-owned businesses across America, owners are getting creative in order to preserve their livelihoods, as well as those of their employees.
In Missouri, Jackson County officials said they will seek a court order to try and close a Blue Springs restaurant for what they claim are ‘repeated violations’ COVID-19 health decrees, including the county’s mask mandate.
“One day after the county shut down the cafe, it reopened as a “private club.” A sign on the door stated that, “by entering ]this club, you admit that you are not a member of the general public. By signing your name, you record your membership and attendance. You also assume any and all risks of disease transmission.”
Amanda Wallace owner of Rae’s Cafe in Missouri, felt she had no choice but to convert her business into a ‘private members club’ in order to prevent the county’s public health gestapo from using ever-changing arbitrary COVID rules and restrictions to force her out of business.
Dr. Julie Ponesse, Fired From Her Job as Professor of Ethics at the University of Western Ontario for Refusing the Covid Vax, Provides a Lesson in Courage and Integrity
On September 7, 2021, Julie Ponesse, Ethics Professor Huron College University of Western, London, ON Canada was dismissed for not submitting to medical experimentation.
TCTL editor: We have been unable to source the original video. Some have said the original video was deleted by YouTube. It has since been mirrored on many alternative video channels as well as all over social media.
Judge Removes Child From Mom Over Vaccination Status
August 10, 2021, a Cook County, Illinois, judge stripped a mother of her parental rights during a child support hearing because she refused to get the COVID jab due to bad vaccine reactions in the past
August 30, 2021, the judge reversed his decision to keep the mother from seeing her son after public backlash and involvement from the Illinois divorce bar
A number of judges around the U.S. have started using the COVID shot as a reward/punishment tool, but should opting in or out of a medical treatment really determine your ability to get fair treatment in the judicial system?
Dehumanizing people for their medical choices is part and parcel of the technocratic Great Reset plan, as vaccine passports will serve as the platform for more invasive surveillance, social engineering and population control
People in positions of power are actively pushing for the creation of a two-tier society where those who get the COVID jabs are “privileged” with normal everyday freedoms and those who refuse the shot are shunned, barred and excluded
August 28, 2021, Fox32 Chicago reported1 that a Cook County judge had stripped a mother of her parental rights because she refused to get the COVID jab.The mother, Rebecca Firlit, had a shared custody agreement with her former husband. August 10, they’d appeared in court via Zoom for a child support hearing, at which time, Judge James Shapiro asked about their vaccination status.Firlit said she had not gotten the shot because her doctor had advised against it, as she’s had bad reactions to vaccines in the past. “It poses a risk,” she told Shapiro.2 The father said he had gotten the shot. The judge then took the surprising step of stripping Firlit of her parenting time with her 11-year-old son until she got the jab.Firlit’s attorney, Annette Fernholz, said the judge overstepped his authority and acted outside his jurisdiction. She told WFLD:3
“The father did not even bring this issue before the court. So it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated.”
Judge Reverses Decision After Public Backlash
As horrifying as that story is, there is good news. August 30, 2021, Judge Shapiro did a sudden about-face and reversed his decision to keep Firlit from seeing her son.4 According to Fernholz, Shapiro’s decision to reverse his ruling was prompted by the national backlash that took place after Fox32 News broke the story, days earlier. The Illinois divorce bar reportedly also got involved.
Is Vaccination Now a Tool of the Judicial System?
As reported by The Washington Post, a number of judges around the U.S. have started using the COVID shot as a reward/punishment tool:5
“A judge in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge offered some defendants the option of getting vaccinated instead of completing community service hours.
Two judges in Ohio have also ordered that some people receive the vaccine as a condition of their probation. Similarly, two Georgia judges are reducing sentences for some offenders who get a vaccine.
In New York, judges in the Bronx and Manhattan have ordered defendants to get a vaccine as part of their rehabilitation and as a condition for seeking bail, respectively.”
How is any of this even remotely possible? Should opting in or out of a medical treatment really determine your ability to get fair treatment in the judicial system?
Dehumanization Is Part of the Plan
Disturbingly, it appears our judicial system is yet another cesspool of corruption that is now being used to further the globalist plan for a Great Reset. Dehumanizing people for their medical choices is part and parcel of that plan, as vaccine passports will serve as the platform for more invasive surveillance, social engineering and population control.
Those familiar with history will quickly recognize the playbook. It’s been used by virtually every totalitarian and dictatorial power throughout modern history. One of the clearest and most well-known examples is that of Nazi Germany, which used health and the fear of germs and disease as a means to manipulate society into accepting the extermination of certain groups of people.We’re now seeing the same exact tactics used all over the world. The rhetoric used by government officials and media is clearly meant to incite fear and hostility against the unvaccinated. Once the hostility becomes normalized, the undesirables can be eliminated with the full support of the general population.
Second-Class Citizens
Everywhere you look, people in positions of power are actively pushing for the creation of a two-tier society where those who get the COVID jabs are “privileged” with normal everyday freedoms and those who refuse the shot are shunned, barred and excluded.As of September 7, 2021, high-profile restaurant chains in New York City will require staff and indoor diners to prove their vaccination status.6 Gyms and movie theaters in the city are also being ordered to follow suit.7 New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told The New York Times:8
“This is a miraculous place literally full of wonders. If you’re vaccinated, all that’s going to open up to you. But if you’re unvaccinated, unfortunately you will not be able to participate in many things.”
Is this freedom? In July 2021, the San Francisco Bar Owners Alliance urged its 300 members to require proof of COVID-19 injection or a negative COVID test for patrons wanting to have a drink indoors.Several Los Angeles restaurants, bars and comedy clubs have followed suit, as have more than 60 establishments in Seattle. Vaccinated-only restaurants have also popped up in Oakland, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Boulder, St. Louis and New Orleans. Since COVID countermeasures are a global lockstep operation,9 the same segregation trend is emerging in other countries as well.Worse than prohibiting people from participating in civil society, and in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution that every elected official has sworn an oath to upkeep, the U.S. government is also urging far larger corporations to impose vaccination mandates for staff and/or their customers.Companies paving the way for this all-out tyranny include Facebook, Google, Twitter, Lyft, Uber, Saks Fifth Avenue, The Washington Post, BlackRock, Ascension Health, Netflix, Walmart, the Walt Disney Corporation, Morgan Stanley,10 Tyson Foods, CNN and United Airlines.11
The Goal: Making Life Impossible for the Unvaccinated
A number of people have publicly stated that life needs to be made impossible for the unvaccinated and, clearly, such efforts are well underway. Politicians, government officials, health authorities, media personalities and common folk have suggested making life untenable for the unvaccinated by:12
Requiring them to get tested daily at their own expense
Docking their paychecks (provided they’re allowed to work at all)
Charging them nonrefundable quarantine fees
Denying them medical care at hospitals and private medical offices
Canceling their private insurance or raising premiums by thousands of dollars a year
Forcing them to pay out of pocket for all medical expenses accrued due to COVID, even if they have insurance, Medicaid or Medicare13
Suspending their gun permits
Suspending their driver’s licenses
Denying access to loans and other financial services
Withholding government assistance
Withholding federal benefits like Social Security, VA benefits, subsidized housing and pensions
Barring them from using public transportation
Putting them on a no-fly list14
Many of these suggestions are already being acted upon. For example, Delta Airlines has announced it will charge unvaccinated workers an extra $200 per month for their health insurance,15 and digital transaction companies like PayPal are canceling accounts held by anyone who “endangers at-risk communities”16 — a description that clearly includes anyone who publicly objects to COVID measures and/or forced vaccinations.Even major banks like Chase have been caught canceling credit card accounts based on the account holders’ political views.17,18 Although Chase later backed off, claiming the cancelation was a “mistake,”19 this is precisely what we can expect from a social credit system, which is also part of the plan. Your ability to live and conduct business will be entirely controlled by a central apparatus that decides what views and behavior is acceptable and what is not.Disturbingly, it was only four weeks ago that I wrote: “If this trend continues, might people who question COVID shots and/or refuse to participate in human experimentation be barred from having a credit card or a bank account?” So, to say we’re moving toward tyranny at breakneck speed is not hyperbole.
A Right to Life?
Some are even promoting death as the ultimate punishment for the unvaccinated. One of the first people to introduce this notion was CNN anchor Don Lemon, who stated he thinks the COVID jab should be a requirement for buying food.20,21Apparently, Lemon thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to condemn unvaccinated people to starvation. This, while living in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and all in the name of preventing the spread of an infection that has a 99.74% survival rate22 and spreads just as easily between vaccinated individuals.Lemon’s shocking rhetoric raises a basic question: Do humans have the right to life? Or should someone, somewhere, be granted the god-like power to decide who is worthy of living and who’s not, based on whatever criteria they want?
There’s No Morality in Mob Mentality
To understand what’s really happening and what Lemon’s rhetoric is accomplishing, I highly recommend reading Charles Eisenstein’s article “Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed.” It’s an excellent and thought-provoking piece. Here’s a few chosen excerpts:23
“We would like to think that modern societies like ours have outgrown barbaric customs like human sacrifice … we don’t actually kill people in hopes of placating the gods and restoring order. Or do we? …
Not just any victim will do as an object of human sacrifice. Victims must be, as [legal scholar Roberta] Harding puts it, ‘in, but not of, the society’ … Scapegoats needn’t be guilty, but they must be marginal, outcasts, heretics, taboo-breakers, or infidels of one kind or another … If they are not already marginal, they must be made so …
[D]efying left-right categorization is a promising new scapegoat class, the heretics of our time: the anti-vaxxers. As a readily identifiable subpopulation, they are ideal candidates for scapegoating. It matters little whether any of these pose a real threat to society …
All that is necessary is that the dehumanized class arouse the blind indignation and rage necessary to incite a paroxysm of unifying violence. More relevant to current times, this primal mob energy can be harnessed toward fascistic political ends …
Sacrificial subjects carry an association of pollution or contagion; their removal thus cleanses society … The public’s ready acceptance of … blatant censorship cannot be explained solely in terms of its believing the pretext of ‘controlling misinformation.’
Unconsciously, the public recognizes and conforms to the age-old program of investing a pariah subclass with the symbology of pollution … This program is well underway toward the Covid-unvaxxed, who are being portrayed as walking cesspools of germs who might contaminate the Sanctified Brethren (the vaccinated).
My wife perused an acupuncture Facebook page today … where someone asked, ‘What is the word that comes to mind to describe unvaccinated people?’ The responses were things like ‘filth,’ ‘assholes,’ and ‘death-eaters.’ This is precisely the dehumanization necessary to prepare a class of people for cleansing …
To prepare someone for removal as the repository of all that is evil, it helps to heap upon them every imaginable calumny. Thus we hear in mainstream publications that anti-vaxxers not only are killing people, but are … tantamount to domestic terrorists.”
Indeed, “opposition to COVID measures” currently tops the Department of Homeland Security’s list of potential terror threats.
Unify for Freedom Under a Banner of Sanity
In August 2021, I published an article about mass psychosis,24 an epidemic of madness that occurs when a large portion of society loses touch with reality and descends into delusions.
The psychogenic steps that lead to madness include a panic phase, where the individual is repeatedly frightened and confused by events they cannot explain, followed by a phase of “psychotic insight,” where the individual explains their abnormal experience of the world by inventing an illogical but magical way of seeing reality that eases the panic and gives meaning to the experience.
The technocrats who created and maintain the pandemic narrative, worldwide, know all about how to induce mass psychosis, and what we’re experiencing is by far the biggest and most sophisticated propaganda campaign in the history of the human race. They’re using all the known tricks, and it’s clearly working, largely due to exponential effectiveness of technology and social media.
If you’ve been able to see through their machinations, congratulations. The onus is now on you to help others free their minds, which is not an easy task. It’s not even easy to stay sane yourself. Contradictory reports, nonsensical recommendations and blatant lies are deployed intentionally, as it heightens confusion.
The more confused a population is, the greater the state of anxiety, which reduces people’s psychological resilience. As the ability to cope wanes, the greater the chances a mass psychosis will develop. Add isolation to that equation, and the susceptibility of psychosis is further heightened, as people lose contact with positive examples — people who act as role models of rational thinking and behavior.
Once a society is firmly in the grip of mass psychosis, totalitarians are then free to take the last, decisive step: They can offer a return to order and safety. The price is your freedom. You must cede control of all aspects of your life to the rulers, because unless they are granted total control, they won’t be able to create the order and safety everyone craves.
In this case, vaccine passports are part of the “magical thinking” that those who have lost touch with reality believe will save them. It’s an illusion of safety, as the virus spreads equally well among and between the fully “vaccinated.” Even if they killed every single unvaccinated person in the whole world, outbreaks would continue and they’d have to identify a new scapegoat.
Help Heal the Mass Psychosis
Fortunately, it is possible to reverse the effects of mass psychosis, but it takes time, effort and patience. First, center yourself and live in such a way as to provide inspiration for others to follow. Next, share and spread the truth — the counternarrative to the propaganda — as far and wide as possible.
Because truth is always more potent than lies, the success of propaganda relies on the censoring of truth. Right now, online censorship and propaganda are off the charts, so you may have to get creative. One tactic is to use humor and ridicule to delegitimize the lies.
At the same time, create parallel structures — businesses, organizations, technologies, movements or creative pursuits — based on sane and rational principles currently lacking in the world around us.
Last but not least, to prevent the descent into totalitarian madness, as many people as possible must employ sane and rational actions to create a strong resistance to the lies and propaganda. The ruling technocracy do not sit around hoping and wishing to increase their power and control. No. They are actively taking steps to augment their position. To defend against them, we must be just as active and resolute in our counter-push toward freedom.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN
What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.
Our losses are mounting with every passing day.
What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.
The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.
Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.
The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.
Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.
Indeed, since the towers fell on 9/11, the U.S. government has posed a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.
While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations (which too often fall into the hands of terrorists), and foment civil unrest in order to keep the security industrial complex gainfully employed.
The American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.
In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, pandemic lockdowns and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.
Consider that the government’s answer to every problem has been more government—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.
Every crisis—manufactured or otherwise—since the nation’s early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic.
Viewed in this light, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. Or, to put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.
This is how the emergency state operates, after all, and we should know: after all, we have spent the past 20 years in a state of emergency.
From 9/11 to COVID-19, “we the people” have acted the part of the helpless, gullible victims desperately in need of the government to save us from whatever danger threatens. In turn, the government has been all too accommodating and eager while also expanding its power and authority in the so-called name of national security.
This is a government that has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).
What this really amounts to is a war on the American people, fought on American soil, funded with taxpayer dollars, and waged with a single-minded determination to use national crises, manufactured or otherwise, in order to transform the American homeland into a battlefield.
Indeed, the government’s (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before. According to the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression.”
Clearly, this is not a government that is a friend to freedom.
Rather, this is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold and traded.
This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors. Incredibly, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.
This is a government that routinely engages in taxation without representation, whose elected officials lobby for our votes only to ignore us once elected.
This is a government that railroads taxpayers into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.
This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry’s movements, record their conversations, and catalogue their transactions.
This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.
This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights, and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.
This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely based on the say-so of the government.
This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.
This is a government that has militarized American’s domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; a million hollow-point bullets; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.
This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.
This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.
This is a government that has empowered police departments to make a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, and red light cameras.
This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.
This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.
This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.
This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.
This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons.Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.
This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises and national emergencies.
This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.
This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.
This is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, eviscerating individual freedoms so that its own powers can be expanded.
This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.
From the article, “The Illinois Department of Public Health is launching a program called “Vax Verify” that asks residents to verify and download a receipt of their vaccination status…Vax Verify will be contracting with consumer credit reporting company Experian, which will use an “identity verification process to gain access to their immunization history.” According to the article, Experian has lobbied to share consumer data with the NSA [National Security Agency], DHS [Department of Homeland Services], and other law enforcement agencies.”
Got that? Experian, a consumer credit report company which has access to your social security number, your credit card records, your bills, and other financial records enabling Experian to evaluate your financial history and provide a rating based on your track record, will now have access to your medical records to verify your vaccination status if you live in Illinois.
If that doesn’t scare you, it should.
Consider that governments around the world have telegraphed through a series of articles and white papers a desire to end paper money and introduce digital currencies. Some have even cancelled paper currency completely or certain high denominations. The purported intention is to serve the underbanked, but is that the true objective? I do not mean this in a pejorative sense at all, but are one billion primarily agrarian people living in remote locations genuinely lacking banking? Is banking their priority? Or is it someone else’s? Does someone just want them in “the system?”
Another initiative being implemented is universal basic income (UBI). Governments in Europe and the US have promoted or already launched UBI pilot programs under which individuals are simply GIVEN money. (See here, here, and here.) While we’re told these programs will help people survive an economy ravaged by COVID, many of them were launched well before COVID was even on the horizon. And let’s not forget to ask, what was the true culprit of this economic devastation, COVID or the reactionary government policies employed to address it? One thing is clear, these programs condition the populace to accept government handouts and to depend on the government for their income.
That Experian has lobbied in the past to share your information with NSA, DHS, and other federal agencies should be a red flag to any thinking person in particular when they’ll have access to vaccine records in addition to the financial and identity information they already possess.
These factors point to an alarming possibility, namely that in the near future, there may be no paper money to exchange for goods and services. Instead, in its place, there will be a government-issued digital currency and while that on its own may seem innocuous, when combined with a vaccine passport connected to our private information, the potential for abuse is enormous. Were that information to be shared with NSA, DHS, and other agencies, the potential for abuse is downright mammoth.
Given the steep reduction in the number of small and medium sized businesses which employ roughly two thirds of the American workforce, and the prospect of further closures should political leaders implement further lockdowns, many Americans are being left with fewer options to earn an income and be self-reliant.
Despite the utter failure of lockdowns to control the spread of COVID, a repeat of lockdowns will devastate the American economy and wage earners. And it may leave them increasingly dependent on UBI – and the government. When a person transitions to UBI, they cede almost all their power to government. What’s more, they must rely on the benevolence of that government and may be easily manipulated or outright controlled to serve any agenda.
A digital vaccine passport connected to your financial records, medical records, and potentially to your voter ID, travel documents, etc. – and all this information shared with federal security agencies – would make it all too easy for government to demand compliance to their dogmas and agendas lest they turn off your access to purchase goods and services, earn income, travel, or even to socialize, all at the push of a button.
You may be forced to make many choices: take an experimental drug or lose access to a job, your bank account, or any means to earn money to feed your family; speak out against government policies that trample your human rights or in support of differing scientific perspectives and lose your government bestowed privileges to live a normal life.
China has already implemented a social credit score system bolstered by mass surveillance which affords special privileges to those who comply with government directives. Those who obey receive high social credit scores, those who jaywalk, fail to wear a mask, or are simply friends with folks with low credit scores are not allowed to travel by plane or high-speed train or access other “privileges.”
China has gone so far as to announce the government will dictate the amount of time kids can spend gaming online, limiting kids to 3 hours per week. While limiting the amount of time kids play online games might be a commendable objective, is that a role any free society wants government to fill?
While Americans may say, well, that is all happening in China, let’s not forget China lead the way on lockdowns and other COVID measures, emulated by western nations and Americans are already being asked for ‘papers, please’ in CA and NY to enter a café, restaurant, retail store, etc. With IL implementing a complete vaccine passport system, the threat to our liberties, lives and livelihoods is clear.
If one chooses a path that cuts against the government grain, government will have the power to control him or her by denying his or her access to money, shopping, food, entertainment, travel, etc.
No free society should require proof of anything, let alone a medical intervention in healthy people, to live a normal life, yet just such programs are being hastily developed in America despite no consultation with the public. So much for government of, for, and by the people. Any student of history should be alarmed at the frightening future these authoritarian tracking and rating systems portend.
Adam Crabb, Australian journalist (The Crazz Files): “…the Australian government is now plunging the country into the darkest period in its history. The coronavirus is not the cause of this darkness. The Regime’s use of the coronavirus as a pretext to establish a totalitarian system of control over the Australian people is the cause of this darkness.”
An Australian woman advocated freedom. Freedom from lockdowns and mandates. So she was criticized on social media? She was censored?
She was ARRESTED.
Her name is Monica Smit. She’s sitting in jail.
The fascist authorities agreed to release her on bail, if she renounced everything she stood for.
Does that sound familiar? The USSR. Show trials. The massive power of the State coming down on an individual.
Monica Smit refused the deal.
She clings to her faith, her courage, her vision, her ideals, against the scum of the earth.
The very least we can do is spread her story far and wide.
Here are the details.
The Age, September 1, 2021: “A woman charged with incitement and accused of urging people to attend anti-lockdown protests remains in custody despite being granted bail, because she has refused to agree to conditions imposed by a magistrate.”
[Incitement? Is that what demanding freedom now means? In Australia, yes.]
“Monica Smit, the founder of activist group Reignite Democracy Australia – which opposes the Victorian government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic – remained in custody at a Melbourne police station on Wednesday over her refusal to sign a bail consent form.”
“Ms Smit was granted bail on two charges of incitement and three of breaching the Chief Health Officer’s directions, but after a 10-minute conversation with her lawyer to clarify the conditions she had to accept to get bail, defence counsel Marcel White told Melbourne Magistrates Court the 33-year-old did not want to sign the consent form.”
“Magistrate Luisa Bazzani responded: “’It’s a matter for her. I am not about to sweet talk her into bail if she wants to stay in custody’.”
[Monica Smit doesn’t want to stay in custody. She wants to keep her right to advocate for freedom in Australia.]
“Ms Smit was arrested on Tuesday and was to stay in custody at Dandenong police station on Wednesday night. The only way she could be released on bail was by agreeing to the magistrate’s conditions and signing the consent form, or by taking her bail application to a higher court.”
“Police allege Ms Smit incited people on social media to attend two anti-lockdown protests in Melbourne last month, including the violent August 21 event where at least 4000 people demonstrated and where at least nine police officers were injured.”
[I see. Telling people to attend a protest, where it turns out that police are injured, equals telling people to attack the police? Is that what you’re saying? Apparently so. Are you listening to your own lies?]
“Prosecutor Anthony Albore said Ms Smit used the messaging app Telegram to encourage people to attend the protests. Ms Smit’s group has 18,000 followers on Telegram, the prosecutor said, as well as 67,000 followers on Facebook and an email list of 63,000 people.”
“Court documents state that in the lead-up to the August 11 protest, Ms Smit posted that ‘lockdowns take lives’ and urged people to demonstrate.”
[So? Lockdowns DO take lives. Many, many lives. And urging people to DEMONSTRATE? Is that suddenly a crime? Are protestors supposed to stand silent with their heads bowed for a few hours, praying to the Prime Minister to set them free?]
“She [Smit] also posted numerous messages before the August 21 protest, the documents allege, including: ‘The more they lock us up, the more people will have nothing left to lose … and that’s when Australia stands up!’”
[Nothing left to lose—that’s another true statement. And for making the statement, SHE is now locked up. In jail. Obviously, Monica should have written, “and that’s when Australia lies down…let’s go out into the street and demand our enslavement…”]
“Other posts encouraged people to wear masks while travelling to the protest but to take them off once in central Melbourne. Another message said: ‘Stand up Melbourne’.”
[Ooo. Take off your masks. Another incitement to mayhem. People who show their faces are terrorists.]
“Prosecutors did not oppose Ms Smit getting bail as long as it was subject to conditions.”
“After legal argument over the conditions, Ms Bazzani ruled that if Ms Smit was to get bail she had to abide by a 7pm curfew, abide by the Chief Health Officer’s directions and not incite anyone to breach those directions or publish anything that might incite breaches. She also had to remove any material previously published online that might incite people, not attend protests, and had to wear a mask when outdoors unless she had a medical exemption.”
[USSR tactic. Perhaps Monica should appear in court, in chains, before television cameras, and read a prepared statement confessing to capital crimes.]
“The magistrate refused to include two conditions proposed by police: a call for Reignite Democracy Australia’s social media accounts to be deactivated, and an order which would have prohibited online discussions about lockdown measures. Ms Bazzani said those two proposals would ‘overstep the mark’.”
[Thank God for the merciful State. They love us, they really do.]
“Ms Smit, a self-described journalist, was arrested in Brighton on Tuesday, not long after filming herself talking about small-scale anti-lockdown protests.”
[She’s a self-described journalist, whereas talking news head puppets on television are described as journalists by their bosses. Yes, that’s a crucial difference. Of course. Let’s make it a crime for people to describe themselves as journalists.]
“She faces a further two charges of breaching the Chief Health Officer’s directions by attending a protest in Melbourne on October 31 last year.”
[More charges. The Chief Health Officer has all the rights of a dictator. Naturally. And the sheep should kneel before him. Does he wear a ring? Can we kiss it? I have an idea. Let’s tell him to kiss THIS.]
—end of The Age article—
JUDGE: So Mr. Madison, I understand you and your friends are composing a document called THE CONSTITUTION. I’m also told this founding document declares FREEDOM the preferred state of affairs in our new nation.
JAMES MADISON: Yes, your honor. That’s right. Why are you asking? Is there a problem?
JUDGE: There most certainly is. Freedom is a flexible concept. It must be given and taken away by those who have wisdom.
MADISON: Who are these wise ones?
JUDGE: The men who are running things. They can assess issues of safety and danger as they arise and measure the amount of freedom allowed to the people at any given moment.
MADISON: Really. Well, once the new nation is founded, I assure you you’ll be removed from your position of power. You’ll be seen as a felon.
JUDGE: I doubt that.
MADISON: Then you’re not only a criminal, you’re a moron.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. explains in this recent video why we all need to stand up now and resist with civil disobedience.
Now that the FDA has given a very “curmudgeonly” justification for “approving” Pfizer’s Covid vaccine that leaves many questions unanswered. Also because the science shows that the vaccine has no positive impact on overall mortality but puts young age groups at risk, it has become clear: It’s not about health. It is about control!
“A healthy Child has a zero risk from this disease. And yet the risk from the vaccine is very high.”
That’s why we all need to make our voices heard and express our opposition. Call on friends and neighbours to join us. “Why are you not with me?”, Robert F Kennedy, Jr. quotes American freedom fighter and thought leader Henry David Thoreau.
Robert F Kennedy, Jr thanks the people who are heading to Berlin to engage in civil disobedience there and elsewhere.
———————
TRANSCRIPT
0:00:01.2: I am Robert F Kennedy, jr., and I’m very happy to be back with all of you and have the opportunity to address all of my friends in Berlin and activists and freedom lovers all across Europe. Today is August 23rd, and I wanna start by talking about a couple of studies that have come out recently that we all should be aware of. One of them, probably the most important is MERCK’s clinical, Pfizer’s clinical trial, for its covid-19-vaccine. And we now have six months of data that Pfizer was required to file with FDA, and to show to the public. And what anybody who can read can see from that data is the very, very striking confession that there is no all cause mortality benefit from this vaccine. And what that means is that the people who took the vaccine more of them died than the people who took the placebo. And if you go into the granular or analysis of the vaccine, what it shows is that the vaccine does prevent a small number of deaths from covid 19. But for everybody who’s life was saved from covid 19, for every life that was saved by the vaccine from covid 19, three people died from heart attacks. In the vaccine group there were 20 deaths, and in the placebo group there were 14 deaths.
0:01:46.7: What that indicates is that there may be certain people who would wanna take this vaccine in certain comorbidities and age groups, but it would be utterly immoral for any government or any business to mandate this vaccine for any human being who was reluctant to take it.
0:02:12.1: And that’s one of the studies. Another study that was released, was a pre-published version of the study in the Lancet on December 10th. And it’s called the author is Chau et. Al. C-H-A-U, and it was done by the Oxford Research Group, which Oxford University and Ho-Chi-Minh-City. And that study looked at frontline healthcare workers who were on lock-down for a number of months in Ho-Chi-Minh-City during the resurgence of the Delta variant. And what the study shows is that the people who were vaccinated and very, very high numbers of Delta variant in their nasal pharyngs, in their nostrils. In fact, they had 250 times the level, the concentrations of Delta variants in their nostrils as anybody was supporting of Coronavirus prior to the vaccines.
0:03:22.1: Well, something about the vaccine clears the nasal pharyngs to make you a carrier… A pre-symptomatic carrier of covid, so instead of stopping viral replication, and instead of stopping transmission, the vaccine almost certainly is facilitating transmission! And those people who had the covid in their nose can pass the covid, and we’re passing it, according to this study, unto other workers. And they almost certainly were also passing it to un-vaccinated patients and to other people in their lives.
That’s a very, very important thing to know, is that: This doesn’t save lives. We know that from the first study, from the Pfizer study, and from the Oxford study that it does not prevent transmission, in fact, it may enhance transmission. That’s the best science that we have today.
The third study that I would like you to know about, are two studies by Johns Hopkins and another study published in The Lancet that show, the Johns Hopkins study shows that it’s virtually impossible to find any healthy child in the world who has died from covid 19. Children have a zero risk, a healthy child has a zero risk from this disease, and yet the risk from the vaccine, it’s very high!
0:04:56.8: In fact, we’re seeing that from the vaccine, the people who are most likely to get ill, or to die, are young people. Covid-19 tends to kill very old people with comorbidities, but the vaccine tends to hurt, to harm and to kill people who young, who are at the beginning of their lives. And the people who get myocardial infarction from this, myocardial diseases from this, are never healing. Their Hearts simply turn into this scar tissue and will not heal.
0:05:33.2: The reason I’m talking about the studies is because today, FDA promulgated a really an unprecedented approval, which it is casting in a very squirrely way.
0:05:52.7: As an official approval of the Pfizer vaccine. The significance of that approval is that it will allow people to legally mandate the vaccine in our country. But the odd thing was that it didn’t go through any of the regulatory process… TZhe FDA ignored all of the regulatory process, they didn’t convene the committee of outside experts that normally approves new vaccines. And they didn’t show… They didn’t create a manufacturer’s insert, they didn’t explain the science they’re relying on, they didn’t explain the data that they’re relying on, they don’t even technically say that it is an approval, they kind of frame it in their letter as an extension of the emergency use process, but they frame it in their press releases as an approval. And as soon as they took that action, the United to States military told soldiers, sent messages out to our soldiers that they had to be vaccinated by Friday or face dishonorable discharge. And all over our country, they’re saying private businesses and government businesses are now imposing mandates.
I’m telling you all this because I want to be clear with you that the government has now… , the people who are pushing these vaccines, who have been pushing this odd enterprise from the beginning have come out of the closet, and they have revealed that today that they absolutely… That all pretense that this is about public health, and this is about democracy, and this is about protecting the public, has been dropped. They have come out and made very clear to the public that this is about power, it’s about grabbing power, about imposing it on the rest of us, and imposing a totalitarianism of a kind that humanity has never experienced. Every totalitarian regime in history has sought to control every aspect of human behavior.
0:08:08.3: They’ve never been able to do that because, of course, government can’t read your mind. It can’t follow you around all day, I can’t tell you not to talk to certain people, I can’t follow you in your home and know what you’re doing… Who you’re talking to and what you’re saying, but guess what? Governments today have that power! And we know that they are using it, and they are using this emergency as an excuse to impose totalitarian controls on all of us. A level of authoritarian control that no government in history has had. And at this point, we now have a duty in my opinion to resist. And to resist every opportunity that you get. Each one of us must engage in multiple simple disobediences every day.
0:09:06.5: Many years I’ve been doing this, and I’ve never told anybody, that you should sacrifice your job, or that you should sacrifice reputation or your income by coming out and talking about these issues, it’s always been dangerous. We’ve always, for the 17 years that I’ve been doing this, I face censorship, I face various kinds of intimidation and punishment. But I was uniquely able, resilient, because of other things that I have in my life, my name, my reputation, my livelyhood… The fact that I’m a trial lawyer, and trial lawyers tend to be tolerant of dissent. And so I had an ability to deal with these kind of attacks in ways of many people don’t. And I’ve always avoided telling other people, “You need to come out and talk about what you believe.”
0:10:02.0: People would come to me and say, “I agree with you, but I too scared to had to talk about it”, and I said, I’ve consistently said, “That’s okay.” You support us quietly. You don’t need to expose yourself.
And today I’m telling you something different: “we all need to start exposing ourselves” We need to tell people on the street, “if you’re blocked from going into a business, you need to talk to the business owner.” That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be polite, a and gentle, and peaceful. But God, he was polite and gentle, and peaceful, and she still resisted. And we need to do that kind of resistance. There is a famous story where Henry David Thoreau was in jail for protesting, ofr refusing to pay his taxes because his tax money was going to support the Spanish-American War, which he believed was an unjust war. And the famous philosopher who was his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, came to his jail cell outside of Concord, Massachusetts, and he talked to the barred window to Thoreau… And he said, “David, what are you doing in there?” And the Henry David Thoreau said to him: “Ralph, What are you doing out there?” And that is the question that we now need to ask to everybody, “What are you doing out there?” We all need to come on the street, we all need to resist.
0:11:34.0: If your job tells you you have to get vaccinated and you do not believe it’s good for your health, do not do it! Get fired and then sue them! But we need to resist. This is the same kind of desperate crisis that the founders of our country faced during the American Revolution, and many of them gave up their lives, they gave up their livelihood, they gave up their property, their money, their health in order to provide us our Bill of Rights in this country, the Constitution. They knew that there were things that were much worse than death: The loss of our liberties. And they sacrificed their lives and their livelihood, so that we could have this constitution. But over the past 12 months, we’ve lost those Bill of Rights, we’ve lost the ability to have Jury trials in our country for corporations who are making recklessley and negligently products that are injuring us. We’ve lost the property rights that we once had in this country where a million businesses were closed overnight with no just compensation and no due process… We’ve lost the ability to speak freely. We’ve lost the ability to worship for a whole year, religious institutions and churches have been closed in our country just by a government dictate, although liquor stores were declared essential businesses and left open.
0:13:03.2: But the Constitution does not protect liquor stores, it does protect churches. But the Constitution was irrelevant. We’ve lost the ability to participate in regulation. Regulation is now done by government dictate in our country, by unelected… , a doctor who is now running the American government. Who doesn’t have regulatory process, there’s no notice and comment rule-making. There’s no public participation. There’s no public hearings. All of the steps usually go into promulgating our regulation, that demand public participation, have all been abandoned. And so we’ve lost our democracy now in America. And we’ve lost it all across Europe, and we lost in Canada, and we lost it in Australia. And the only way that we’re gonna fight back against these very sinister forces, the Big Tech Robber Barons from Silicon Valley, the Big Banking Institutions, the military and intelligence agencies that are collaborating in this process, in this totalitarian take-over, in this coup d’etat against democracy and western liberal freedom that we’re seeing today. All of these forces are collaborating with each other to enslave us. And we need to bind with each other, and we need to fight back.
And each one of you need to do at least three civil disobedience every day! And we need to start doing that all over the place, and that’s how we’re gonna recruit new people to our cause, and how we’re gonna begin resisting!
0:14:55.5: I wanna thank all of you for your efforts to come to Berlin, and I know that I’ll see many of you on the barricades.
“Every day in communities across the United States, children and adolescents spend the majority of their waking hours in schools that have increasingly come to resemble places of detention more than places of learning.”—Investigative journalist Annette Fuentes
Once upon a time in America, parents breathed a sigh of relief when their kids went back to school after a summer’s hiatus, content in the knowledge that for a good portion of the day their kids would be gainfully occupied, out of harm’s way and out of trouble.
Those were the good old days, before the COVID-19 pandemic introduced a whole new level of Nanny State authoritarianism to our daily lives, locking down communities, forcing kids out of the schoolroom and into virtual classrooms, leaving vast swaths of the work force dependent on government welfare, while pushing other segments into a work-from-home model, and generally subjecting us to an increasingly obnoxious level of intrusion by the government into our private lives.
Now, after almost 18 months away from a physical classroom, students are heading back to school.
draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior,
overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech,
school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students,
standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking,
politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them,
and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.
Young people in America are now first in line to be searched, surveilled, spied on, threatened, tied up, locked down, treated like criminals for non-criminal behavior, tasered and in some cases shot.
Nowadays, students are not only punished for minor transgressions such as playing cops and robbers on the playground, bringing LEGOs to school, or having a food fight, but the punishments have become far more severe, shifting from detention and visits to the principal’s office into misdemeanor tickets, juvenile court, handcuffs, tasers and even prison terms.
Students have been suspended under school zero tolerance policies for bringing to school “look alike substances” such as oregano, breath mints, birth control pills and powdered sugar.
Look-alike weapons (toy guns—even Lego-sized ones, hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in hot water, in some cases getting them expelled from school or charged with a crime.
Not even good deeds go unpunished.
One 13-year-old was given detention for exposing the school to “liability” by sharing his lunch with a hungry friend. A third grader was suspended for shaving her head in sympathy for a friend who had lost her hair to chemotherapy. And then there was the high school senior who was suspended for saying “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed.
These outrageous incidents are exactly what you’ll see more of now that in-person school is back in session, especially once you add COVID-19 mandates to the mix.
Having police in the schools only adds to the danger.
Thanks to a combination of media hype, political pandering and financial incentives, the use of armed police officers (a.k.a. school resource officers) to patrol school hallways has risen dramatically in the years since the Columbine school shooting.
Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers (SRO) have become de facto wardens in elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepper spray, batons and brute force.
In the absence of school-appropriate guidelines, police are more and more “stepping in to deal with minor rulebreaking: sagging pants, disrespectful comments, brief physical skirmishes. What previously might have resulted in a detention or a visit to the principal’s office was replaced with excruciating pain and temporary blindness, often followed by a trip to the courthouse.”
Young Alex Stone didn’t even make it past the first week of school before he became a victim of the police state. Directed by his teacher to do a creative writing assignment involving a series of fictional Facebook statuses, Stone wrote, “I killed my neighbor’s pet dinosaur. I bought the gun to take care of the business.” Despite the fact that dinosaurs are extinct, the status fabricated, and the South Carolina student was merely following orders, his teacher reported him to school administrators, who in turn called the police.
In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids—some as young as 4 and 5 years old—for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums.
Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.
Unbelievably, these tactics are all legal, at least when employed by school officials or school resource officers in the nation’s public schools.
This is what happens when you introduce police and police tactics into the schools.
Paradoxically, by the time you add in the lockdowns and active shooter drills, instead of making the schools safer, school officials have succeeded in creating an environment in which children are so traumatized that they suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, nightmares, anxiety, mistrust of adults in authority, as well as feelings of anger, depression, humiliation, despair and delusion.
These police state tactics have not made the schools any safer.
The fallout has been what you’d expect, with the nation’s young people treated like hardened criminals: handcuffed, arrested, tasered, tackled and taught the painful lesson that the Constitution (especially the Fourth Amendment) doesn’t mean much in the American police state.
Unfortunately, advocates for such harsh police tactics and weaponry like to trot out the line that school safety should be our first priority lest we find ourselves with another school shooting. What they will not tell you is that such shootings are rare.
As one congressional report found, the schools are, generally speaking, safe places for children.
There can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).
Instead of raising up a generation of freedom fighters—which one would hope would be the objective of the schools—government officials seem determined to churn out newly minted citizens of the American police state who are being taught the hard way what it means to comply, fear and march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.
So what’s the answer, not only for the here-and-now—the children growing up in these quasi-prisons—but for the future of this country?
How do you convince a child who has been routinely handcuffed, shackled, tied down, locked up, and immobilized by government officials—all before he reaches the age of adulthood—that he has any rights at all, let alone the right to challenge wrongdoing, resist oppression and defend himself against injustice?
Most of all, how do you persuade a fellow American that the government works for him when, for most of his young life, he has been incarcerated in an institution that teaches young people to be obedient and compliant citizens who don’t talk back, don’t question and don’t challenge authority?
As we’ve seen with other issues, any significant reforms will have to start locally and trickle upwards.
For starters, parents need to be vocal, visible and organized and demand that school officials 1) adopt a policy of positive reinforcement in dealing with behavior issues; 2) minimize the presence in the schools of police officers and cease involving them in student discipline; and 3) insist that all behavioral issues be addressed first and foremost with a child’s parents, before any other disciplinary tactics are attempted.
If you want young people who grow up seeing themselves as prisoners, run the schools like prisons.
If, on the other hand, you want to raise up a generation of freedom fighters, who will actually operate with justice, fairness, accountability and equality towards each other and their government, then run the schools like freedom forums.
Remove the metal detectors and surveillance cameras, re-assign the cops elsewhere, and start treating our nation’s young people like citizens of a republic and not inmates in a police state penitentiary.
A 29-year-old man from the Australian state of Victoria was sentenced to eight months in prison after social media posts advertising anti-lockdown protests in Sydney, New South Wales, and a violation of other public health orders. Last weekend, the whole state of New South Wales was put under lockdown.
Anthony Khallouf was arrested at a train station on Thursday afternoon. On Friday, at a court in Sydney, he was charged with public health order violations and organizing protests, sentenced to eight months in prison with a three months non-parole period.
On his social media profiles he promoted the “Australian Freedom Rally,” and encouraged his followers to distribute posters for the “Worldwide Rally for Freedom.”
Khallouf was also convicted of “false representation resulting in police investigation” after allegedly telling Instagram followers on to call police because he felt his life was in danger.
“I need everybody to call NSW Police right now and tell them that there’s threats to my life,” he wrote.
“This caused several people to contact police … causing police to investigate those claims and no doubt taking up significant resources,” magistrate Robyn Denes said at the hearing.
Khallouf’s public health order violations included crossing the state border from Queensland to New South Wales. He was visiting a relative in Sydney.
“Police are aware of unauthorised protest activities planned for this weekend. Do NOT attend,” NSW Police posted on Facebook on Tuesday.
“Public safety is our first priority and you will be fined or arrested if you turn up #StayAtHome.”
University of Washington Medical Center in US & Beaumont Hospital In Dublin, Ireland Are Now Denying Organ Transplants to Those Who Refuse Experimental Anti-Covid Injections
University of Washington Medical Center in US & Beaumont Hospital In Dublin, Ireland Are Now Denying Organ Transplants to Those Who Refuse Experimental Anti-Covid Injections
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Link to TD letter, Beaumont Letter and TD contact details spreadsheet:
A new report from Jason Rantz, a talk-show host on 770 KTTH in the Pacific Northwest, reveals that officials at the University of Washington Medical Center have dropped a heart-transplant patient from their wait list – because he declined the experimental COVID vaccines.
And now, Rantz reported, the hospital isn’t talking about its policy – and won’t even admit it has one.
Rantz said he learned this week UW Medicine has removed a 64-year-old patient who had been on the list for two and a half years from the list entirely.
That would mean that should a transplant organ become available, it would go to someone who likely had waited less time, and the 64-year-old’s life would be in higher danger.
The report explained, “The hospital made the decision after they learned the patient refused to be vaccinated against COVID. They said they would consider adding him back to the waitlist should he satisfy their ‘compliance concerns.'”
Another “vaccine-hesitant” patient also reported, Rantz said, “he was told the vaccine was mandatory before he could get a necessary liver transplant.”
“The hospital does not deny any of the allegations,” he reported.
Rantz explained the practice apparently dates back to June, when “Sam Allen of Monroe learned that his heart transplant surgery was on the line over his refusal to get the COVID vaccine.”
“The list of medical conditions Allen says he’s facing is long: mitral valve regurgitation, tricuspid valve regurgitation, aortic valve regurgitation, aneurism of thoracic aorta, and dilated cardiomyopathy,” the report explained.
All that makes it difficult to breathe, which is why he wouldn’t mask up, after which his doctor called.
“The cardiologist called me and we had a discussion, and he informed me that, ‘well, you’re going to have to get a vaccination to get a transplant.’ And I said, ‘well that’s news to me. And nobody’s ever told me that before.’ And he says, ‘yeah, that’s our policy,'” Allen said.
Technocrats in Silicon Valley are bonded to Technocrats in the National Security State. This is the glue that binds. Their common objective is to create a scientific dictatorship that will directly control the entire population, while condemning outliers as security risks.
In June 2021, the U.S. National Security Council released a new “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”1 While it’s being largely framed as a tool to fight White supremacy and political extremism, the definition of what constitutes a “domestic terrorist” is incredibly vague and based on ideologies.
In a podcast with one of my favorite independent journalists, Whitney Webb,2 Media Roots Radio host Robbie Martin notes how this creates a dangerous slippery slope, one that’s connected to the attempts to have increased surveillance and tracking of Americans’ data after 9/11.3
The “War on Terror,” launched in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Martin says, “was merely a prelude to a larger domestic crackdown on political dissidents.”4 Webb agreed, stating that we’re “near the bottom part of the slippery slope” already, and it’s not a stretch that one day anyone who disagrees with the government could be labeled a domestic terrorist and charged with a crime.
Criminalizing Oppositional Ideology to the Ruling Class
The whole justification for the War on Terror was to target “precrime”, or terror acts before they happen. Initially, the legislation was meant to target foreign governments and individuals, but bills are pending that would make the legislation applicable to Americans in the U.S.5
Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald stated that the end goal of the newly emerging war on domestic terrorism is to “essentially criminalize any oppositional ideology to the ruling class,” adding, “There is literally nothing that could be more dangerous, and it’s not fear-mongering or alarmism to say it.”6
This isn’t a partisan issue, but something that’s been in the works for decades. Greenwald stated that viewing Washington as Democrat versus Republican, with one side being “your team” and the other being “your enemy” is a flawed belief, as an elite ruling class is truly in power:7
“There is a ruling class elite that is extremely comfortable with the establishment wings of both parties … who they fund equally because those are the people who serve their agenda. Then there’s a whole other group of people at whose expense they rule in. Some consider them on the left, some on the right,” but “it’s time to break down those barriers.”
It’s important to understand that the U.S. already has aggressive criminal laws in place, such that more people are imprisoned in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.8 Do we need further laws to criminalize people put in place? A concerning pivot has occurred as well, shifting in focus to the FBI targeting this new model of terrorism while the terms like “incitement to violence” have been radically expanded in meaning.
“It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (“See Something, Say Something!”) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance,” Greenwald wrote.9
People Who Spread ‘Disinformation’ Classified as Extremists
You don’t have to be violent to be declared a terrorist. You may simply have what the government deems to be “extremist views” or could be accused of spreading disinformation — although there’s no clear definition of what “disinformation” is. According to Webb:10
“There is talk in the domestic terror strategy that people who spread disinformation can also be classified as extremists and a threat to national security and, of course, we’ve seen over the past several years, how this disinformation label can be applied to independent media as a way to promote censorship of voices that are critical of U.S. empire, among other things, or that just don’t fit a particular government narrative.”
As taken directly from the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism:11
“Domestic terrorists have — particularly in recent years — often been lone actors or small groups of informally aligned individuals who mobilize to violence with little or no clear organizational structure or direction. These individuals often consume material deliberately disseminated to recruit individuals to causes that attempt to provide a sense of belonging and fulfillment, however false that sense might be.
Their ideologies can be fluid, evolving, and overlapping. And they can, in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation …
These elements combine to form a complex and shifting domestic terrorism threat landscape and create significant challenges for law enforcement. Especially on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites, and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.
… These efforts speak to a broader priority: enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.
Fusion Centers Are Ready and Waiting
Webb is concerned about fusion centers, at which the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, NGOs and others in the private sector collaborate to decide who’s a terrorist and who’s not.
Fusion centers have been around for a while, but as the war on domestic terror progresses, Webb believes that fusion centers will take on the same role as the CIA-run Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War, which was designed to collate names of dissidents and people with extremist sympathies to databases so they could be pursued by the relevant authorities — many ended up being kidnapped, tortured and killed.
Fusion centers are waiting to take on a more active role in the newly declared war on domestic terrorism, but in order for them to gain widespread acceptance, Webb believes that an outrageous event needs to take place — one that goes further than the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol, such as something that targets civilians and sparks outrage among the U.S. public that something must be done.
“This is why I worry that some other event may take place in order to push this strategy further. They’re setting up an infrastructure here that they plan to use, right? And I think given the current climate in the U.S. it would be hard for them to justify taking that where the strategy clearly shows they want to go,” Webb says.12
She also draws parallels between the present day and the U.S.-backed Operation Condor, which targeted leftists, suspected leftists and their sympathizers, resulting in the murders of an estimated 60,000 people, about half of which occurred in Argentina. Another 500,000 were politically imprisoned.13
“There was no investigation into whether the claims against these people were even true,” Webb explained. “There were no trials … it was a dragnet to create reorganized society using a climate of fear to encourage acquiescence to authority and complete obedience to the state.”14 It’s history that often gives the greatest clues about where society is headed, and Webb also details a bill President Biden introduced in 1995 in response to the Oklahoma City bombing.
It was initiated by the FBI as a charter to investigate political groups and included the following disturbing points. Fortunately, the bill wasn’t passed in this version — a lot was taken out and watered down — but if allowed to pass unrevised, it would have:15
Allowed the FBI, military and other groups to investigate political groups at their will, without any higher-up approval
Allowed a 10-year prison sentence for the crime of supporting the lawful activities of an organization if the president deemed the organization a terrorist entity
Made it so that the president alone decides who is a terrorist, and the decision could not be appealed
Loosened rules for wire taps
Reversed the presumption of innocent until proven guilty
Allowed the military to be used in domestic law enforcement activities and potentially made it legal for soldiers to invade people’s homes and take possessions without probable cause
Allowed secret trials for immigrants not charged with a crime, and allowed the use of illegally obtained evidence in those trials
Silicon Valley Is Fused With the National Security State
Silicon Valley and the national security state are now fused, Webb says. The decadeslong wars against domestic dissidence have always involved technology like databases, and now the link is inseparable.
Webb wrote about “tech tyranny” at the start of the pandemic, revealing that a document from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) — acquired through a FOIA request — said changes were needed to keep a technological advantage over China:16
“This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance.
This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major ‘threat’ to Americans’ ‘way of life.’”
Many of the steps to implement the program are being promoted as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. NSCAI is not only a key part of the Great Reset’s fourth industrial revolution, but also promotes mass surveillance, online-only shopping and the end of cash while noting that “having streets carpeted with cameras is good infrastructure.”
NSCAI’s chairman is Eric Schmidt, the former head of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Other notable Silicon Valley NSCAI members include:17
Eric Horvitz, director of Microsoft Research Labs
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (CIA contractor)
Andrew Moore, head of Google Cloud AI
Meanwhile, Greenwald highlighted a statement by Alex Stamos, a former Facebook security official, who recommends social media companies collaborate with law enforcement to crack down on extremist influencers online, especially those with large audiences in order to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”18
Social Media Plays a Huge Role in the War
If you’re reading this and are concerned, I urge you to listen to the Media Roots Radio podcast with Whitney Webb in full.19 It’s just under 2.5 hours, but time well spent to understand the historical events that have led us to where we are today. For those who want to take action, a mass exodus from social media platforms is a good start.
Many suspect Facebook is the public-friendly version of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Lifelog, a database project aimed at tracking the minutiae of people’s entire existence for national security surveillance purposes.20
The Pentagon pulled the plug on Lifelog February 4, 2004, in response to backlash over privacy concerns.21 Yet that same day, Facebook was launched.22
Lifelog — and likely its successor Facebook — was meant to complement Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program that sprang up after the 9/11 attacks that was seeking to collect Americans’ medical records, fingerprints and other biometric data, along with DNA and records relating to personal finances, travel and media consumption.23
Now Facebook is asking users to report “extremist” content and misinformation. Fortunately, there’s a way to passively disentangle yourself from the data mining and legacy social media that is intertwined with the war on domestic terror. Webb says: “Delete your Facebook and your Instagram and your Twitter, because you are feeding the domestic terror machine.”24
“We’ve reached the point where state actors can penetrate rectums and vaginas, where judges can order forced catheterizations, and where police and medical personnel can perform scans, enemas and colonoscopies without the suspect’s consent. And these procedures aren’t to nab kingpins or cartels, but people who at worst are hiding an amount of drugs that can fit into a body cavity. In most of these cases, they were suspected only of possession or ingestion. Many of them were innocent… But these tactics aren’t about getting drugs off the street… These tactics are instead about degrading and humiliating a class of people that politicians and law enforcement have deemed the enemy.”—Radley Balko, The Washington Post
Freedom is never free.
There is always a price—always a sacrifice—that must be made in order to safeguard one’s freedoms.
Where that transaction becomes more complicated is when one has to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community.
Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau envisioned the social contract between the individual and a nation’s rulers as a means of finding that balance. Invariably, however, those in power grow greedy, and what was intended to be a symbiotic relationship with both sides benefitting inevitably turns into a parasitic one, with a clear winner and a clear loser.
We have seen this vicious cycle play out over and over again throughout the nation’s history.
Just look at this COVID-19 pandemic: the whole sorry mess has been so overtly politicized, propagandized, and used to expand the government’s powers (and Corporate America’s bank balance) that it’s difficult at times to distinguish between what may be legitimate health concerns and government power grabs.
After all, the government has a history of shamelessly exploiting national emergencies for its own nefarious purposes. Terrorist attacks, mass shootings, civil unrest, economic instability, pandemics, natural disasters: the government has been taking advantage of such crises for years now in order to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.
This COVID-19 pandemic is no different.
Yet be warned: we will all lose if this pandemic becomes a showdown between COVID-19 vaccine mandates and the right to bodily integrity.
It doesn’t matter what your trigger issue is—whether it’s vaccines, abortion, crime, religion, immigration, terrorism or some other overtly politicized touchstone used by politicians as a rallying cry for votes—we should all be concerned when governments and businesses (i.e., the Corporate State) join forces to compel individuals to sacrifice their right to bodily integrity (which goes hand in hand with the right to conscience and religious freedom) on the altar of so-called safety and national security.
That’s exactly what’s unfolding right now, with public and private employers using the threat of termination to force employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Unfortunately, legal protections in this area are limited.
While the Americans with Disabilities Act protects those who can prove they have medical conditions that make receiving a vaccination dangerous, employees must be able to prove they have a sensitivity to vaccines.
Beyond that, employees with a religious objection to the vaccine mandate can try to request an exemption, but even those who succeed in gaining an exemption to a vaccine mandate may have to submit to routine COVID testing and mask requirements, especially if their job involves contact with other individuals.
Under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, individuals have a right of conscience and/or religious freedom to ask that their sincere religious beliefs against receiving vaccinations be accommodated. To this end, The Rutherford Institute has issued guidance and an in-depth fact sheet and model letter for those seeking a religious exemption to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the workplace. The Rutherford Institute’s policy paper, “Know Your Rights: How To Request a Religious Accommodation for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in the Workplace,” goes into the details of how and why and in which forums one can request such accommodation, but there is no win-win scenario.
As with all power plays of this kind, the ramifications of empowering the government and its corporate partners to force individuals to choose between individual liberty and economic survival during a so-called state of “emergency” can lead to terrifying results.
At a minimum, it’s a slippery slope that justifies all manner of violations in the name of national security, the interest of the state and the so-called greater good.
If the government—be it the President, Congress, the courts or any federal, state or local agent or agency—can willfully disregard the rights of any particular person or group of persons, then that person becomes less than a citizen, less than human, less than deserving of respect, dignity, civility and bodily integrity. He or she becomes an “it,” a faceless number that can be tallied and tracked, a quantifiable mass of cells that can be discarded without conscience, an expendable cost that can be written off without a second thought, or an animal that can be bought, sold, branded, chained, caged, bred, neutered and euthanized at will.
That’s exactly where we find ourselves now: caught in the crosshairs of a showdown between the rights of the individual and the so-called “emergency” state.
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.
Our so-called rights have been reduced to technicalities in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs.
Yet those who founded this country believed that what we conceive of as our rights were given to us by God—we are created equal, according to the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence—and that government cannot create nor can it extinguish our God-given rights. To do so would be to anoint the government with god-like powers and elevate it above the citizenry.
And that, in a nutshell, is what happens when government officials are allowed to determine who is deserving of constitutional rights and who should be stripped of those rights for whatever reason may be justified by the courts and the legislatures.
In this way, concerns about COVID-19 mandates and bodily integrity are part of a much larger debate over the ongoing power struggle between the citizenry and the government over our property “interest” in our bodies. For instance, who should get to decide how “we the people” care for our bodies? Are we masters over our most private of domains, our bodies? Or are we merely serfs who must answer to an overlord that gets the final say over whether and how we live or die?
This debate over bodily integrity covers broad territory, ranging from abortion and euthanasia to forced blood draws, biometric surveillance and basic healthcare.
Forced vaccinations are just the tip of the iceberg.
Forced vaccinations, forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases: these are just a few ways in which Americans continue to be reminded that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.
To sanction this forced blood draw, the cops and the courts hitched their wagon to state “implied consent” laws (all of the states have them), which suggest that merely driving on a state-owned road implies that a person has consented to police sobriety tests, breathalyzers and blood draws.
Read the writing on the wall, and you’ll see how little remains of our right to bodily integrity in the face of the government’s steady assaults on the Fourth Amendment.
Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—continue to be strangulated by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are now guilty until proven innocent.
Such is life in America today that individuals are being threatened with arrest and carted off to jail for the least hint of noncompliance, homes are being raided by militarized SWAT teams under the slightest pretext, property is being seized on the slightest hint of suspicious activity, and roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.
While forced searches—of one’s person and property—may span a broad spectrum of methods and scenarios, the common denominator remains the same: a complete disregard for the dignity and rights of the citizenry.
Unfortunately, the indignities being heaped upon us by the architects and agents of the American police state—whether or not we’ve done anything wrong—are just a foretaste of what is to come.
The government doesn’t need to tie you to a gurney and forcibly take your blood or strip you naked by the side of the road in order to render you helpless. As this showdown over COVID-19 vaccine mandates makes clear, the government has other methods—less subtle perhaps but equally devastating—of stripping you of your independence, robbing you of your dignity, and undermining your rights.
With every court ruling that allows the government to operate above the rule of law, every piece of legislation that limits our freedoms, and every act of government wrongdoing that goes unpunished, we’re slowly being conditioned to a society in which we have little real control over our bodies or our lives.
You may not realize it yet, but you are not free.
If you believe otherwise, it is only because you have made no real attempt to exercise your freedoms.
Had you attempted to exercise your freedoms before now by questioning a police officer’s authority, challenging an unjust tax or fine, protesting the government’s endless wars, defending your right to privacy against the intrusion of surveillance cameras, or any other effort that challenges the government’s power grabs and the generally lopsided status quo, you would have already learned the hard way that the American Police State has no appetite for freedom and it does not tolerate resistance.
This is called authoritarianism, a.k.a. totalitarianism, a.k.a. oppression.
Oppression is designed to compel obedience and submission to authority. Those who voluntarily put themselves in that state – by believing that their institutions of authority are just and good and should be followed rather than subverted – render oppression redundant, unnecessary. Of course people who think and behave this way encounter no oppression. That’s their reward for good, submissive behavior. They are left alone by institutions of power because they comport with the desired behavior of complacency and obedience without further compulsion. But the fact that good, obedient citizens do not themselves perceive oppression does not mean that oppression does not exist.
Get ready to stand your ground or run for your life.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, our government “of the people, by the people and for the people” has been transformed into a greedy pack of wolves that is on the hunt.
“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” ~ George Orwell, 1984
This ‘virus’ terrorism that has been structured and stoked by this heinous government for the purpose of depopulation, power grabs, and control over society, is now being greatly ramped up in order to shut down all questions, all speech, all facts, and all those that would not comply with draconian mandates issued by this corrupt state. If such a criminal coup is able to be accomplished by the state thugs, all opposition to the status quo of planned economic demolition, sickness, mind and body destruction, and death by the ruling class will have been effectively stopped, leaving only those ready and willing to act as slaves instead of fighting for their own liberty. In effect, with the gallant truth seekers marginalized or taken down, no resistance will be evident, and only the compliant sheep-like masses will be left, negating any defense against totalitarian rule. But of course, that is the plan.
We are faced with extreme terrorism, but it is not being waged by foreign mercenaries, jihadists, white supremacists, or domestic dissenters, it is the state itself that practices terrorism against the people. In essence, war is being waged against this country from the inside by this government, its controllers, the mainstream media, the pharmaceutical industry, the big technology sector, the banking system, and all government’s other fascist partners. The American governing system is the enemy of all of us, and few will be exempt from its tyranny if large scale resistance is not forthcoming. Democide has already begun!
On August 13th, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an oxymoron if ever there were one, issued a new National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) Bulletin titled: “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland.” The top priority of this so-called bulletin is that “anti-government/anti-authority violent extremists will remain a national threat priority for the United States.” This is an open-ended threat to all that disagree with and oppose this government orchestrated fake pandemic, as stated in this bulletin. This does not mean that one has to take up arms or commit acts of violence in order to be targeted by the state, quite the contrary is the case. This atrocious bulletin is dated effective August 13, 2021 and expires November 11, 2021. How do these monsters know the exact dates when this so-called ‘domestic terrorism’ will happen? This is no accident, and makes obvious that a threat is being issued to all that are non-compliant. Do not forget these dates, as plans are apparently already set for all those of us that are anti-government/anti-authority, and it seems certain that false flag events to trigger martial law are already in place, for why else would such a short-term structured bulletin be issued for this specific three-month period?
It is also stated in this document that domestic terrorism “threats are also exacerbated by impacts of the ongoing global pandemic, including grievances over public health safety measures and perceived government restrictions.” In other words, they already know that they are going to impose more restrictions over this period. In addition, the DHS states that they “will continue to identify and evaluate calls for violence, including online activity associated with the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and false narratives, by known or suspected threat actors and provide updated information, as necessary.” This is a direct warning to all those attempting to tell the truth about this fake pandemic and the poisonous and deadly injections mislabeled as ‘vaccines.’ The only disinformation is coming from the DHS, the rest of government, the WHO, the CDC, and the mainstream media, as they are the real terrorists.
I have done a bit of cowboying in my life, and cowboys get the job done. Here in Montana, we have a saying that is very appropriate today: “It’s gettin’ down to nut cuttin’ time!” At this moment in history, especially given the limited time left before this country is totally destroyed by this criminal government cabal, there is no more time to waste, and extreme preventative efforts are needed to stop this insanity.
These are unprecedented times in history, and this country called the United States is at war against its own people, and wants to depopulate not only this country, but the rest of the world as well. Democide, genocide, and mass murder are desired, and the beginning stages are being carried out now. Drastic measures are necessary in order to shut down this attack against the people, and a mass movement of total disobedience is essential if this takeover of society is to be stopped. We are out of time, and if blind obedience continues, mass slavery will be the result.
Think about what is coming if strong resistance is not present:
Immunity and ‘vaccine’ passports
‘Covid’ marshals (police and military)
Lockdowns and home imprisonment
Quarantine
‘Vaccine’ mandates
Mass ‘vaccination’ of all children
Segregation
Interstate travel banned without ‘vaccine’
Food shortages
Job loss
Economic Armageddon
Internment (concentration) camps (prison for unvaccinated)
Loss of utilities due to state planned cyber attacks
Supply line shutdowns
Hyperinflation
Mass death
And the list goes on. How far will this have to go before the masses see the light? How much abuse are the people of this country willing to take before they say no more? How many lies must be swallowed before the sickness of apathy is expelled?
There is no ‘virus pandemic,’ there are no ‘variants;’ there are only lies and propaganda spewed by the political class and their partners in crime. This government, its agencies, its courts, and the politicians are evil, corrupt, and criminal. They care nothing about you, they care nothing about your family, they care nothing about your children, and they care nothing about the well-being of the masses. They care not about anything of value, they care only about power and control. The only way to stop this is by mass disobedience, and refusal to obey any order or mandate issued by this abhorrent state.
“Evil thrives on apathy and cannot exist without it.” ~ Hannah Arendt
Anecdotal evidence detailed by former Google software engineer Mike Hearn strongly suggests that most restaurants, cafes and other businesses in France are not enforcing the country’s controversial vaccine passport system.
As we highlighted last week, on the first day the new program was in place, police were visibly patrolling bars and cafes demanding customers show proof they’ve had the jab.
However, this seems to have largely been a bluff as just days later, businesses and venues have become very lax at checking people’s papers despite the threat of large fines.
“I decided to do a simple experiment to find out: always present an expired test even though I had a valid negative one, and see what happens,” writes Hearn.
“Over a four day stay I was required to show a valid pass exactly zero times; that includes at the airports in both directions. Compliance is absolutely min viable and often lower.”
“At small businesses enforcement was non-existent: sometimes the pass requirement was ignored entirely, other times we were asked “do you have a pass” and our answer wasn’t checked. One restaurant had come up with a clever way to detect police stings without requiring customers to actually present a pass. As expected, enforcement was stricter by larger firms, however even there we saw the following:
– Test certificates being checked once and then swapped for a token that doesn’t expire.
– Expired tests being accepted.
– People accepting paper test certificates without scanning them.
– Scanning tests and then not looking at the screen to see the results.
– Accepting QR codes that failed to scan.”
Hearn also reveals how mask mandates in theme parks and other venues are also not being followed, despite signs everywhere ordering people to cover their faces, while social distancing is also a “forgotten memory.”
Images showing empty cafes and bars on the first day the system was introduced may have spooked venues into taking a hands off approach.
In passing the law but failing to ensure that it is enforced, France is following the same model as Israel, where the point of introducing the system wasn’t really to enforce it, but merely as a means of bullying young people into getting the vaccine.
As we highlighted last week, despite the odious and draconian nature of the vaccine passport system, President Macron asserted that the it was actually introduced to protect people’s “freedom,” which is like saying putting you in prison is for your own safety.
The cases in Ohio are especially troubling because they involve defendants whose bodily autonomy is being violated not only once, but twice by their government.
Brandon Rutherford was recently presented with a dilemma in an Ohio courtroom: get vaccinated or face incarceration.
The 21-year-old was sentenced to two years probation for fentanyl possession by Judge Christopher Wagner of Hamilton County, Ohio on August 4, but his sentence came with a twist: he was ordered to get a COVID vaccine as a condition of his probation.
Should Rutherford fail to comply, he could be sent to jail for up to 18 months.
“I’m just a judge, not a doctor, but I think the vaccine’s a lot safer than fentanyl, which is what you had in your pocket,” Wagner told Rutherford.
Wagner gave Rutherford 60 days to get vaxxed and said, “You’re going to maintain employment. You’re not going to be around a firearm. I’m going to order you, within the next two months, to get a vaccine and show that to the probation office.”
The judge only knew Rutherford’s vaccination status in the first place because he questioned him when he arrived in court wearing a mask—a rule Wagner put in place for any unvaccinated people in his courtroom.
Rutherford was outraged by the mandate.
“Because I don’t take a shot they can send me to jail? I don’t agree with that,” he said. “I’m just trying to do what I can to get off this as quickly as possible, like finding a job and everything else. But that little thing (COVID vaccine) can set me back.”
The judge’s order created a stir, prompting Wagner to issue a response.
“Judges make decisions regularly regarding a defendant’s physical and mental health, such as ordering drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment,” he wrote in a statement. He also said it was his responsibility to “rehabilitate the defendant and protect the community.”
Wagner is not the only Ohio judge to take such actions. He joined judges in Franklin and Cuyahoga counties who made similar demands.
Bodily Autonomy
As Rutherford’s case vividly demonstrates, in the wake of COVID-19, the world is grappling with the question of how much control an individual should have over their own body.
Bodily integrity, also commonly referred to as bodily autonomy, is a longstanding principle of human rights and individual liberty. In recent years, discussion on this topic has centered around the #MeToo movement regarding sexual harassment and abuse in many of our institutions. It is obvious that violating another person’s body is inherently wrong; no one questions this premise when discussing matters of sexual violence.
Yet, for too many those clear-cut lines become blurred with other issues, especially when the conversation turns to medical bodily autonomy. And history shows there is a long, troubling tradition in the US of violating the bodily integrity of Americans, particularly the marginalized and disadvantaged.
As an example, a Tennessee judge and sheriff launched a forced-sterilization program for inmates around 2017. They allowed people in jail to shorten their sentences by 30 days if they agreed to the medical procedures. They were, thankfully, sued over this and the program was overturned on constitutional grounds. The attorney who obtained justice in this case, Daniel Horwitz, said at the time, “Inmate sterilization is despicable, it is morally indefensible, and it is illegal.”
Forced sterilization among inmates isn’t the only medical crime against bodily autonomy in our past either. In 1932, the Tuskegee Experiment was launched and ran for decades. The United States Public Health Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted the study, during which they lied to the 600 black male participants about their syphilis status and told them they were receiving free healthcare. In reality, they were given placebos, ineffective treatments, and denied penicillin—even as it became widely available as a treatment for syphilis. The particular case elevated the issue of informed consent in medical procedures and highlighted how far the country still had to go in respecting inalienable rights, including “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,” as articulated in the US Constitution.
Globally, human rights advocates have fought a long and uphill battle to assert these basic principles of bodily autonomy and informed consent in society.
In 1948, the United Nations passed its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3 of this Declaration states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
The timing of this Declaration is key as it came at the heels of World War II, a period during which arguably the greatest violations of human rights in modern history were committed, including forced scientific and medical experimentation on human beings on a mass scale. The subsequent Nuremberg Trials—held between 1945 and 1949—resulted in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, a set of 10 standards that confronted questions of medical experimentation on humans. The Nuremberg Code established a new global standard for ethical medical behavior. Within its requirements? Voluntary informed consent of the human subject.
Then, in 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declared in its Article 7: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
Forced medical procedures are an especially monstrous violation of the fundamental right of bodily integrity and autonomy. This lesson was hard-learned through the course of the 20th Century. But it seems to have been unlearned amid the panic over COVID-19.
Double Violation
The cases in Ohio are especially troubling because they involve defendants whose bodily autonomy is being violated not only once, but twice by their government.
Our justice system routinely puts bodies in cages over what the owners of those bodies choose to put in them—whether an actual crime results from that consumption or not. That’s thanks in large part to the immoral and unjust War on Drugs, as well as the wide range of non-violent offenses we currently criminalize in our country. Now, on top of arresting the defendants for choosing to put a substance in their bodies, we have judges threatening further incarceration to coerce those same people into putting a different substance in their bodies.
In both instances, this is an egregious violation of an individual’s bodily autonomy. But many progressives who regularly express outrage over mass incarceration and the War on Drugs are noticeably either silent on vaccine mandates or advocating for them.
Prescient Philosophers
The economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) had a lot to say about governments interfering in what individuals choose to consume. In his book Human Action he wrote the following:
“Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments.”
This is applicable to the War on Drugs, which was gaining steam around the time of Mises’ death, but it is also relevant to the current pandemic policy. Whether or not it is prudent for a person to get vaccinated for their own health is not the correct question. It is not the government’s duty to protect individuals against their own folly. Mises went on to write:
“A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.”
Why indeed.
As is the case most of the time, when liberty advocates object to a public policy that big-government advocates believe to be “common sense,” we are not doing so simply over the immediate implications but rather because we know where such policies can lead. If the government can force me to get a vaccine for my own good, what else can it force me to do? The proverbial can of worms is open, the legal precedent set, and any student of history knows it only goes downhill from there. Mises continued:
“These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects’ minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man’s freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naïve advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the case of censorship, inquisition, religious intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters.”
Strong words, but earned ones. And highly relevant today, as governments are rapidly progressing from “we must mandate public health measures” to “we must censor and persecute those who defy and speak out against our public health measures.”
Those who advocate for the government’s ability to deprive humans of their freedom on the basis of consumption in effect promote a wide array of injustices and human rights violations. There is simply no gray area here.
Human Action wasn’t the only place Mises appears to be writing from the grave for our modern times. In his work, Liberalism he says the following:
“We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail. The personal freedom of the individual is abrogated. He becomes a slave of the community, bound to obey the dictates of the majority.”
Think how this applies to the increasingly intolerant conformity culture we see mounting in the age of COVID. He continues:
“It is hardly necessary to expatiate on the ways in which such powers could be abused by malevolent persons in authority. The wielding, of powers of this kind even by men imbued with the best of intentions must needs reduce the world to a graveyard of the spirit. All mankind’s progress has been achieved as a result of the initiative of a small minority that began to deviate from the ideas and customs of the majority until their example finally moved the others to accept the innovation themselves. To give the majority the right to dictate to the minority what it is to think, to read, and to do is to put a stop to progress once and for all.”
It is interesting that those who fancy themselves “progressives” are pushing for the world to come to an abrupt stop and for all individuals to bend their will to the national narrative they have chosen in this time.
Finally, from Mises:
“Let no one object that the struggle against morphinism and the struggle against ‘evil’ literature are two quite different things….The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. It will require many long years of self-education until the subject can turn himself into the citizen. A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.”
His writings are so spot-on and prescient, it’s almost eerie.
We do not have to like or condone another person’s actions. We don’t have to associate with them. But we must endure other humans acting and living as they see fit without going full Karen and calling the cops. When you argue for government force to violate an individual’s bodily autonomy in any manner, you stand on the side of gross injustice and human rights violations—just ask Brandon Rutherford who now faces jail time over his decisions about what he will or will not put in his body.
“I’m not taking the vaccine,” Rutherford told CNN. And he ought to have every right to make that decision.
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved last month a National Defense Authorization Act that includes a requirement that women register with Selective Service on their 18th birthday. If the bill becomes law with this provision included and a military draft is reinstated, women will be forced to join the military, and America will have equality in slavery.
Proponents of drafting women argue that since women can now serve in combat it makes sense to make the draft “gender neutral.”
Some conservatives have made moral arguments against drafting women, saying that women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to serve in the military. It is certainly true that it is immoral to force women into military service, but that is because it is wrong to force anyone into military service.
Forcing young people, regardless of their sex, to fight, kill, and even die in war is the worst violation of individual liberty a government can commit. Those who support the military draft implicitly reject the Declaration of Independence. How can someone support forced military service and still claim to believe all individuals are endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
While commonly thought of as a “left-wing” position, opposition to the draft has historically united Americans across the political spectrum. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both opposed the draft while running for president. Russell Kirk, the scholar who helped popularize the term “conservative,” opposed conscription.
Some progressives oppose a military draft but support other forms of mandatory national service. These progressives fail to understand that forcing someone to serve the welfare state is just as immoral as forcing someone to serve the warfare state.
Some conservatives join progressives in supporting mandatory national service. These conservatives claim that mandatory national service provides young people a way to “pay back” the debt they owe society. But these are moral obligations owed to families, churches, and communities, not legal obligations owed to, and properly enforceable by, the government.
Libertarians are consistent opponents of all forms of mandatory service. This is because libertarians apply the prohibitions against violence, theft, and fraud to governments as well as private citizens. So, if it is wrong for your neighbors to force your children to mow the neighbors’ lawn, it is wrong for government to force your children to serve in the military or perform any other type of “national service.”
The nonaggression principle is why libertarians oppose taxation, nationalized healthcare and education, and military crusades in the name of “democracy” or “human rights.” It is also why libertarians oppose laws telling people how to raise their children, limiting access to “extremist” websites, telling business owners who can and cannot use what bathrooms on their property, or prohibiting someone from gambling online, smoking marijuana, or drinking raw milk.
Some libertarians urge their liberty movement compatriots to not talk about the nonaggression principle. These “pragmatists” think the focus should be on making the “practical” case for liberty. But those who embrace liberty because it “works” better than statism will make “exceptions” if they think an authoritarian idea like mandatory national service is a more practical way of achieving their political, economic, or social goals. Only those committed to the moral case for liberty can be counted on to defend all liberty at all times.
It’s just two weeks. It’s just staying three feet apart. It’s just staying six feet apart. It’s just not going outside. It’s just not giving handshakes. It’s just working from home. It is just non-essential businesses that are closed.
It’s just bars. It’s just restaurants. It’s just theaters. It’s just concerts. It’s just dancing. It’s just intramural sports. It’s just choir.
It’s just non-essential medical services that you have to give up. It is just non-essential items that you are not allowed to buy. It’s just not being able to exercise. It’s just gyms. It is just the closure of your business for a while. It is just not making money for a while. It is just not being able to pay your bills for a little while.
It’s just a minor inconvenience. It’s just not being allowed to carpool. It’s just not socializing for a while. It’s just a mask. It’s just not traveling for a while. It’s just not hugging people for a while. It’s just missionary sex that is risky.
It is just not seeing your family and friends for a while. It’s just not visiting your grandparents temporarily. It’s just your grandparents not having visitors for their safety. It’s just one birthday you have to sacrifice. It’s just one Thanksgiving alone. It’s just one Christmas without your family. It’s just two birthdays you had to sacrifice. It is just not celebrating any milestones for a year and a half.
It’s just temporary. It’s just a safety measure. It is just your ability to pay cash. It is just contact tracing. It is just a health screening. It is just a temperature check. It is just a scan of your face. It’s just a minor loss of privacy.
It is just one semester. It is just two semesters. It is just one year out of your child’s life. It is just one more semester. It is just a high school graduation.
It’s just the birth of your grandchild that you missed. It is just not being able to be there for your relatives when they are ill or dying. It is just not having a funeral. It is just in person that you cannot grieve with your loved ones. It is just not getting to attend religious service. It is just not getting to practice some parts of your religion.
It is just misinformation that is being censored. It is just conservatives that are being censored. It is just some of the science that is being censored. It is just the people who have the opposing opinions that are banned online. It is just the opposition that the White House is targeting for censorship. It is just bad opinions that are being censored.
It’s just the economy. It is just small business owners who are suffering financially. It is just poor people who are suffering financially. It is just people of color who are suffering financially. It is just financial suffering. It is just a few small businesses that had to close permanently. It is just a few big businesses that closed.
It is just not going farther than a few kilometers from your house. It is just a curfew. It is just a permission slip. It is just being alone for two weeks. It is just being socially isolated for one year.
It is just one vaccine. It is just one set of booster shots. It is just regular booster shots every six months. It is just another two weeks. It is just one more lock-down. It is just once a week—twice tops—that you will have to prove that you are fit to participate in society. It is just the unvaccinated that will be segregated from society. It is just a medical test.
Pretty simple, no?
Just fucking do it.
But when you add up all the “justs,” it amounts to our entire lives.
For over a year and a half and counting, we have been robbed of the ability to live our lives fully, to make meaningful choices for ourselves, and to express our values the way we see fit.
It is “just” the inability to express our humanity and the total negation of our very selves. All of these measures have served as a prohibition of expressing outwardly one’s valid and complex internal reality. This kind of suppression of self does violence to one’s very soul.
All of these supposedly little and supposedly short-lived “justs” have transformed us into totalitarian states from which there appears to be no endpoint.
In New York City, California, Australia, etc., the people have permitted government such control over our daily lives that we have to ask it for permission to control our bodies, to move freely, to practice religion, to educate our children ourselves, to protest, etc.
Soon Biden, Trudeau, and other world leaders are going to clamp down on our ability to express ourselves and to associate with each other online so that we can no longer question, object to, or organize against government action. It is the destruction of democracy.
It astounds me that my Progressive friends — the same ones who claim to support “social justice” — are welcoming a fascist society in which government crushes any opposition and individuals cannot make choices about their own lives.
I will not comply because I do not want to live in the society that is being created by extraordinary submissiveness to government. I do not want to be complicit in this era’s atrocities.
What is the point of living if one merely exists to obey the elite to one’s own detriment? Is it even living if one lacks the agency to direct one’s life? I’ve already submitted in contradiction of my values to a shameful extent. One might say, “Well, what’s one more compromise,” but it won’t be just one more compromise. It will be just the next cut in a slow death by a thousand cuts.
Submitting only validates tyrannical displays of power and ensures that there will be more such displays in the future.
And what does one get for compromising? Merely your continued membership in a society that will only have you if you immolate yourself and become nothing more than a reflection of the desires of the ruling class.
If you cannot be truly yourself in a society, is that society worth clinging to? I think not. As much as leaving the stability of my comfort zone terrifies me, staying in it means continuing to silence and shrink myself for a disingenuous feeling of acceptance. In that way, it is more of a discomfort zone.
Each time I expressed my fears about the future direction of society, my friends said “it won’t happen.” Each time it did happen, they shrugged their shoulders and reminded me that compliance was an option.
At this point, if the government were to cart me away to an internment camp (which is not a completely far-fetched notion and which has happened in the past) for being a dangerous dissident I am certain that my friends and family would watch it happen and say it was my fault for not complying.
They are no longer capable of recognizing the humanity of the opposition or of questioning government.
I will not submit because I don’t want to live in a world in which my supposed allies would happily see me persecuted by the government.
I will not comply because the political climate has become so censorial, authoritarian, and generally toxic that my viewpoints will never be represented in the political process here. Without representation, my values and beliefs will be violated again and again by a polity that sees any deviation from itself as invalid. Thus, my compliance will provide zero assurance of any better treatment in the future.
I will not bend because I am not a conformist.
I will not give in because I do not want to reward government manipulation and coercion.
I will not surrender because I could die at any moment, and I do not want my final memories to be ones of craven submission to tyranny and the resultant misery and self-loathing.
I will not comply because it is not the government’s first intrusion on my body, mind, and spirit; and if we comply, it will definitely not be the last. All I will accomplish by my compliance is validating the government’s claim on my body and life.
I am not submitting because this is war, and I am not handing the enemy its victories.
I will not comply because the reward for compliance will still be being treated as a second class-citizen by society.
I won’t acquiesce because I am a conscientious objector.
I will not cede because the measures are unnecessary and the only practical effect will be to increase government power.
I don’t comply because I do not want to be a mere slave in the future version of the world they are creating, doing only what I am told to do and having to beg for access to the necessities of life that I am entitled to as a living being on this earth.
I will not yield because their religion is not my religion, and I refuse to worship a false idol.
I will not capitulate because I do not want to betray my ancestors and predecessors who fought for me to be free.
I will not surrender because freedom is more important than convenience and ease.
I will not comply because if I did I would be filled with rage against society, resentment towards my friends and family, and self-loathing that would eat me alive. I would become bitter and closed-hearted, and I don’t want that for myself.
All of this is why I won’t “just fucking do it.”.
Addison Reeves is a lawyer, political scientist, philosopher, and civil rights and civil liberties advocate based in New York. Addison critiques modern culture from a radical, leftist perspective at ModernHeretic.com or you can follow him on Telegram or Twitter.
People can tell themselves that they didn’t see where things have been heading for the last 17 months, but they did. They saw all the signs along the way. The signs were all written in big, bold letters, some of them in scary-looking Germanic script. They read …
“THIS IS THE ROAD TO TOTALITARIANISM.”
I’m not going to show you all those signs out again. People like me have been pointing them out, and reading them out loud, for 17 months now. Anyone who knows anything about the history of totalitarianism, how it incrementally transforms society into a monstrous mirror image of itself, has known since the beginning what the “New Normal” is, and we have been shouting from the rooftops about it.
We have watched as the New Normal transformed our societies into paranoid, pathologized, authoritarian dystopias where people now have to show their “papers” to see a movie or get a cup of coffee and publicly display their ideological conformity to enter a supermarket and buy their groceries.
We have watched as the New Normal transformed the majority of the masses into hate-drunk, hysterical mobs that are openly persecuting “the Unvaccinated,” the official “Untermenschen” of the New Normal ideology.
We have watched as the New Normal has done precisely what every totalitarian movement in history has done before it, right by the numbers. We pointed all this out, each step of the way. I’m not going to reiterate all that again.
I am, however, going to document where we are at the moment, and how we got here … for the record, so that the people who will tell you later that they “had no clue where the trains were going” will understand why we no longer trust them, and why we regard them as cowards and collaborators, or worse.
Yes, that’s harsh, but this is not a game. It isn’t a difference of opinion. The global-capitalist ruling establishment is implementing a new, more openly totalitarian structure of society and method of rule. They are revoking our constitutional and human rights, transferring power out of sovereign governments and democratic institutions into unaccountable global entities that have no allegiance to any nation or its people.
That is what is happening … right now. It isn’t a TV show. It’s actually happening.
The time for people to “wake up” is over. At this point, you either join the fight to preserve what is left of those rights, and that sovereignty, or you surrender to the “New Normal,” to global-capitalist totalitarianism. I couldn’t care less what you believe about the virus, or its mutant variants, or the experimental “vaccines.” This isn’t an abstract argument over “the science.” It is a fight … a political, ideological fight. On one side is democracy, on the other is totalitarianism. Pick a fucking side, and live with it.
Anyway, here’s where we are at the moment, and how we got here, just the broad strokes.
It’s August 2021, and Germany has officially banned demonstrations against the “New Normal” official ideology. Other public assemblies, like the Christopher Street Day demo (pictured below), one week ago, are still allowed. The outlawing of political opposition is a classic hallmark of totalitarian systems. It’s also a classic move by the German authorities, which will give them the pretext they need to unleash the New Normal goon squads on the demonstrators tomorrow.
Christopher Street Day demo: RBB
In Australia, the military has been deployed to enforce total compliance with government decrees … lockdowns, mandatory public obedience rituals, etc. In other words, it is de facto martial law. This is another classic hallmark of totalitarian systems.
In France, restaurant and other business owners who serve “the Unvaccinated” will now be imprisoned, as will, of course, “the Unvaccinated.” The scapegoating, demonizing, and segregating of “the Unvaccinated” is happening in countries all over the world. France is just an extreme example. The scapegoating, dehumanizing, and segregating of minorities — particularly the regime’s political opponents — is another classic hallmark of totalitarian systems.
We didn’t get here overnight. Here are just a few of the unmistakable signs along the road to totalitarianism that I have pointed out over the last 17 months.
And now, here we are, where we have been heading all along, clearly, unmistakably heading … directly into The Approaching Storm, or possibly global civil war. This isn’t the end of the road to totalitarianism, but I’m pretty sure we are in the home stretch. It feels like things are about to get ugly. Very ugly. Extremely ugly. Those of us who are fighting to preserve our rights, and some basic semblance of democracy, are outnumbered, but we haven’t had our final say yet … and there are millions of us, and we are wide awake.
So pick a side, if you haven’t already. But, before you do, maybe look back at the history of totalitarian systems, which, for some reason, never seem to work out for the totalitarians, at least not in the long run. I’m not a professional philosopher or anything, but I suspect that might have something to do with some people’s inextinguishable desire for freedom, and our willingness to fight for it, sometimes to the death.
This kind of feels like one of those times.
Sorry for going all “Braveheart” on you, but I’m psyching myself up to go get the snot beat out of me by the New Normal goon squads tomorrow, so I’m a little … you know, overly emotional.
Seriously, though, pick a side … now … or a side will be picked for you.
The recent felony conviction and eight month prison sentence of January 6th protester Paul Hodgkins is an affront to any notion of justice. It is a political charge and a political verdict by a political court. Every American regardless of political persuasion should be terrified of a court system so beholden to politics instead of justice.
We’ve seen this movie before and it does not end well.
Worse than this miscarriage of justice is the despicable attempt by the prosecutor in the case to label Hodgkins – who has no criminal record and was accused of no violent crime – a “terrorist.”
As journalist Michael Tracey recently wrote, Special Assistant US Attorney Mona Sedky declared Hodgkins a “terrorist” in the court proceedings not for committing any terrorist act, not for any act of violence, not even for imagining a terrorist act.
Sedky wrote in her sentencing memo, “The Government … recognizes that Hodgkins did not personally engage in or espouse violence or property destruction.” She added, “we concede that Mr. Hodgkins is not under the legal definition a domestic terrorist.”
Yet Hodgkins should be considered a terrorist because the actions he took – entering the Senate to take a photo of himself – occurred during an event that the court is “framing…in the context of terrorism.”
That goes beyond a slippery slope. He is not a terrorist because he committed a terrorist act, but because somehow the “context” of his actions was, in her words, “imperiling democracy.”
In other words, Hodgkins deserved enhanced punishment because he committed a thought crime. The judge on the case, Randolph D. Moss, admitted as much. In carrying a Trump flag into the Senate, he said, Hodgkins was, “declaring his loyalty to a single individual over the nation.”
As Tracey pointed out, while eight months in prison is a ridiculously long sentence for standing on the floor of the “People’s House” and taking a photograph, it is also a ridiculously short sentence for a terrorist. If Hodgkins is really a terrorist, shouldn’t he be sent away for longer than eight months?
The purpose of the Soviet show trials was to create an enemy that the public could collectively join in hating and blaming for all the failures of the system. The purpose was to turn one part of the population against the other part of the population and demand they be “cancelled.” And it worked very well…for awhile.
In a recent article, libertarian author Jim Bovard quoted from Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago about how average people turned out to demand “justice” for the state’s designated “political” enemies: “There were universal meetings and demonstrations (including even school-children). It was the newspaper march of millions, and the roar rose outside the windows of the courtroom: ‘Death! Death! Death!’”
While we are not quite there yet, we are moving in that direction. Americans being sent to prison not for what they did, but for what they believe? Does that sound like the kind of America we really want to live in?
While many Biden backers are enjoying seeing the hammer come down on pro-Trump, non-violent protesters, they should take note: the kind of totalitarian “justice” system they are cheering on will soon be coming for them. It always does.
“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
More to the point, are you required to open the door?
The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal “surge response teams” on a “targeted community door-to-door outreach“ to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.
That’s all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”
Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door “visits” by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.
First, there is the visit itself.
While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.
Courts have upheld these “knock and talk” visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.
Indeed, you don’t even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they don’t have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.
When the government’s actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one’s property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.
It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing “No Trespassing” signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.
While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a “knock and talk” encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search one’s property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.
Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.
Although courts have embraced the fiction that “knock and talks” are “voluntary” encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one’s home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one’s home and property.
The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the “knock and talk” tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, “knock-and-talk” policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.
“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.
“Knock and talks” not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.
For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.
Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes’ door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.
As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.
Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.
Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans “have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.”
Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents’ vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.
Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.
Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be “high crime” areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.
We’ve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.
Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.
Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.
At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.
However, that’s not all.
The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.
While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.
Finally, you have the right to say “no.”
Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.
Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Here’s the bottom line.
These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.
It’s a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldn’t answer any questions you’re uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.
In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.
Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.
You can also post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property.
It’s important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don’t leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still don’t leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.
Remember, you have rights.
The government didn’t want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.
After all, for years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no right to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.
But we have every right, and you know why?
Because as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.
Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.
What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.
The government has made no secret of its plans.
Just follow the money trail, and you’ll get a sense of what’s in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government’s dictates.
It’s chilling to think about, but it’s not surprising.
In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.
It’s an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of “we the people” as insignificant when compared to those in power.
That’s how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free people—born in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.
Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights.
The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.
“We’ve been fined $15,497.76 per day for every day that we’ve been in operation. That was originally started for being open when we were told not to. And now it is currently being levied against us because we won’t mandate masks.
We’ve had our doors illegally locked. We’ve had our doors boarded up. We had to camp outside the facility for 40 days. We’ve been arrested in the middle of the night. You name it, we’ve kind of been through it.
We got our business license taken as well. And right now we have seven new criminal citations, which are criminal contempt of court in the fourth degree…
They came out here with the local PD. They came out here with the county sheriffs and the county prosecutor’s office as well. We were arrested by the county sheriffs…
So what they wanted to do was lock our doors again. They had already done that once and we vow that they never would do it again. So what we did is, we took the doors off the hinges and we kept the gym open for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — just sort of running it like that. Because if there’s no doors then you can’t lock them.
So after a while they came and arrested us and removed us from the building so that they could build a barricade. They built a barricade and they put plywood up on doors, right here behind us, and couple days later we called the media and told them that there would be a show today and we kicked the doors in…
People talk about having courage to stand up in the face of the government tyranny. For us it was, we didn’t have courage to start. It was something that was born from necessity. And something that we thought was our moral obligation to stand up because what was happening to — not only us but the people that we love and people that we don’t even know but know are good, honest, hardworking Americans — was intolerable…
For us, it was necessity. We stood up because we had to. The courage came afterwards when we realized how important of a fight it truly was, and how far these people would go to keep us shut down, keep us afraid, keep us dependent upon them. To us everything is at stake…
The hardest thing to realize and I think for a lot of people to come to terms with is that these people are not your friends. They do not have your best interests in mind. So it’s not a matter of people being elected who are just making mistakes and putting forth bad policy but have a good heart. The people in power right now are intentionally doing these things. They’re intentionally lying to you. They’re intentionally scaring you with the aim to make you dependent upon them…
When you come to terms with that, fighting and fighting back, and standing up for what you believe and becomes a lot easier because you realize this isn’t a mistake and that the only person that’s going to come to save you is you.
There will be no president elected that’s going to bail you out. Nobody is going to change this except individuals.”
Two hard working men from New Jersey, Ian Smith and Frank Trumbetti, saved up, bought a failing gym and turned it around into a success. They enjoyed 9 months of business until they were told to shut down due to Covid-19. After two months and no coherent plan from the government, they formulated their own safety protocol and opened up. This interview with them tells their story of fortitude, courage and fighting for the American Dream.
Following the (completely contrived) Capitol Hill “riot” on January 6th, Joe Biden made it clear – or rather, the people that control Joe Biden made it clear – “domestic terrorism” was going to be a defining issue of his presidency.
Indeed, in an act of startling prescience, the incoming administration had been talking about a new “Domestic Terrorism Bill” for well over three months before the “riot” happened. The media had been calling for one for at least six. Major universities were writing papers about it.
It’s funny how often that happens, isn’t it?
I wrote at the time that the Capitol Hill “riot” could prove to be America’s Reichstag Fire – a fake attack, blamed on an invisible enemy and used to rush through restrictive legislation and emergency powers. A 9/11 sequel, extending the Patriot Act franchise.
The first thing to say about the “strategy”…is that it’s not really a strategy. It’s more of a mission statement or even a press release. It hits talking points, but not real policies. Its watchword is “vague” – in both definition of the problem and proposed solutions (with a couple of noteworthy exceptions, but we’ll get to that.)
For starters – who or what IS a “domestic terrorist”?
Well, their answer to that is, essentially, potentially anybody. They’re not identifying any particular ideology or cause or group – but rather EVERY ideology cause or group. I wrote, back in January, that any definition would be kept intentionally loose, and the strategy does not disappoint.
The cause of “domestic terrorism” can be racism, religious intolerance, environmental protest, anti-government feeling, animal rights, anti-abortion campaigners, “perceived government overeach”, “incel ideology”, “anti-corporate globalization feeling” or a mixture of any of the above.
“Domestic terrorists” may espouse violence or they may not espouse violence. They may work in groups, or be loners, or be loose associations with no organizational structure. They can be left wing or right wing, religious or secular.
They can be anybody who thinks anything.
There is a lot of entirely intentional vagueness here. Again and again, we are told that “the domestic terrorism threat is complex, multifaceted, and evolving”. They are keeping their options open.
Don’t expect ANY specifics on who is a “domestic terrorist” until AFTER any legislation is passed. That way, the great American public can insert their own personal bugbear into the ellipsis (and then be taken completely by surprise when it turns out the new laws apply to everyone).
That said, there have been some clues as to the kind of person that might be the target of any new anti-terror legislation.
In the Washington Post, in February this year, California State Senator Richard Pam wrote:
Anti-vaccine extremism is akin to domestic terrorism
Even this document makes insinuations on that front.
In a startling contradiction, after spending five or six pages talking up the “complex” and “unpredictable” nature of “domestic terrorism”, they then make an incredibly specific prediction about a future “domestic terrorist attack”:
Taken from the “Assessment of the Domestic Violent Extremism Threat” (p. 10):
Newer sociopolitical developments–such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID–19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence–will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.
Apparently, the official position of the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS is that domestic terrorism is a vast cloud of mystery, swirling with unknown and conflicting motivations….but they definitely know when the next attack will happen, and why it will take place..
SO WHAT’S TO BLAME?
The evil “domestic terrorists” and “violent extremists” might be widely diverse in their ideologies, social structures, motives and political leanings…but nevertheless, they ALL use the same exact methods of communication, and the same platforms to host their “misinformation”.
It turns out, according to this strategy, there’s really only one thing at the root of all “domestic terrorism”: The internet.
Yes, the vast majority of this “strategy” is focused on the digital world. In only 28 pages of text the words “online”, “social media”, “internet”, “platform”, “encryption”, and “site” occur well over 60 times combined. Here’s some examples:
…social media, file–upload sites, and end–to–end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety…
*
DVEs exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence
*
Recruiting and mobilizing individuals to domestic terrorism [is] increasingly happening on Internet–based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file–upload sites, and end–to–end encrypted chat platforms
*
…extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.
*
DVE attackers often radicalize independently by consuming violent extremist material online.
It goes on, and on and on in that fashion.
As much as the Deep State talks up the supposedly unknowable nature of “domestic terrorism” early on, they are equally sure that every single one of them is on the net. Which, fortunately from the state’s point of view, means they can all be tackled with the same solution.
WHAT THEY’RE GONNA DO ABOUT IT
You probably don’t need me to tell you what the supposed “solution” to this entirely created “problem” is. It’s the same grab-bag of solutions that a power-hungry state will always seek, given the opportunity. Yes, there’s a token reference to guns and “high-capacity” magazines, but really it’s all about controlling the internet.
Specifically – it’s about surveillance, censorship, and propaganda. The big three.
Of course, the document never ever uses those words. Surveillance is “information gathering”. Propaganda is “messaging” or “education”. Censorship is “countering propaganda” or “working with media partners to remove incitement of violence”.
They use the shifting, indirect language of government, but the meaning is clear if you know how to read it:
…the Department of Homeland Security and others are either currently funding and implementing or planning evidence–based digital programming, including enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills, as a mechanism for strengthening user resilience to disinformation and misinformation online for domestic audiences. The Department of State and United States Agency for International Development are doing similar work globally.
Translation: The DHS is funding massive propaganda campaigns designed to both brainwash the public, and discourage them from reading any sources which disagree with the official line.
The Department of Homeland Security has expanded its efforts to provide financial, educational, and technical assistance to those well placed to recognize and address possible domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence and will ensure that its counter–domestic terrorism prevention efforts are driven by data and informed by community–based partners.
Translation: DHS is working with social media monopolies to censor certain people, and paying them to pass citizens’ private information to the government and/or intelligence agencies.
Enhancing faith in American democracy demands accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse. We will work toward finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories that can provide a gateway to terrorist violence.
Translation: “Enhancing faith in democracy” means censoring anybody who posts evidence that elections are fixed, that the political class is corrupt or that the media are servants of the state who peddle lies for cash.
And then there are some phrases that need no translation at all:
the Department of Justice is examining carefully what new authorities might be necessary and appropriate.
…seems pretty clear.
The obvious end goal here is new legislation granting greater powers to the state.
THE NATURE OF “VIOLENCE”
Time to address the elephant in the room: “violence”. The word is used a lot in the report. One-hundred and eleven times in 28 pages. It’s never just “extremism” when it can be “violent extremism”. But what does that word really mean in this context?
The answer to that is “absolutely nothing”. It is a phrase robbed of meaning. Applied on an ad hoc basis, based on political convenience rather than physical reality.
A reminder that this is described as “violent extremism”:
And this as “mostly peaceful”:
And this is “inciting violence”:
If the President of the United States can be deleted from the internet, impeached and tried before the Senate because “go home in peace and love” and “stay peaceful” are “inciting violence”, then the word is totally meaningless and we should simply ignore it.
Essentially, they have demonstrated they will classify anything they want as violent, and ignore any actual violence if they need to.
THE ROLE OF IDENTITY POLITICS
I doubt any White House policy announcement has ever leaned so heavily into the politics of identity before now. “Hatred”, “bigotry”, “LGBTQI+” “racism”…and so on. They all get a lot of mentions. But why?
Well, the simple answer is camouflage. Generally, by draping the inevitable Patriot Act 2.0 in the language of identity, they can trick “liberals” into believing it’s some kind of progressive policy.
More specifically, they can align “anti-government” with “white-supremacy”, as if they are always the same. In this sentence for example:
Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred as well as anti–government or anti–authority sentiment…
Look at the other causes listed alongside “White supremacy” in this document: “perceived government overreach”, “anti-corporate globalization”, “opposing government institutions”, “anti-authority sentiment”. Rational, reasonable anti-government positions, bracketed alongside bigotry and racism.
General Mark Miley recently testified in front of the senate about how the need to “understand white rage”.
As Glen Greenwald wrote, this is not about racism, but about aligning the “progressive left” with the military. Turning militaristic, totalitarian Imperialism into a progressive cause, whilst smearing all those who oppose it as bigots and potential “domestic terrorists”.
THE WAY AHEAD
This strategy is just the latest domino put in place. It’s a long con, with multiple moving pieces, but the end is clear. Though this document is deliberaletely cagy about the possibility of new legislation, that is all part of the dance.
The manipulation of the public has been government practice since the dawn of time. The contrived public reticence to act, concealing intrigues behind the scenes which create an apparent need for action. Eventually, the public will beg the state to “do something”, and they’ll unveil the something they were planning the whole time. Tale as old as time. True as it can be.
This is no different.
Only last night, the US Senate voted to create a “select committee” investigating the Capitol Hill riot. This political pantomime will roll on for a few weeks with “shocking testimony” from FBI agents and military intelligence operatives.
They will detail how “misinformation radicalised people online”, alongside admitting they “had knowledge, but lacked the power to act” or that “counter-terrorism forces were focused on foreign groups” and/or lacked “legal authority” to surveil domestic threats. There will be a couple of throwaway admissions, something akin to a “failure of imagination”.
Senators from liberal states will make speeches about how the military/CIA/FBI are institutionally racist because they assumed white people can’t be terrorists, and a few willing uniformed fall guys will look appropriately shame-faced behind their medals.
There will be no real inquest, and no new information. It will be an exercise in reinforcing an entirely fake reality. And the final findings will be that the FBI/CIA/NSA…or whoever…needs more money and power. A new bill (likely already written) will be pushed into the hands of some hip “liberal” politician, who will do a decent job pretending they wrote it.
If there is any noteworthy public objection to the new powers, well then we’ll see another “domestic terrorist” attack. Maybe there’ll be one anyway, just to underline how vital the new bill is. (They’re prepping us already, with the DHS warning about attacks on July 4th and a possible “summer of violence”).
And then, stirring itself to act only at the insistence of the Democrat-controlled Senate, the White House will sign-off on its Patriot Act 2.0.
The final paragraph of the strategy document reads:
This document represents that Strategy – a Strategy whose implementation is, already, well underway.
Vaccine “passports” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses are one of the more alarming instruments advancing the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.”
As must be increasingly apparent to anyone capable of digging beneath the media’s daily outpouring of Orwellian propaganda, the planet-wide changes ushered in by the conveniently timed COVID crisis have surprisingly little to do with health. Facilitated by big tech, big military, big pharma’s injectable operating systems and other tools of “biofascism,” the takeover being engineered by private central bankers and their technocratic partners represents no less than a complete end-run around human freedom.
So-called vaccine “passports” or “certificates,” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses, are one of the more alarming instruments advancing this tyrannical centralization and control agenda. Not one to mince words, author Naomi Wolf makes the case that the “passports,” if allowed to become the norm, could trigger “the end of civil society” and “literally the end of human liberty in the West.”
Why is there such a strong push to make travel and commerce contingent on vaccine passports? One important answer, well understood by Wolf as CEO of a tech company, is “location intelligence” — what technocracy expert Patrick Wood calls the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.” Without irony, the champions of location data rhapsodize that such data are “a powerful way to connect people to place, transactions to actions, responses to trends, and customers to where they do business and the kind of business they do” — ultimately facilitating the “digital transformation of society on the whole.”
Less cheerfully, technocrats understand, even if the general public does not, that location data permit control at the most granular levels and provide “a platform for understanding what’s going on at all scales.” This point was disturbingly illustrated in a June 21 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, which essentially denounced “small and informal social gatherings,” positing that children’s birthday parties are potential hotbeds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
This willingness on the part of technocracy’s foot soldiers to be party poopers — literally — would be silly were it not for the study’s baleful messaging, which confirms Wolf’s concerns that we are not only in a battle for liberty but in “a war against human beings and the qualities that make us human.”
No fun allowed
On its webpage devoted to “small gatherings,” updated May 6, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addresses the topic of social gatherings with family and friends, “such as small holiday parties, family dinners and small special celebrations.” To make such events “safer,” CDC counsels hosts and attendees to limit the number of guests, wear a mask “with two or more layers…indoors and outdoors except when eating or drinking,” socially distance, avoid handshakes and hugs, supply one’s own food and dishes — and (precluding any “Happy Birthday” songs) avoid any loud cheering or singing. Better yet, CDC says, simply have a virtual gathering!
The JAMA birthday party study helpfully reinforces the CDC’s dour advice. Conducted by private-sector researchers from RAND Corporation, Harvard and “healthcare navigation” company Castlight Health, the study looked at privately insured households whose members did or did not have a birthday in the preceding two weeks and county-level COVID-19 prevalence data — but included no data from actual social gatherings.
Taken at face value, one can see how the study’s take-home message — that households in certain counties were possibly a little bit more likely to receive a COVID diagnosis subsequent to an adult or child having a birthday — could direct worriers toward the CDC’s “virtual gathering” solution. However, one needs to parse the study’s definition of risk. As has become par for the course in risk pronouncements designed to steer COVID-related behavior in a particular direction, the researchers said nothing about absolute risk, even though many consider absolute risk statistics to be “the most useful way of presenting research results to help … decision-making.”
Thus, while the study reported a 31% “relative increase” in COVID diagnoses “associated with birthdays” — a finding, moreover, that pertained solely to households in the 10% of counties with the highest background prevalence of COVID — the increased absolute risk (again, only in the 10% of high-background-prevalence counties) amounted to a flimsy 0.086 increase over the COVID “background rate” of .278/100. Nevertheless, the researchers augmented their antisocial message with the conclusion that “policy interventions designed to limit disease transmission should also focus on informal gatherings.”
Defending freedom
The heavy-handed marketing of COVID injections and COVID vaccine passports as tickets to “freedom” has brought George Orwell’s inverted “freedom is slavery” logic fully to the fore. The “appendix” to 1984 explains that while the fictional totalitarian regime Oceania could readily condone use of the word “free” in statements such as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds,” usages such as “politically free” or “intellectually free” had gone entirely and intentionally extinct because the concepts themselves had been erased.
The alarming rapidity with which the U.S. and once “robust” Western democracies were able to implement “elements of a locked-in, 360-degree totalitarianism” was facilitated not just by a heretofore unimaginable level of global policy coordination but also by the public’s complacency. The pressing question of the day, therefore, is whether citizens will continue to tolerate blatant efforts to memory-hole freedom.
Lobbying for COVID vaccine mandates and passports in the U.S., one of the latest darlings of vaccine coercion recently argued that the Biden administration “shouldn’t be so squeamish about vaccine verification,” openly calling mandates and “verification” desirable tools to “push [the unvaccinated] in the right direction.”
And if we are to believe Gallup poll propaganda, more than half of Americans are already on board, supporting policies such as having to show proof of vaccination to fly or attend sporting events or concerts. On the other hand, in an “unscientific” poll on independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s website, 97% of respondents answered “absolutely not!” to the question “Do you support requiring ‘vaccine passports’?”
The dispiriting cold water now being thrown on children’s birthday parties is part and parcel of a set of COVID-inaugurated policies that, in Naomi Wolf’s words, “seem designed to ensure that humans will have no ‘analog’ space or ‘analog’ culture left — no way to feel comfortable simply gathering in a room, touching one another as friends or allies, or joining together.”
Fortunately, as writer Allan Stevo has noted, Americans “are becoming increasingly firm and resolute” about freedom, “saying ‘Yes!’ to good things” and “saying ‘No!’ to bad things” — and that, says Stevo, “is exactly how bad times turn into good times.”
Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.
In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.
Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.
Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation.
Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power.
Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.
It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”
In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.
AG Merrick Garland: “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethically motivated violent extremists specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.” pic.twitter.com/4JtruuMSv2
For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included.
In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.”
The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.
Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists.
Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).
Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.
Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.”
Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason.
Pillars of Tyranny
The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.”
The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.
The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.
The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online.
Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States.
The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.
Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.”
The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.”
Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangout reported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.
Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing.
It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, thus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.
The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.
To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):
“The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”
Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.”
The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”
In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.
Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy.
Calling Their Shots?
While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.
Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.
Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:
“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”
This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestratedpsyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear.
It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.
A short video was recently brought to our attention on twitter. It shows a man and woman (off-camera) pulling up to a chainlink fence around a concrete yard and engaging in a brief conversation with a man on the other side.
The man is one of several dozen people walking in slow, counter-clockwise circuits around what appears to be an un-used car park. He’s polite to the strangers, discussing how tight security is, how many guards there are on each floor, and how often they’re allowed outside for this “exercise”.
At that point a security guard comes up and tells the man he’s not allowed to talk through the fence, and a brief argument ensues. The guard tells the people in the car that they cannot talk to anyone inside the facility without permission from “the office”. After moments of insisting the guard desists, likely to report the incident to his supervisor.
The couple in the car and the stranger behind the fence part on friendly terms, with the man remarking that he paid seventeen-hundred and fifty pounds to stay there.
Because this isn’t a prison or detention facility, it’s a “quarantine hotel”.
You can watch the video here:
[NOTE: This is a re-upload, with some discussion, from the channel Hugo Talks Some More. The original we have been unable to find, it was likely taken down. (If you’re aware of a copy of the original, or who filmed it, do let us know. We’d like to credit the people who did the filming.]
The quarantine hotels have been in the mainstream media before, with the reporting focusing on them being expensive, having terrible food and being dull. But this little clip offers something worse than that – a little glimpse of the dehumanising nature of detention. The mission-creep of arbitrary rules, enforced to the letter by people either too ignorant to know better or willingly malign, is an oft-repeated motif in human history. It never bodes well.
It’s telling to contrast (as Hugo does at the end of the video) the grey building – with its grey fence and grey yard full of people milling in grey circles – with the recent G7 summit in Cornwall.
Notice the lack of social distancing. Observe the absence of masks (except for the lowly servants, naturally). And, of course, not one of them had to pay to be there at all. In fact, we literally paid them a salary to do it – and then paid for the catering, alcohol and accommodation too.
Do these “world leaders” look like people in the middle of a life-threatening pandemic to you? Do they look like people that honestly believe they have a chance of catching a terrible disease?
When the people giving us these orders do not follow them themselves, they are not showing themselves to be “hypocrites”. They are showing themselves to be liars. They are admitting they don’t really believe what they’re saying.
Clearly, the rules of the “new normal” only apply to ordinary people. And that’s as sure a sign as any that it’s not now – and never was – really about “protecting” anyone. It was always about control.
Mary Holland and Simon Yanowitz discuss the impending start of the mandatory vaccination program in Israeli schools for 12- to 16-year-olds [recorded June 5, 2021 with vaccination in schools to begin June 6, 2021]
April 19 was the 28th anniversary of one of the most shameful episodes in modern American history: the massacre of 76 innocent men, women, and children by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) in a military-style assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas.
The assault followed a botched raid on the Davidian compound (staged at a time that it would distract attention from an ATF sexual harassment scandal) and a two-month standoff between the Davidians and the agency. The ATF used CS tear gas against the Dravidians, even though the gas was banned by an international treaty the US agreed to just months before the assault. So, if the assault had occurred on foreign soil as part of a military operation, it would have been a war crime.
Waco illustrates the dangers to our lives and liberties posed by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Eventually the deadly tools of the military-industrial complex will be brought home and used against US citizens.
In the 28 years since Waco, the military-industrial complex’s role in domestic law enforcement has grown. This is largely thanks to the Section 1033 program that provides military-grade equipment to local law enforcement. The people will not be safe from militarized law enforcement until Section 1033 is repealed and the military-industrial complex is dismantled.
The initial raid on the Branch Davidian compound was justified by claims the Davidians were violating unconstitutional gun laws. Infringements on the Second Amendment empower the federal police state. This is one reason why all those who value liberty must oppose all gun control laws, such as those currently being advocated by President Joe Biden and his congressional allies.
Last week, the ATF helped further Biden’s anti-Second Amendment agenda by issuing a proposed regulation regarding pistols fitted with stabilizers, thus allowing the agency to harass more gun owners.
Also last week, the Department of Justice unveiled model red flag legislation to encourage more states to adopt these laws. Red flag laws allow law enforcement to seize an individual’s firearms based on an allegation the individual may turn violent. Not surprisingly, allowing police to show up at a person’s home and demand he surrender his firearms can lead to violence. Expanding red flag laws will violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights, disregard due process, and lead to police being in more violent encounters.
David Chipman, President Biden’s nominee to head the ATF, is a former ATF agent turned gun control lobbyist. Mr. Chipman is an outspoken defender of the ATF’s actions at Waco. In addition to supporting red flag laws, he wants the ATF to arrest Americans who cannot buy a firearm because they failed a federal background check. The background check produces many false positives. Chipman’s proposal would lead to the arresting of many innocent Americans. This would not bother Chipman since he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that law-abiding gun owners are potential criminals.
The Waco massacre is proof that, as the late libertarian Karl Hess put it, “whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you end up an apologist for mass murder.” Those of us who understand this must continue to spread the truth about the true nature of the welfare-warfare-regulatory state. Key to regaining our liberty is making government officials abide by the same rules against the initiation of violence that apply to private citizens.
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
They’re called the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
As their home page states, they “regulate the practice of medicine in Ontario. Physicians are required to be members to practice medicine in Ontario.”
In other words, CPSO is THE medical board. They run the show. If practicing doctors make a wrong move or say the wrong thing, CPSO is there to step on their faces and discipline them and even cancel their licenses to practice.
But now a new rebel group of Canadian MDs has emerged. Why? Because CPSO has issued a fascist edict threatening practicing doctors. Read the threat carefully.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21): [1]
“The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.”
WE’RE YOUR BOSSES. YOU DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO. SHUT YOUR MOUTHS. MARCH STRAIGHT AHEAD. KILL YOUR PATIENTS IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT OBEY US.
The new rebels against this monster call themselves the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth. This is a brief excerpt from their response: [2]
“On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19.”
“We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.”
“As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.”
“The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients…”
I wondered what medical treatments, in general, CPSO supports and tolerates. It took me three minutes to find a Toronto outfit called the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation (CAMH). They promote electro-convulsive therapy. In other words, shock treatment.
In other words, delivering electric shocks to the brain. As a cure for “mental illness.” I call it torture.
Apparently, this treatment is just fine and dandy, but telling patients the COVID lockdowns are criminal is forbidden by the Nazi bureaucrats at CPSO. Saying the vaccine is dangerous is forbidden. Saying masks are useless and harmful is forbidden.
What would happen if these medical rebels, the Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth—say, 10,000 of them—took this war to the wall?
Practiced non-harmful medicine, kept warning their patients about the sociopathic COVID regulations and the vaccine, refused to knuckle under to the Nazi bureaucrats, even to the point of having their licenses stripped and going to jail?
What would happen, as many thousands/millions of Canadians rallied to their side?
I’ll tell you what would happen. Sanity. Revolution. The downfall of the scum.
We’re at Nuremberg 2.0, people. If you don’t know what that means, look it up.
Doctors clear their vision and their brains and do their level best to HEAL, or they follow orders of the Commandants and maim and kill. It’s one side or the other.
In my 83 years, I’ve known a few very good doctors, and a number of The Cold Ones. The Cold Ones administer, without feeling or remorse, the Book of Death.
They’re ice on the outside, and rotting fungus and stench within.
Many of them sit at the top of medical boards.
They turn open societies into concentration camps.
A recently filed lawsuit accuses Digital Recognition Network of covertly collecting vehicle data on millions of Americans and selling it for a profit.
On May 26, several vehicle owners sued the company Digital Recognition Network (DRN) for using its fleet of unmarked surveillance vehicles to collect data on Americans. The plaintiffs claim that DRN has driven its vehicles around United States and covertly gathered data on unsuspecting Americans while reaping profits.
Courthouse News reports that DRN has “amassed more than 20 billion license plate scans — equal to 70 scans for every vehicle in the nation.” The Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial was filed by plaintiff Guillermo Mata in response to DRN’s use of automatic license plate reader (ALPRs) systems. ALPRs are used to gather license plate, time, date and location of a vehicle. They can also be used to create a detailed map of where an individual travels and what they are doing with their time. The devices can be attached to light poles or toll booths, as well as on top of or inside vehicles.
The lawsuit alleges, “Defendant DRN created a nationwide surveillance program that tracks vehicle’s movements and, in turn, individuals’ locations.” The plaintiffs also claim that DRN “stores all of the amassed information in a proprietary database and makes it available to anyone willing to pay for access to it.”
The claim states that DRN’s “privately-owned surveillance network” is its fleet of “unmarked vehicles that patrol America’s roadways, equipped with high-speed cameras that allow them to capture photos of license plates, together with the time and location data of the photographed vehicles.”
After collecting the data DRN applies its proprietary algorithm to scan the data and make predictions about where the vehicle is traveling and where the vehicle may be located a future time. The plaintiffs argue that because DRN’s cameras are attached to moving vehicles they are difficult to see and “nearly unavoidable”. Further, the individuals being scanned by the cameras are not subjects of any law enforcement investigations, nor are they part of state or federal watchlists. DRN has also failed to reasonably notify the public they are under constant surveillance by the network of vehicles outfitted with this technology.
DRN openly advertises their ability to collect “vehicle stories” that contain location and time data that can reveal private information that individuals may not wish to be public. The complaint states that, “DRN can reveal whether an individual has recently visited an abortion clinic, a cancer treatment clinic, a religious center, or an LGBT community center, thus giving insight into one’s health and medical history, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.”
Digital Recognition Network uses the Reaper HD camera to gather this data from unsuspecting drivers. The Reaper is manufactured and sold by Motorola who describes it as a “complete, fixed solution” which allows users to “receive real-time alerts, conduct comprehensive searches and leverage advanced analytics to uncover new insights and operate more efficiently.”
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the hopes that the court will find that DRN’s surveillance program is in violation of current California law. In 2016, California passed a law regulating and limiting the use of ALPRs. When passing the law California legislators acknowledged the breadth of privacy concerns associated with the technology. These concerns include:
The collection of a license plate number, location, and time stamp over multiple time points can identify not only a person’s exact whereabouts but also their pattern of movement.
Unlike other types of personal information that are covered by existing law, civilians are not always aware when their ALPR data is being collected.
One does not even need to be driving to be subject to ALPR technology: A car parked on the side of the road can be scanned by an ALPR system.
The Fight Against ALPRs
The concerns associated with Automatic License Plate Readers are not new. In 2014, I first reported on the dangers associated with ALPRs. At that time the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff Department claiming that the agencies were using ALPRs to gather information on drivers. The two watchdog agencies argued that the two departments were illegally keeping quiet on how the information is used.
In 2015, I reported on the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) investing in this controversial technology despite the known privacy concerns. That same year it was also revealed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to local and state law enforcement agencies for the purchase of ALPRs systems.
I have also reported on the potential for abuse of ALPRs, specifically the potential for law enforcement departments and officers to create lists of “vehicles of interest” and alert other ALPR users when the vehicle is spotted. Officers can search individual plates numbers in the ALPR system to track during their shift. There is no prerequisite of reasonable suspicion or a warrant needed to be added to such a list, creating a situation that is ripe for abuse. For example, in 2009 the BBC reported on the case of John Catt, a regular attendee of anti-war protests in his home town, Brighton. His vehicle was tagged by police at one of the events and he was added to a “hotlist”. Catt said while on a trip to London he was pulled over by anti-terror police. He was threatened with arrest if he did not cooperate and answer the questions of the police.
More recently, the Biden administration has continued the push for militarizing the border with ALPRs. On February 25, more than 40 privacy, immigrants’ rights, and civil liberties organizations called on the Biden administration to abandon a bill which would extend the Trump administration’s border policy, particularly creation of a “virtual” or biometric wall. These organizations – including Mijente, Rio Grande Valley Equal Voice Network, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Fight for the Future, and Restore the Fourth – wrote a letter to the Biden admin scolding the recently minted president for continuing the militarization of the border.
The letter, titled A Virtual Wall Is Trump’s Wall by Another Name, warned that “the rapid expansion of license plate recognition technology used by Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies is a major privacy and policing concern.” The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil liberties organizations have been warning about the rise in use of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), high definition cameras capable of seeing not only a vehicle’s license plate, but the people in the vehicle.
While most Americans are likely unaware of this invasive technology, they are being monitored by ALPRs every single day. Not only do Americans face surveillance from ALPRs in the hands of law enforcement, but now they must contend with constant surveillance from a private company they have likely never heard of.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. Appearances can be deceiving.
In his book, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, author Richard Rothstein, a leading expert on housing policy, describes the myth that cities came to be racially divided through de-facto segregation, that is, through individual prejudices, income differences, or the actions of banks and real estate agencies.
Rothstein makes clear that it was laws and policy decisions by local, state, and federal governments that directly promoted the discriminatory patterns. From racial zoning in the 1920s to urban planning of the 1950s, to federal subsidies to builders not to build homes for Blacks, it was plain, open discrimination, sanctioned by government, that violated laws that continue unabated today.
The color of law is a cover of law.
Color of Law = Unlawful Mandates
Color of Law operates today by unlawful mandates and Emergency Orders, which serve one purpose: to allow one group of people to abolish your inherent rights. Remember, no one has more rights than anyone else.
No school, no store, no bank, no library, and no governor can make any order or policy that violates your rights under Natural law. Natural laws are determined by fundamental forces within Nature. Natural law supersedes all other laws, including man’s laws. The Constitution is codified based on the Universal law that no man has the right to rule over another man, which will always be the truth from the day of birth to the day of death. Natural Law is based in two principles: Truth and Do no harm.
Natural Law is based in principles of truth about the reality we live in. Principles are first and foremost, at the root, the most necessary and important, a foundation to build upon. The word “principle” expresses Natural Moral Law in the very way we use the word itself, such as “in principle” and “on principle”. Natural Law is an essential property of existence; it is born into being and is forever there in our reality without human causality. Our goal is to put these principle first-things first in our lives, to recognize and align with them because they are based in truth, not belief. Man’s society is not putting original, generative, beginning, foundational principles first, but trivialities, lies, and deception. Therefore, Natural Law is not man’s law.
What you need to know in 8 easy steps:
Your rights and freedoms are inherent or inborn, a birthright, granted by your Creator.
Government institutions do not grant rights. Institutions are established to protect your inherent rights.
Governments can only grant benefits and privileges, which comes with limits and consequences.
Governments cannot mandate anything under coercion or duress, such as, “Do this or else.”
Governments cannot use fear or safety as reasons to take peoples’ rights.
Therefore, a “mask policy” set up under government powers is a crime under the color of law that violates your rights and the principles of Natural Law.
Defending your rights and freedoms is a personal responsibility, ie., an ability to respond (appropriately, reasonably, morally).
Being accountable is the ability to account for your response.
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
If you understand that a government cannot abolish rights which it has no ability to grant in the first place, then you are armed with enough knowledge to begin the process of calling out the facade when you see it practiced. Each success brings confidence for future successes. Humanity, as a whole, moves from oppression to expression, from tyranny to freedom.
Christopher Key, a man who had enough of unlawful dictates, stood up to the Jefferson County School Board in Alabama, and called them out.
Pro Se litigant Luis Ewing shares information on maintaining your rights of public accommodation (without masks and medicines) based on religious discrimination, and violations of the state and federal constitutions under the 1964 Civil Rights Act pursuant to Title 42 Section 1983.
Texan, Randall Kenton sued the Texas Governor by name, in court, causing the governor to rescind the State mask mandate, allowing all bars and restaurants to reopen at full capacity. Twenty state governors followed suit, lifting their own mandates out of fear they would lose their insurance for fraud. See the complaint filed that could be used as a template anywhere. Health officials continued to recommend wearing a mask based on “personal responsibility” but no law: another example of Color of Law.
These people do not win by a belief. They win by a knowing. They know who they are. By holding their positions and protecting their rights, not only are they showing personal responsibility, but they are an example for others.
Cancel The Master-Slave Paradigm
What Christopher Key and others are showing is that when you reveal that a FRAUD has been perpetrated, and you follow it up by naming names, the perpetrators stand down. Behind all corporations are names of men and women. In general, suing corporate entities does nothing for the greater good, and never has. Corrupt companies, such as Pfizer, may be found criminally liable and fined in court over and over, but they continue to operate and to cause harm. However, going after individuals by name affects their pocketbooks.
No individual governor or prosecutor or judge or school board member wants their insurance rates to go up or to be dropped by insurers. Push just a little and the game has suddenly changed in the peoples’ favor.
Illegal, unlawful, and immoral acts are not only reprehensible but are also a violation of your Natural rights, as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence, and as reflected in the national and state constitutions. If you are the subject of intimidation or coercion by agencies or governments or schools or employers, forcing a medical experiment upon you as a condition to participate in society, your rights have been trampled.
Why do the majority of people become subservient to lawless authorities without any evidence of a clear and present danger? Why do people refuse to stand up for their rights and freedoms? Why do people believe they do not have a choice when it comes to forced muzzles or forced medicines when they do?
Because the majority of people have been indoctrinated through the 15,000-hour public school system and programmed by the Tel-A-Vision to not think for themselves. They have been conditioned to accept government handouts that create co-dependence. They have been dumbed down and emasculated to accept a master outside themselves.
What if accepting stimulus handouts increased the federal debt to bankrupt a nation, which amounted to a federal crime? What if knowing that a national bankruptcy could be the excuse used to reset the debt credit currency system to a Crypto credit system with your body as collateral?
What if this whole scenario already happened during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic where masking was found to be the cause of secondary pneumonia and an invisible virus became the tool to rest society? The Great Depression followed the Spanish flu and a new system was established to enslave people using the birth certificate and social security system. From the Great Depression to the Great Reset, an invisible virus that never existed was blamed. Government promised people benefits and privileges in exchange for their rights. For more details, read Recycling the Spanish Flu Pandemic.
No government. No business, no medical professional, no school, and no employer can require or mandate ANY medical treatment or intervention, including injections or face coverings that block your ability to breathe freely. To require any injection as a condition to participate in society is unlawful coercion according to state law.
Use State Law In Your Favor
You can use state law in your favor. In California, Peggy Hall of thehealthyamerican.org teaches people how to protect their rights using the State Constitution and business codes. She provides documents on her website that you can print and carry with you, such as the right to public accommodation, as well as tools against discrimination. According to California Law:
24170: This is the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act 24171: The Legislature hereby finds and declares … the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.
24172 This is the “experimental subject’s bill of rights,” and states that individuals…
(j) Be given the opportunity to decide to consent or not to consent to a medical experiment without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or undue influence on the subject’s decision.
Sec. 16. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE; NO PREFERENCE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT OR MODE OF WORSHIP. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.
Shakespeare wrote, All the world is a stage. This is why appearances can be deceiving. In this world of appearances, you can separate yourself from the crowd. Do you beg for rights from government? Do you know who you are? Do you know where you live?
You live in your body. Therefore, you have inherent rights. Your rights include the right to say NO to deception. You can say NO CONTRACT. I DO NOT CONSENT to any offer, contract, testing, treatment, intervention, or injection. Ask them to show you the laws. Man’s laws compel artificial or legal PERSONS, but do not compel you. Know the difference. And think twice before signing your name.
You are not subject to masters unless you are a subject. You are not a slave unless you accept a master outside yourself. You have the power to shift the direction and devolution of humanity by taking responsibility for your actions.
Simple know who you are.
The Liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the Laws of Nature, because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever. – Mikhail Bakunin
When we were leaving Oregon and researching states, we didn’t have the advantage of knowing how crazy or sane each state’s governor truly was. You guys, who are considering a move now, get to see which governors have handled the last year the best. I’m really glad we left Oregon, seeing how Kate Brown has treated Oregon residents and business owners.
Let’s be clear–I was not a fan of lockdowns or face covering mandates, at all. I think people need to breathe and should be able to make their own choices about whether they want to wear a mask or not, and whether they want to stay home or not. I think that vaccine passports will lead down a terrible, discriminatory, ugly path and I pray that our country does not implement them.
Assuming you’re still following and want to know more, let’s dive in and figure out which ones handled lockdowns, masks, and this whole vaccine passport idea the BEST, and WORST (ahem, Oregon). Also, it’s important to note how the stay-at-home-orders impacted people’s livelihoods, so I have included the current unemployment rate for each state.
While many do not want to admit that the virus restrictions have been political–it is clear, when you research the facts, that this has been very political. In general, states with Democrat governors had more restrictions and states with Republican governors had less. To show this point, I have marked states with Republican governors in red and Democrat governors in blue.
By the way, for the naysayers who believe we should lock down, wear masks and check everyone’s vaccination status from now until the end of time, I’ll also share the deaths per million residents of each state. In my opinion, the states that promoted freedom, don’t exactly look like they have “blood on their hands,” as some would say (talk about extreme rhetoric!). Okay, moving on…
The States, In Order (Best to Worst)
Based on scores from the data below, with COVID-19 Deaths per million listed next to every state. States at the top were the least restricted states and also the states that lost the least businesses and have the smallest unemployment numbers. The states at the bottom were the most restricted states and also have the highest unemployment rates and the highest number of businesses lost.
**Please Note** The COVID death counts did NOT increase because a state was less restrictive. NOR did COVID death counts decrease because a state locked down longer, shut down churches or banned HCQ.
**Also Note** When people say that the lockdowns and masks and banning of life-saving meds was “not political,” they’re lying. Look at the red vs blue states. Republican governors, in general, cared about freedom and Democrat governors, in general, ceased the opportunity to control their people. Again, their extreme control did not prevent deaths, which was what they told us they were doing. This has definitely been political.
Arkansas, under 2,000 per million
South Dakota, 2,000 per million or more
North Dakota, under 2,000 per million
Nebraska, under 1,500 per million
Utah, under 1,000 per million
Florida, under 2,000 per million
Iowa, under 2,000 per million
South Carolina, under 2,000 per million
Tennessee, under 2,000 per million
Alabama, 2,000 per million or more
Ohio, under 2,000 per million
Wyoming, under 1,500 per million
Georgia, under 2,000 per million
Missouri, under 2,000 per million
Idaho, under 1,500 per million
Indiana, 2,000 per million or more
Texas, under 2,000 per million
Arizona, 2,000 per million or more
Alaska, under 1,000 per million
Wisconsin, under 1,500 per million
Kansas, under 2,000 per million
Oklahoma, under 2,000 per million
Montana, under 2,000 per million
West Virginia, under 2,000 per million
Mississippi, 2,000 per million or more
New Hampshire, under 1,000 per million
Pennsylvania, 2,000 per million or more
Colorado, under 1,500 per million
Louisiana, 2,000 per million or more
Michigan, 2,000 per million or more
Kentucky, under 1,500 per million
Vermont, under 1,000 per million
Minnesota, under 1,500 per million
Maryland, under 1,500 per million
North Carolina, under 1,500 per million
Massachusetts, 2,000 per million or more
Virginia, under 1,500 per million
Connecticut, 2,000 per million or more
Rhode Island, 2,000 per million or more
Maine, under 1,000 per million
Delaware, under 2,000 per million
Washington, under 1,000 per million
Nevada, under 2,000 per million
Illinois, under 2,000 per million
District of Columbia, under 2,000 per million
New Mexico, under 2,000 per million
Hawaii, under 1,000 per million
Oregon, under 1,000 per million
New Jersey, 2,000 per million or more
New York, 2,000 per million or more
California, under 2,000 per million
Our state, Virginia, isn’t doing so hot! BUT! We moved from Oregon (#48) to Virginia (#37), so at least we’ve moved up in the world! ?
Where do you want to live, now?
THE DETAILS
If you’d like to know how each state ranked in each area, here are the details! This is a very long post!
Mask Mandates
In my opinion, mask mandates have been ridiculous, unproven, government overreach. While some states have were lenient when it came to people with health conditions or the hearing impaired, some states required masks no matter what, even outdoors, and on athletic fields.
States that Did Not Mandate Masks Note that some of these states did have mask mandates in particular cities or counties.
Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming
States that are Expected to End their Mask Mandates Soon
Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia
States that STILL Have Mask Mandatesas of May 22, 2021
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
Stay at Home Orders
In all situations through history, the sick were quarantined, NOT the healthy. In my opinion, stay at home orders were a crazy, controlling, unproven decision.Some governors kept the stay-at-home orders going for too long, while others never imposed such orders.
States that Did Not Impose Stay at Home Orders
Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting 30 Days or Less
Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting 40 Days or Less
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, West Virginia
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting 50 Days or Less
Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting More than 50 Days
California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting More than 60 Days
Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania
States with Stay at Home Orders Lasting More than 70 Days
Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia
Business Shut Downs
Nearly every state ordered restaurants and “non-essential”businesses to shut down. This title, “Non-essential,”was also used in World War II–by Hitler and the Nazis. There was no place for this kind of government overreach and these measures have caused many small businesses to close down.
The Only States that Did Not Shut Down Restaurants
South Dakota, Nebraska (Restricted but not shut down)
States that Did Not Shut Down “Non-Essential” Businesses
Arkansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Businesses Lost
Shutting down businesses leads to the permanent loss of businesses, as all states are experiencing to some degree.
States that were Not Included On a List of States that Lost the Most Businesses
Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee, Utah
States that Lost Less than 150 Businesses Per Million Residents
Delaware, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia
States that Lost Less than 200 Businesses Per Million Residents
Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin
States that Lost More than 200 Businesses Per Million Residents
Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming
States that Lost More than 250 Businesses Per Million Residents
Colorado, Oregon, Washington
States that Lost More than 300 Businesses Per Million Residents
California, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Nevada
Gathering Restrictions
Most states limited groups of people from meeting. Each state varied in the number of people who could gather, and some states prohibited gatherings entirely.
States that Restricted Gatherings to 50 People
Arizona, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,Colorado, District of Columbia,Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming
States that Restricted Gatherings to 5 People
New Mexico
States that Restricted All Gatherings
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
School Closures
The shut downs impacted children, too. As of Spring 2021, this is where each state stands on schools reopening.
States that Have Required Schools to Reopenor at Least Some Grades to Reopen
Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Texas, West Virginia
States that are Allowing Districts to Decide About Reopening
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,Colorado, Connecticut,Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that Have Partial Closures in Effect
California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Mexico
Church Closures
Americans have the right to assemble, and the governor should not make any laws or restrictions on this right, no matter what. Closing down churches was unconstitutional government overreach.When bars and casinos were allowed to open but churches were not, it became very clear that this was indeed, political.
As of September 2020
States with No Church Restrictions
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 500 People
Alaska
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 75%Capacity
Louisiana
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 250 People
Minnesota
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 50% Capacity
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 150 People
New Jersey
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 125 People
Rhode Island
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 100 People
California, Connecticut, District of Columbia
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 50 People
States that Limited Church Gatherings to 25% Capacity
New Mexico
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 10 People
New York
States that Banned Singing in Church
California
Last State to Lift the Ban on Church Services
New Jersey
As of April 2020
States with No Church Restrictions
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 50 People
Connecticut
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 25 People
Oregon
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 10 People
Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,Massachusetts,Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that Restricted Church Gatherings to 5 People
Rhode Island
States that Banned Church Gatherings Altogether
Alaska, California, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Washington
Unemployment Rates
All of the closures, of course, impacted unemployment rates.
States with Unemployment RatesUnder 3.0
Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont
District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
States with Unemployment Rates Over 8.0 (The Highest in the Country)
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, New York
States that Banned or Restricted a Potentially Life-Saving Medication
Hydroxychloroquine suddenly became a political drug when President Trump mentioned it in a press briefing. Even though it showed promise in preventing extreme cases of the virus, some states decided to ban the medication. Many believe the governors who did this caused unnecessary deaths.
States that Allowed the Use of HCQ for COVID-19 or Did Not Prohibit It
District of Columbia, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
States that Banned or Restricted HCQ Use for COVID-19
Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia
Vaccine Passports
Vaccine passports are a scary concept! If we need a vaccine passport to get on a public bus or to enter a store, I believe we will be very near to Jesus returning. We can’t know the day or the hour, but end times prophecy will be lining up…
States that have Banned Vaccine Passports
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
States that have Discussed Banning Vaccine Passports
Alaska, Delaware,Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin
States that are Unsure or have Mixed Policies about Vaccine Passports
Connecticut, Colorado, Kansas, Maine,Maryland, Massachusetts,Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma,Vermont, West Virginia
States that have Discussed Issuing Vaccine Passports
California,Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia
States that are Working On or Have Issued Vaccine Passports or Have Made it Necessary for People to Show their Vaccine Card (Effectively, Vaccine Passports)
Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Washington
COVID-19 Deaths
One might expect that no mask mandates and no stay home orders would mean more deaths. This hasn’t necessarily been the case.
Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
States with 2,000 Deaths per Million or More
Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota
Some Individual State Notes
When I found interesting information about each state’s requirements, I shared them here:
Alabama
“Businesses are not required to deny entry to people who aren’t wearing a mask, but they retain the right to do so.”
“The order doesn’t apply to people with a medical condition or disability that prevents him or her from wearing a facial covering.”
“The facial-covering requirement does not apply to people who are actively engaged in exercise or athletic activities.”
However, “The penalty for violating the order can result in a $500 fine and/or jail time.”
“Exceptions for exercise. The facial-covering requirement does not apply to:
3
(i) Any person who is actively engaged in exercise in a gym or other athletic facility
if he or she maintains six feet of separation from persons of another household;
(ii) Any person who is directly participating in athletic activities in compliance with
paragraph 11 of this order; or
(iii) Any person who is in a swimming pool, lake, water attraction, or similar body of
water, though wearing a face covering or social distancing is strongly encouraged
if safe and practicable.
c. Exceptions for effective communication. The facial-covering requirement does not
apply to:
(i) Any person who is seeking to communicate with another person where the ability
to see the person’s mouth is essential for communication (such as when the other
person has a hearing impairment); or
(ii) Any person speaking for broadcast or to an audience if the person maintains six
feet of separation from persons from another household.
d. Exceptions to facilitate constitutionally protected activity. The facial-covering
requirement does not apply to:
(i) Any person who is voting, though wearing a face covering is strongly
encouraged; or
(ii) Any person who cannot wear a facial covering because he or she is actively
providing or obtaining access to religious worship, though wearing a face
covering is strongly encouraged.
e. Exceptions for essential job functions. The facial-covering requirement does not apply
to:
(i) Any first responder (including law enforcement officers, firefighters, or
emergency medical personnel) if necessary to perform a public-safety function; or
(ii) Any person performing a job function if wearing a face covering is inconsistent
with industry safety standards or a business’s established safety protocols.”
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson said at a news conference on March 16 that restaurants can remain open “on their own choosing and based upon market demand”. Source
California
“For outdoor activities,” what Ghaly called “mega outdoor events” with attendance of more than10,000, he announced, “We are recommending that those operators have a system to verify vaccination or verify.” Operators of those events can also “give that person an option to come into the event and wear a mask.” Source
Delaware
“There are challenges with respect to mostly enforcement because you don’t know who’s vaccinated or not,’’ he said. “We’re not going to be in the business of asking people for a so-called vaccine passport.”
“Here in Iowa, we will protect Iowans from being forced by tyrannical governments to inject their body with chemicals that they may or may not wish to have,” state Sen. Jake Chapman (R), said, according to the Register.”
“I really think the focus for us and for the commonwealth generally should be on getting everybody who wants to get vaccinated vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can. There’s plenty of time to talk about some of this other stuff,” Baker said during the press briefing in Revere.”
“I was asked about the vaccination passport, if I was open-minded to it at one point. I said ‘Yeah, that’s something that I’d be open minded to,’” said the governor. “I don’t want anyone to think that we’re up here pounding the table, to think that this is something we unquestionably support. The CDC is the place that that discussion and that guidance has to come from.”
“Hoverson said that “The mask is a part of a larger apparatus of a movement of unelected, wealthy bureaucrats, who are robbing our freedoms and perpetuating lies.” He also reportedly said, “Our state is not a prison camp.”
“In order to meet the CDC guidance that someone who is vaccinated does not need to wear a mask, or keep their distance, we need to know who is vaccinated. We need someone to disclose their vaccination status so they can remove their mask in a setting and not keep their distance,” Dr. Sidelinger said.”
On April 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis staged a boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. Members of the Storm Troopers (“die Sturmabteilung,” or the “Storm Department,” as I like to think of them) stood around outside of Jewish-owned stores with Gothic-lettered placards reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews!” The boycott itself was a total disaster — most Germans ignored it and just went on with their lives — but it was the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews and totalitarianism in Nazi Germany.
Last week, here in “New Normal” Germany, the government (which, it goes without saying, bears no resemblance to the Nazi regime, or any other totalitarian regime) implemented a social-segregation system that bans anyone who refuses to publicly conform to the official “New Normal” ideology from participating in German society. From now on, only those who have an official “vaccination pass” or proof of a negative PCR test are allowed to sit down and eat at restaurants, shop at a “non-essential” stores, or go to bars, or the cinema, or wherever.
Here’s a notice from the website of Prater, a popular beer garden in Berlin:
Of course, there is absolutely no valid comparison to be made between these two events, or between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany, nor would I ever imply that there was. That would be illegal in “New Normal” Germany, as it would be considered “relativizing the Holocaust,” not to mention being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” or whatever. Plus, it’s not like there are SA goons standing outside shops and restaurants with signs reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t sell to the Unvaccinated and Untested!” It’s just that it’s now illegal to do that, i.e., sell anything to those of us whom the media and the government have systematically stigmatized as “Covid deniers” because we haven’t converted to the new official ideology and submitted to being “vaccinated” or “tested.”
Protesting the new official ideology is also illegal in “New Normal” Germany. OK, I think I should probably rephrase that. I certainly don’t want to misinform anyone. Protesting the “New Normal” isn’t outlawed per se. You’re totally allowed to apply for a permit to protest against the “Covid restrictions” on the condition that everyone taking part in your protest wears a medical-looking N95 mask and maintains a distance of 1.5 meters from every other medical-masked protester … which is kind of like permitting anti-racism protests as long as the protesters all wear Ku Klux Klan robes and perform a choreographed karaoke of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama.
Who says the Germans don’t have a sense of humor?
I don’t mean to single out the Germans. There is nothing inherently totalitarian, or fascist, or robotically authoritarian and hyper-conformist about the Germans, as a people. The fact that the vast majority of Germans clicked their heels and started mindlessly following orders, like they did in Nazi Germany, the moment the “New Normal” was introduced last year doesn’t mean that all Germans are fascists by nature. Most Americans did the same thing. So did the British, the Australians, the Spanish, the French, the Canadians, and a long list of others. It’s just that, well, I happen to live here, so I’ve watched as Germany has been transformed into “New Normal Germany” up close and personal, and it has definitely made an impression on me.
The ease with which the German authorities implemented the new official ideology, and how fanatically it has been embraced by the majority of Germans, came as something of a shock. I had naively believed that, in light of their history, the Germans would be among the first to recognize a nascent totalitarian movement predicated on textbook Goebbelsian Big Lies (i.e., manipulated Covid “case” and “death” statistics), and would resist it en masse, or at least take a moment to question the lies their leaders were hysterically barking at them.
I couldn’t have been more wrong.
Here we are, over a year later, and waiters and shop clerks are “checking papers” to enforce compliance with the new official ideology. (And, yes, the “New Normal” is an official ideology. When you strip away the illusion of an apocalyptic plague, there isn’t any other description for it). Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally “vaccinated.” Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in “PCR-test stations.” The government is debating mandatory “vaccination” of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission. And so on. At this point, I’m just sitting here waiting for the news that mass “disinfection camps” are being set up to solve the “Unvaccinated Question.”
Whoops … there I go again, “relativizing the Holocaust.” I really need to stop doing that. The Germans take this stuff very seriously, especially with Israel under relentless attack by the desperately impoverished people it has locked inside an enormous walled ghetto, and is self-defensively ethnically cleansing.
But, seriously, there is no similarity whatsoever between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany. Sure, both systems suspended the constitution, declared a national “state of emergency” enabling the government to rule by decree, inundated the masses with insane propaganda and manipulated “scientific facts,” outlawed protests, criminalized dissent, implemented a variety of public rituals, and symbols, and a social segregation system, to enforce compliance with their official ideologies, and demonized anyone who refused to comply … but, other than that, there’s no similarity, and anyone who suggests there is is a dangerous social-deviant extremist who probably needs to be quarantined somewhere, or perhaps dealt with in some other “special” way.
Plus, the two ideologies are completely different. One was a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on imaginary racial superiority and the other is a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on an imaginary “apocalyptic plague” … so what the hell am I even talking about? On top of which, no swastikas, right? No swastikas, no totalitarianism! And nobody’s mass murdering the Jews, that I know of, and that’s the critical thing, after all!
So, never mind. Just ignore all that crazy stuff I just told you about “New Normal” Germany. Don’t worry about “New Normal” America, either. Or “New Normal” Great Britain. Or “New Normal” wherever. Get experimentally “vaccinated.” Experimentally “vaccinate” your kids. Prove your loyalty to the Reich … sorry, I meant to global capitalism. Ignore those reports of people dying and suffering horrible adverse effects. Wear your mask. Wear it forever. God knows what other viruses are out there, just waiting to defile your bodily fluids and cause you to experience a flu-like illness, or cut you down in the prime of your seventies or eighties … and, Jesus, I almost forgot “long Covid.” That in itself is certainly enough to justify radically restructuring society so that it resembles an upscale hospital theme park staffed by paranoid, smiley-faced fascists in fanciful designer Hazmat suits.
Oh, and keep your “vaccination papers” in order. You never know when you’re going to have to show them to some official at the airport, or a shop, or restaurant, or to your boss, or your landlord, or the police, or your bank, or your ISP, or your Tinder date … or some other “New Normal” authority figure. I mean, you don’t want to be mistaken for a “Covid denier,” or an “anti-vaxxer,” or a “conspiracy theorist,” or some other type of ideological deviant, and be banished from society, do you?
For much of the past month national media has been replete with headlines decrying “vaccine hesitancy” as coronavirus infection rates continue on the decline. Amid dire “warnings” this may “hinder” herd immunity goals, local and federal health agencies are busy pouring vast resources into vaccine-promoting ad campaigns. “The United States has a surplus of coronavirus vaccine doses on its hands, and long gone are the days when people waited hours to get jabbed. Dwindling demand has forced governors and mayors to get creative,” The Washington Post observed this week.
But one initiative in Dallas County in Texas is going far beyond anything we’ve seen thus far, and as many on social media have observed, it is downright creepy and bizarre in its brazenly coercive optics. Texas has long been fully opened and bars and restaurants are now packed, but vaccine sites are not, apparently. So naturally Dallas County Health and Human Services (DCHHS) thought it would be a good idea to go to the bars with the vaccines… along with uniformed US Army National Guard soldiers.
On a busy Friday night in a Dallas neighborhood widely dubbed the “live music capital of North Texas” US military personnel entered popular venues, including random convenience stores (as seen in the video), to coerce coax unvaccinated individuals to get the jab on the spot.
“So right now we are going to give a COVID vaccine to someone inside a 7-Eleven – this is what community service looks like and getting the community vaccinated,” a video narrator states.
The Dallas County HHS featured its efforts in a short social media clip showing a couple of US Army solders in full camouflage fatigues flanking a top Dallas health official.
“We’re going out tonight too administering the COVID-19 to bar goers in Deep Ellum,”the Twitter post said.
“By getting vaccinated you’ll be able to enjoy going out again knowing that you’re safe & protected” – except of course the people in the popular nightlife area this past weekend were already clearly quite comfortable “going out again” to have a good time. A local CBS-DFW news clip said of the new Dallas HHS-National Guard campaign that Dallas County is hoping to attract the “younger crowd”.
Not only were multiple uniformed federal troops manning a “pop-up” vaccine table on a Deep Ellum street, but they were filmed going into the venues to confront encounter people.
The local CBS affiliate emphasized the campaign “targets” young people (as the above local news coverage of the initiative spells out exactly).
“Specifically where the younger people are,” as “this week the FDA announced it’s expanding emergency use authorization for Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those 12 and up,” CBS said. And one top Dallas health official told the broadcaster: “That’s why we are here” …as uniformed soldiers stood behind him.
One 7-11 clerk who agreed to receive the shot was asked by the troops: “How do you feel that you got the vaccine right here, at work, by US soldiers?”
They was walking around Deep Ellum last night randomly trying to vaccinate people and bar goers who haven’t been vaccinated yet in dallas pic.twitter.com/AQ3dH44Lbj
The man then extolls the benefits of being a US citizen – which given the weird optics of the whole encounter between the jab-proffering Army personnel and an apparently somewhat recent immigrant to the US, brings up some serious questions…
For starters, when a “vaccine crew” of literal uniformed soldiers randomly walks up to citizens saying they “need to get vaxxed”… do the individuals understand it’s entirely an option and not an authoritative mandate? And would (in the example of the video) a recent immigrant to the country or even new American citizen understand the nature of the encounter?
But of course this appears to be the entire point…
“Since Feb. 24, it [Dallas] has served as one of several federal vaccination sites run by the U.S. military and Federal Emergency Management Agency aimed at increasing immunity in underserved and highly vulnerable communities,” The Dallas Morning News wrote previously.
With vaccine hesitancy on the rise, and with President Biden’s new bizarre announcement that “Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price” – is the new “creative” strategy all about putting “muscle” in terms of serious federal authority in the room (or on busy nightlife venue streets) for added pressure?
New York partnered with IBM to launch Excelsior Pass. The digital pass is portrayed as part of the state’s “safe reopening” plan, but is it really just a plan by Big Tech, Big Pharma and the government to commercialize personal health data?
On March 26, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the state had partnered with IBM to launch Excelsior Pass, a digital health pass billed by state officials as part of New York’s “safe reopening” plan.
The pass is designed to provide a “free, fast and secure” way for New Yorkers to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination in order to gain entry to major sporting events, theatre and arts performances, concert halls and wedding venues.
How does Excelsior Pass work?
Excelsior Pass is a free app that can be downloaded on phones. It allows users to display a QR code verifying either proof of COVID vaccination or proof of a negative COVID test result.
Venues use a companion app to scan the user’s QR code which then generates either a green checkmark or a red X, depending on vaccination status or COVID test result. Users have to show a photo ID with their name and birth date to verify the pass belongs to them.
New Yorkers have the option to show alternate proof of vaccination or test results, for example, a different mobile application or paper form, to gain entrance to the business or venue. Upon entrance, users are still required to maintain social distancing, abide by mask guidelines and use proper hand hygiene.
Initially designed to allow entry to major venues such as Madison Square Garden in New York City, Times Union Center in Albany and other large venues for weddings, concerts and special events, the pass was later expanded for use at smaller arts, entertainment and event venues throughout the state.
IBM has history of collecting personal data
This isn’t the first time IBM’s technology has played a key role in identifying and segregating people based on their health information.
The New York Times best-selling book by Edwin Black, “IBM and the Holocaust,” details the chilling role IBM’s past president, Thomas J. Watson, played while serving the Third Reich for 12 years.
According to Black, IBM was intimately involved in providing the punch cards and tabulating machines that helped Adolf Hitler carry out his ultimate plan. While this is not a well-known aspect of IBM’s history, the company has never denied any of the facts outlined in Black’s book. The book details evidence based on more than 20,000 documents from seven countries, including internal IBM correspondence, memos from the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Justice, and from concentration camps.
Black’s book chronicles how IBM played a pivotal role in the Holocaust, in not only the identification and tabulation of Jews, but also their expulsion from society, including the confiscation of their property, ghettoization, deportation and ultimately their extermination.
How will IBM’s role differ this time?
IBM used its Digital Health Pass technology, which is part of the tech company’s Watson Works, to develop the Excelsior Pass. The pass is built on IBM’s own blockchain technology, allowing organizations and businesses to verify health credentials of individuals, employees, customers and other end users based on predetermined criteria specified by an organization, state or business.
IBM claims privacy is central and the data is secured and verifiable. The company also says the encrypted information is protected on the user’s digital wallet, and the user has “complete control” over how and with whom they share the information.
But how is sharing personal health data with Big Tech considered private? If someone is refused entrance to the workplace, a business or venue based on the Excelsior Pass, the person’s status would become known to colleagues at work, or strangers nearby at a social venue.
And what will IBM do with this data? How do we know IBM won’t turn over the data to government officials or sell it to other entities?
Data security concerns, human rights infringement
Requiring proof of a vaccine or a negative test result is a violation of fundamental human rights and promotes segregation based on unproven and experimental medical interventions. Let’s evaluate a few key factors:
The COVID vaccine has yet to prove in any clinical trials that it can stop person-to-person transmission. Using the Excelsior Pass to show proof of having the vaccine to enter a public venue, business or workspace is not proof of lower risk of transmission to others.
PCR tests have been proven to have high rates of false positives. A study conducted in April 2020, showed when PCR tests have a cycle threshold around 33 they lead to false positives 80% of the time. PCR tests cycled above 34 can reach 100% false positives. Yet the FDA was recommending PCR tests cycled around 40 times. Excelsior Pass will grant access to businesses and venues based on proof of negative test results, however the methodology is inaccurate and based upon a faulty and broken system of testing.
While Cuomo touts the Excelsior Pass as a way to return to normal, the pass comes with the same restrictions that have been in place this entire time. Per the NYS guidelines, Excelsior pass holders are still required to wear facial coverings and social distance.
Slippery slope
Once Excelsior Pass rolls out, it will likely expand to include more businesses throughout New York and could expand to more states. Will New Yorkers be forced to show their Excelsior Pass to shop at their local groceries stores? Will New York follow in the footsteps of Los Angeles by mandating the COVID vaccine and use of a tracking app to attend school?
This appears to be a quid pro quo among Big Tech, Big Pharma and government that likely will lead to the commercialization of personal health data — and it could easily expand to other vaccine requirements in the future.
Many people are not aware of the Healthy People 2030 agenda, which ultimately will include an aggressive adult vaccine catch-up schedule. It’s easy to see how state government officials and businesses could easily add other vaccines to the Excelsior Pass for children and adults as necessary criteria for entry. This could lead to a systematic threat to our right to travel freely and could interfere with the ability to earn a living and conduct commerce.
Inching closer to a surveillance state
Yesterday in New York, bill S75, sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman, passed in the Senate Health Committee. Hoylman is also the author of the bill that repealed religious exemptions in 2019, and he has proposed legislation to mandate the HPV vaccine and annual flu vaccines for school children.
His most recent bill would require college students to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
S75 requires medical professionals who administer vaccines to patients 19 and older to enter their vaccine records in state-operated immunization registries which then provide the data to the New York State Department of Health or the New York City Department of Health (for providers treating patients in New York City).
Previously, the sharing of personal health information for adult vaccine status with the state was optional. By making it mandatory, the bill violates New Yorkers’ right to keep health information private.
Hoylman said during the Senate Health Committee hearing “ … this is important data that our health departments need as we battle COVID. This is really a matter of life or death, if we don’t get this information into public officials’ hands. This is not about consent or personal freedoms, this is about making certain that everyone is protected from this ravaging pandemic.”
The bill passed straight down party lines. Nine of the ten Democrats on the committee voted yes (with one Democratic member not present) and all five Republicans on the committee voted no.
The bill will now move forward to a full floor vote in the Senate, and the Assembly Health Committee will also vote on the companion bill. No dates have been scheduled yet but both votes are imminent.
This bill removes the right to privacy for vaccine status for adults in New York and confiscates personal health data in the name of “public health.” Any database collecting this information could be commoditized for broader use and will lead to targeting certain populations who aren’t receiving vaccines with efforts to coerce compliance and increase uptake rates.
A look at how health information has been commoditized in other countries and tabulated as a “social credit score” provides a glimpse into a dystopian future, where a person’s ability to participate in society is dependent on pharmaceutical consumption and participation in programs that track and trace every move and commoditize personal data for the benefit of corporations.
What can we do about it?
Together, we have the power to make a difference with our actions. Here are four actions we can take:
Boycott businesses requiring the Excelsior Pass. Refuse to shop, eat, or participate in any events from business that require the use of the Excelsior Pass. If it hurts a company’s bottom line, the company will take notice. Send letters addressed to the heads of corporations and businesses you frequent in New York to put them on notice that should they require the Excelsior Pass in the future, you will boycott their business. Find our template letter here to send to companies or businesses requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccine or COVID-19 tests.
Sign this petition.Sign this petition stating you refuse to take part in using New York’s Excelsior Pass. Let Gov. Andrew Cuomo know this passport violates your rights. Even out-of-staters can sign — New York depends upon tourism.
Sound off to your reps. While the Excelsior Pass wasn’t based on state legislation, it’s still important for New York residents to share feedback with their state representatives. Cuomo, who has been accused of overreach and abuse of emergency powers during the pandemic, pushed out the digital health pass without any legislative process, public hearings or feedback. You can call, email and, if possible, visit the office of your state legislators. If you aren’t sure who your reps are, please look up your state senator here and your assemblyperson here.
Ask your state lawmakers to oppose bills to mandate the COVID vaccine for New Yorkers. A bill was written to mandate the vaccine for virtually all New York citizens — adults and children — in the 2019-2020 legislative session, but has not yet been re-introduced for the 2020-2021 session. Hoylman recently introduced a new bill this legislative session that would make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for post-secondary education. Let your state representatives know how these bills would affect your family (e.g. force you to move out of state, lose your job, lose the rights for your children to attend school, etc.).
Find out if your state representatives will support freedom of choice when it comes to your personal health decisions. Ask them to support the counterbill, which prohibits mandatory vaccines and provides a vaccine bill of rights to respect constitutional rights of New York citizens, recently introduced by Assm. David DiPietro (R).
Get loud on social media. Let Cuomo, your state representatives and participating businesses know you refuse to use the Excelsior Pass. Share how this vaccine passport is an infringement of your privacy, violation of informed consent and your fundamental human rights. Let businesses know you will boycott them, as the Excelsior Pass is discriminatory, unethical and unconstitutional.
As President Biden and our federal government contemplate a vaccine passport on the national level, it’s imperative to take action now. There are a number of states protecting civil liberties and maintaining choice. As of now, the governors of Florida, Texas, Utah, Idaho, Montana and Arizona have all passed legislation or issued executive orders prohibiting vaccine passports. The governors of Tennessee, Iowa and Georgia have stated their opposition.
Now is the time to keep the pressure on all states to preserve our fundamental liberties. In a very short period, we could see our country change into a surveillance state that revokes the very liberties and freedoms that our country was founded upon.
We face a critical time, where taking a stand and taking action is of utmost importance. Take the actions above and ask others to do the same.
Takota Coen of the Building Your Permaculture Property podcast talks to James Corbett about why the permaculture movement needs to wake up to the conspiracy reality before it’s too late. After recommending three reports to help people understand the systems of control that are steering society right now and giving an overview of the coming technocratic neo-feudal biosecurity state, James confronts the canards about overpopulation and the programmed propaganda training the public to desire their own death. Finally, James and Takota talk about solutions and the way forward.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Government Restraining Order Against Peaceful Protest Is a Naked Attack on Albertans’ Freedoms
“Rather than relying on regular law enforcement, it’s far more effective, and far more efficient, to terrorize Albertans with an injunction like that issued by Justice Rooke on May 6, which leaves citizens unable to assert their Charter freedoms upon being arrested and imprisoned.”
On May 6, 2021, Associate Chief Justice John Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued what might be the broadest restraining order in common law history.
Justice Rooke’s injunction allows police to arrest and detain immediately any Albertan who exercises her or his Charter freedoms in the face of Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s unscientific and unconstitutional lockdown orders and restrictions. Sixteen people attending a church service, or eleven people attending a funeral, or six people meeting outside, now face a far greater risk than that of receiving a $2,000 fine, which can be disputed in court after a “not guilty” plea.
As of May 6, Albertans aware of this injunction can now be arrested and then imprisoned until brought before a judge, for violating what may be the broadest injunction in Canadian history. Once before the judge, the individual will have the “choice” of making a solemn promise to comply with Charter-violating laws, or staying in jail. It’s the same “choice” imposed on Pastor James Coates this past February; he spent 35 days in jail rather than deny his conscience. The only saving grace is that this injunction applies only to those who are aware of it, so ignorance offers some protection.
Normally, courts issue injunctions only against specific individuals (or organizations, businesses, governments) to deal with specific and extreme situations. For example, a court may issue a restraining order against a violent domestic partner.
Departing from this norm, Justice Rooke’s injunction is not limited to Christopher Scott, Glen Carritt and Whistle Stop Café in Mirror, Alberta. It expressly applies to “John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s)” which means every Albertan, even those who have no contact with Whistle Stop or its owners, who is acting independently “to like effect.”
Justice Rooke’s injunction applies to any Albertan who “promotes” an “Illegal Public Gathering” via social media or otherwise, and any Albertan who “incites” others to attend.
When I speak at peaceful public gatherings and declare that the Charter – not Jason Kenney’s latest lockdown order – is the highest law in the land, am I “promoting” or “inciting” illegal activities? When I now urge Albertans, in this column, to continue to exercise their freedoms of speech, association, religion, conscience and peaceful assembly as protected by the Charter, am I in violation of Justice Rooke’s injunction?
Alberta Health Services sought and obtained Justice Rooke’s injunction without providing any notice to Whistle Stop Café and its owners; they had no opportunity to present evidence or legal arguments to Justice Rooke before he issued his order. The hearing was held in secret, without media or members of the public being notified of it, and without Whistle Stop Café’s defence counsel present. There was no opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Deena Hinshaw on the affidavit she swore, which enabled Alberta Health Services to obtain this injunction. This injunction now applies to all Albertans who have heard about it. The court won’t hear a challenge to it until next week, well after the weekends protests are scheduled to take place.
Why does this matter?
It matters because prior to this May 6 injunction, police and health authorities already had the power to issue steep fines (now $2,000 instead of $1,000) to those violating lockdown orders and other restrictions. Those receiving tickets for committing apparently grave evils (like playing hockey outdoors, spending time with friends and family in person, or peacefully protesting outdoors against violations of their Charter freedoms) can plead “not guilty,” and then challenge the public health order in court, at trial. The accused person can subpoena Chief Medical Officer Deena Hinshaw as a witness, and force her to answer questions in court, and to provide scientific evidence at trial, if she has any.
This is what Pastor James Coates and GraceLife Church are now doing: forcing the Alberta government to place medical and scientific evidence before the court, to attempt to justify Jason Kenney’s Charter-violating cabinet orders.
Conversely, those accused of violating Justice Rooke’s injunction cannot defend themselves by arguing in court that governments have failed to produce the medical and scientific evidence that might justify public health orders. Upon being arrested and detained (with or without also being issued a ticket) the accused person’s only way to regain her liberty is to consent to having her Charter freedoms of association, conscience, religion and peaceful assembly violated by the government’s health orders.
An injunction is supposed to be an extra-ordinary remedy for an extra-ordinary problem, used sparingly, directed only at specific individuals or organizations, and only when regular law enforcement is insufficient.
Jason Kenney and Dr. Deena Hinshaw have made it abundantly clear that their orders are not supported by science. If these restrictions on Albertans’ Charter freedoms were based on medical and scientific evidence, the Alberta government would have already presented such evidence at the trial of Pastor James Coates. This trial commenced on May 3, 2021, more than 13 months after the Alberta Government began to violate our Charter freedoms in March of 2020. But instead, the Alberta Government refuses to make a commitment as to when they will produce this evidence, and instead seeks an indefinite delay.
Jason Kenney obviously doesn’t like regular law enforcement, because it allows the accused person to challenge the constitutionality of his irrational and arbitrary health orders.
Rather than relying on regular law enforcement, it’s far more effective, and far more efficient, to terrorize Albertans with an injunction like that issued by Justice Rooke on May 6, which leaves citizens unable to assert their Charter freedoms upon being arrested and imprisoned.
By way of this injunction, Alberta Health Services now has the court acting as a police force, rather than as the protector of citizens’ Charter rights and freedoms.
John Carpay is a Columnist for the Western Standard. He is also president of the Justice Centre, which represents Pastor James Coates and GraceLife Church, and other clients challenging the constitutionality of Alberta’s public health orders in court.
Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser has banned dancing at weddings. On Friday, Bowser said that weddings could go ahead but only at 25 per cent of a venues capacity. But she banned dancing and standing at receptions.
A spokesperson for the mayor’s office told FOX News on Friday that the measures were necessary to stop the spread of covid-19. The mayor said that people’s behaviour changes when they dance or stand around.
Meanwhile, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis lifted all local coronavirus emergency orders in his state yesterday. He also signed a bill that effectively bans the use of vaccine passports in Florida.
In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced that most restrictions will be removed from May 19th. However, Cuomo wants to retain social distancing and mask-wearing.
Will couples really ask wedding guests to remain seated at all times? Will they fence off the dance floor too?
Why is Muriel Bowser not being laughed out of town? Who are these people? Who are they taking advice from? Where do they get the balls to tell people who they can invite to weddings and how they must behave on the day?
You know this all goes away when people turn their backs on idiots like Bowser. Just ignore them. It really is that simple. Ignore them and carry on regardless. The only power they have is the power you give them. It’s time to take it back.
“They were monsters with human faces, in crisp uniforms, marching in lockstep, so banal you don’t recognize them for what they are until it’s too late.” — Ransom Riggs, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children
The U.S. government, in its pursuit of so-called monsters, has itself become a monster.
This is not a new development, nor is it a revelation.
This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.
Mind you, there is no greater good when the government is involved. There is only greater greed for money and power.
Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government.
These horrors have been meted out against humans and animals alike. For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments.
Fifty years from now, we may well find out the whole sordid truth behind this COVID-19 pandemic. However, this isn’t intended to be a debate over whether COVID-19 is a legitimate health crisis or a manufactured threat. It is merely to acknowledge that such crises can—and are—manipulated by governments in order to expand their powers.
As we have learned, it is entirely possible for something to be both a genuine menace to the nation’s health and security and a menace to freedom.
This is a road the United States has been traveling for many years now. Indeed, grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.
For instance, did you know that the U.S. government has been buying hundreds of dogs and cats from “Asian meat markets” as part of a gruesome experiment into food-borne illnesses? The cannibalistic experiments involve killing cats and dogs purchased from Colombia, Brazil, Vietnam, China and Ethiopia, and then feeding the dead remains to laboratory kittens, bred in government laboratories for the express purpose of being infected with a disease and then killed.
It gets more gruesome.
The Department of Veterans Affairs has been removing parts of dogs’ brains to see how it affects their breathing; applying electrodes to dogs’ spinal cords (before and after severing them) to see how it impacts their cough reflexes; and implanting pacemakers in dogs’ hearts and then inducing them to have heart attacks (before draining their blood). All of the laboratory dogs are killed during the course of these experiments.
It’s not just animals that are being treated like lab rats by government agencies.
“We the people” have also become the police state’s guinea pigs: to be caged, branded, experimented upon without our knowledge or consent, and then conveniently discarded and left to suffer from the after-effects.
While these particular incidents have been dismissed as “accidents,” you don’t have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins.
At the time, the government reasoned that it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society such as prisoners, mental patients, and poor blacks.
In Alabama, for example, 600 black men with syphilis were allowed to suffer without proper medical treatment in order to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. In California, older prisoners had testicles from livestock and from recently executed convicts implanted in them to test their virility. In Connecticut, mental patients were injected with hepatitis.
In Maryland, sleeping prisoners had a pandemic flu virus sprayed up their noses. In Georgia, two dozen “volunteering” prison inmates had gonorrhea bacteria pumped directly into their urinary tracts through the penis. In Michigan, male patients at an insane asylum were exposed to the flu after first being injected with an experimental flu vaccine. In Minnesota, 11 public service employee “volunteers” were injected with malaria, then starved for five days.
As the Associated Press reports, “The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs … because they were cheaper than chimpanzees.”
Moreover, “Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the ’60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.”
Media blackouts, propaganda, spin. Sound familiar?
How many government incursions into our freedoms have been blacked out, buried under “entertainment” news headlines, or spun in such a way as to suggest that anyone voicing a word of caution is paranoid or conspiratorial?
Unfortunately, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the atrocities the government has inflicted on an unsuspecting populace in the name of secret experimentation.
For instance, there was the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. As NPR reports, “All of the World War II experiments with mustard gas were done in secret and weren’t recorded on the subjects’ official military records. Most do not have proof of what they went through. They received no follow-up health care or monitoring of any kind. And they were sworn to secrecy about the tests under threat of dishonorable discharge and military prison time, leaving some unable to receive adequate medical treatment for their injuries, because they couldn’t tell doctors what happened to them.”
Now one might argue that this is all ancient history and that the government today is different from the government of yesteryear, but has the U.S. government really changed?
Has the government become any more humane, any more respectful of the rights of the citizenry? Has it become any more transparent or willing to abide by the rule of law? Has it become any more truthful about its activities? Has it become any more cognizant of its appointed role as a guardian of our rights?
Or has the government simply hunkered down and hidden its nefarious acts and dastardly experiments under layers of secrecy, legalism and obfuscations? Has it not become wilier, more slippery, more difficult to pin down?
Having mastered the Orwellian art of Doublespeak and followed the Huxleyan blueprint for distraction and diversion, are we not dealing with a government that is simply craftier and more conniving that it used to be?
In Guatemala, prisoners and patients at a mental hospital were infected with syphilis, “apparently to test whether penicillin could prevent some sexually transmitted disease.” In Uganda, U.S.-funded doctors “failed to give the AIDS drug AZT to all the HIV-infected pregnant women in a study… even though it would have protected their newborns.” Meanwhile, in Nigeria, children with meningitis were used to test an antibiotic named Trovan. Eleven children died and many others were left disabled.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The government insisted that the gases released into the subways by the DHS were nontoxic and did not pose a health risk. It’s in our best interests, they said, to understand how quickly a chemical or biological terrorist attack might spread. And look how cool the technology is—said the government cheerleaders—that scientists can use something called DNATrax to track the movement of microscopic substances in air and food. (Imagine the kinds of surveillance that could be carried out by the government using trackable airborne microscopic substances you breathe in or ingest.)
In 1953, government operatives staged “mock” anthrax attacks on St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Winnipeg using generators placed on top of cars. Local governments were reportedly told that “‘invisible smokescreen[s]’ were being deployed to mask the city on enemy radar.” Later experiments covered territories as wide-ranging as Ohio to Texas and Michigan to Kansas.
And this is the same government that has taken every bit of technology sold to us as being in our best interests—GPS devices, surveillance, nonlethal weapons, etc.—and used it against us, to track, control and trap us.
So, no, I don’t think the government’s ethics have changed much over the years. It’s just taken its nefarious programs undercover.
The question remains: why is the government doing this? The answer is always the same: money, power and total domination.
It’s the same answer no matter which totalitarian regime is in power.
The mindset driving these programs has, appropriately, been likened to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews. As the Holocaust Museum recounts, Nazi physicians “conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.”
The Nazi’s unethical experiments ran the gamut from freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia, tests to determine the maximum altitude for parachuting out of a plane, injecting prisoners with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis, exposing prisoners to phosgene and mustard gas, and mass sterilization experiments.
The horrors being meted out against the American people can be traced back, in a direct line, to the horrors meted out in Nazi laboratories. In fact, following the second World War, the U.S. government recruited many of Hitler’s employees, adopted his protocols, embraced his mindset about law and order and experimentation, and implemented his tactics in incremental steps.
Sounds far-fetched, you say? Read on. It’s all documented.
As historian Robert Gellately recounts, the Nazi police state was initially so admired for its efficiency and order by the world powers of the day that J. Edgar Hoover, then-head of the FBI, actually sent one of his right-hand men, Edmund Patrick Coffey, to Berlin in January 1938 at the invitation of Germany’s secret police, the Gestapo.
The FBI was so impressed with the Nazi regime that, according to the New York Times, in the decades after World War II, the FBI, along with other government agencies, aggressively recruited at least a thousand Nazis, including some of Hitler’s highest henchmen.
All told, thousands of Nazi collaborators—including the head of a Nazi concentration camp, among others—were given secret visas and brought to America by way of Project Paperclip. Subsequently, they were hired on as spies, informants and scientific advisers, and then camouflaged to ensure that their true identities and ties to Hitler’s holocaust machine would remain unknown. All the while, thousands of Jewish refugees were refused entry visas to the U.S. on the grounds that it could threaten national security.
As if the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II wasn’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—have since fully embraced many of the Nazi’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them repeatedly against American citizens.
It’s certainly easy to denounce the full-frontal horrors carried out by the scientific and medical community within a despotic regime such as Nazi Germany, but what do you do when it’s your own government that claims to be a champion of human rights all the while allowing its agents to engage in the foulest, bases and most despicable acts of torture, abuse and experimentation?
When all is said and done, this is not a government that has our best interests at heart.
This is not a government that values us.
Perhaps the answer lies in The Third Man, Carol Reed’s influential 1949 film starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles. In the film, set in a post-WW II Vienna, rogue war profiteer Harry Lime has come to view human carnage with a callous indifference, unconcerned that the diluted penicillin he’s been trafficking underground has resulted in the tortured deaths of young children.
Challenged by his old friend Holly Martins to consider the consequences of his actions, Lime responds, “In these days, old man, nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Governments don’t, so why should we?”
“Have you ever seen any of your victims?” asks Martins.
“Victims?” responds Limes, as he looks down from the top of a Ferris wheel onto a populace reduced to mere dots on the ground. “Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax — the only way you can save money nowadays.”
This is how the U.S. government sees us, too, when it looks down upon us from its lofty perch.
To the powers-that-be, the rest of us are insignificant specks, faceless dots on the ground.
To the architects of the American police state, we are not worthy or vested with inherent rights. This is how the government can justify treating us like economic units to be bought and sold and traded, or caged rats to be experimented upon and discarded when we’ve outgrown our usefulness.
To those who call the shots in the halls of government, “we the people” are merely the means to an end.
“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 obsolete, undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that, in the words of Rod Serling, “has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom.”
In this sense, we are all Romney Wordsworth, the condemned man in Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “The Obsolete Man.”
George Orwell’s chilling line about “a boot stomping on your face forever” from his book 1984 is very close to its ultimate fulfillment. You see, the people who boldly announced that “by 2030 you’ll own nothing and be happy” and that you’ll merely “rent whatever you need” met during the week of Jan. 25, 2021 to discuss plans for a total reshaping of the planet. That’s right, I’m talking about the World Economic Forum also known as, the Davos Class.
The conference kicked off with remarks from Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum who claimed 2021 is “a pivotal and crucial year” for our future.
The weeklong conference was attended by representatives from government, banking, business, academia, media, Big Tech, and Big Pharma. Some of the more notable speakers included:
Anthony S. Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Bill Gates, President, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization (WHO)
Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
Al Gore, Former Vice-President of the United States
John F. Kerry, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate
Christine Lagarde, President, European Central Bank
Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor of Germany
Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, Alphabet; Chief Executive Officer, Google Inc.
Rajiv Shah, President, The Rockefeller Foundation
There were also Special Addresses delivered by:
António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations
Emmanuel Macron, President of France
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel
Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission
and Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China
The 7 main themes of this year’s Davos meetings were:
How to Save the Planet
Fairer Economies
Tech for Good
Society & Future of Work
Better Business
Healthy Futures
Beyond Geopolitics
Sounds good right? Well, if you would like everything in your life decided by a cabal of rich, self-congratulating, well-connected insiders then I’m sure it sounds wonderful. For the rest of us, who value independence, freedom, and privacy, Davos’ goals of saving the planet and transforming society sound more like authoritarian battle cries the likes of which even George Orwell would be horrified by.
No Return to Normal
Davos front man, Klaus Schwab has openly stated that the COVID-19 pandemic was the perfect opportunity to “reimagine our world” and even wrote an entire book about how to do it called COVID-19:The Great Reset. In fact, Schwab proudly proclaimed the world would never go back to normal after the pandemic as if this was an awful thing.
In COVID-19:The Great Reset, Schwab doubled down on his stance of not returning to normal, stating:
Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the “broken” sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory. – Klaus Schwab
Predictably, Schwab wasn’t the only one who felt this way. He was joined by many government and business leaders who eerily began echoing almost the exact same statements in the media.
It was Schwab’s World Economic Forum along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and John’s Hopkins Center for Health Security that sponsored Event 201 back in October 2019. This pandemic preparedness exercise presented an almost carbon copy of what would take place in real life just a few months later.
We’ll leave the subject of the virus’ true origins and nature for another time. But as the panel of experts predicted during Event 201, everything did change and very quickly once the World Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The very same day, the World Economic Forum announced the creation of its COVID Action Platform, serving as a blueprint for reshaping global economic response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Also released was the Strategic Intelligence Platform developed to “explore and monitor the issues and forces driving transformational change across economies,” industries, and global issues. In other words, seizing control of everything vital to life on the planet and its population.
With these efforts and more, the Davos Class wasted no time with its plans to reshape the world. As former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (and brother to Dr. “no return to normal” Zeke Emanuel) once stated,
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.
But the real issue has always been about advancing an agenda to create a global government. The pandemic was the excuse used to accelerate this scheme. And oh, what a scheme it is.
But let’s once again let globalist stooge Klaus Schwab set the stage for the real mechanism that would be used to bring forth all the desired changes of the Davos Class. Fear!
Again, it was Schwab who recognized that,
The spread of infectious diseases has a unique ability to fuel fear, anxiety and mass hysteria. – Schwab, Klaus. COVID-19: The Great Reset
Indeed, the fear induced hysteria from a public health crisis caused the exact scenarios Event 201 had gamed out just months earlier. COVID-19 served as a wrecking ball unleashed to upend every facet of life. This worldwide social engineering experiment proved largely successful as societies worldwide were transformed in a couple of months into totalitarian regimes demanding compliance with draconian measures enacted to “stop the virus from spreading.”
In the US, it was billed as “15 Days to Slow the Spread”. Citizens consented to measures that prior to the outbreak would have been considered unthinkable such as social distancing, face coverings, contact tracing, business closures, and travel restrictions. All aspects of life were totally upended. Fortunately, the death rate from the virus was nowhere near what was predicted in Event 201. However, suicide rates, domestic violence, depression, and substance abuse all surged as the lockdown itself proved more menacing than the virus.
But guess what? All of this human suffering was predicted by the Davos Class. They knew it would be especially difficult on developing nations and minorities. They were fully aware a crisis of this magnitude would further widen the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. They had foreknowledge of the extreme damage that would be done and the toll it would take on human health, wealth, emotional, and spiritual well-being. But these sick, twisted, power-hungry vampires would use all of this chaos as part of their endgame. Their hope is that by making these inequities more visible, you will more readily accept their pre-planned solutions. And this is how they plan to do it.
Building Trust for Global Governance
One of the main themes of January’s Davos meetings was centered around “building trust.” In fact, Schwab believes that one of the most critical issues for their plans to succeed is a renewal of trust.
The Davos Class are pulling out all the stops to get you to agree with their plans. They can’t do this smoothly without your trust. You see, this global game works by manufacturing your consent through sophisticated propaganda, predictive programming, and flat-out brain washing. Unless you explicitly say no and do something to resist the plans of the Davos class, they’ll take your silence and complacency as permission to proceed with their agenda.
This is why they love to use words like inclusive, equitable, resilient, sustainable, multi-polar, collaborative and social justice to make it seem like you’re being invited to the table to help make decisions. In reality, all of the decisions have already been made for you. And none of them are truly for your benefit.
But the Davos Class isn’t stupid. They realize that many are on to their schemes and have even acknowledged that The Great Reset sounds like a nefarious global conspiracy. So, they’re resorting to gaslighting tactics like this video about The Great Reset to get you to doubt your suspicions and paint anyone contradicting their narrative as a quack.
Yeah, they love to dismiss any reports of their wicked agenda as “conspiracy theories.” But this sort of propaganda is nothing more than a magic trick. It’s street corner sleight of hand with professionally produced videos, reports, and clever marketing.
They desperately want you to believe they care deeply about you and are appalled by any resistance. How dare you even think to question them and seek out answers for yourselves!
Trust the experts. Trust the government. Trust the bankers. Trust the science. Trust the plan. Trust the Davos Class!
The COVID pandemic is just the first phase of the plan to get you to surrender to their objectives. What else do they have in store?
Agenda 21/2030 and Collectivism
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. – Dr Alexander King, Co-founder of the Club of Rome The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991
The diabolical plans to formulate a global government were fomented long ago. The Club of Rome has played a huge role in it going all the way back to 1972 with the publication of its report, The Limits to Growth which essentially blames all societal problems on there being too many people consuming too many things. One of the primary ways this global syndicate of banking tycoons, intellectuals, scientists, bureaucrats and their cronies planned to achieve their New World Order was by promoting the threat of Global Warming, which today has morphed into Climate Change. It is the ruse of Climate Change that’s giving global technocrats the pretext to change the world by demanding Net Zero Carbon Emissions that would destroy the fossil fuel industry and completely alter the way the world operates.
The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order. – Mikhail Gorbachev
After centuries of running all of the industries that pollute the earth and filling it with poisons, they now want you to believe they have a plan to right all these wrongs. But the Club of Rome, World Economic Forum, and United Nations aren’t the only groups advancing this scheme. There’s also the World Government Summit (WGS), among a slew of other organizations and thinktanks working to bring about their dream of global government.
The modern offshoots of The Limits to Growth report are Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030 developed by the United Nations. Is it a mere coincidence that a global pandemic happened at the start of 2020 just in time to “usher in a decade of ambitious action” in a bid to seize complete control of the planet? Is it by accident that this pandemic has also been used to propel the climate change agenda into overdrive?
Another relevant question is who gave the UN this authority? I never voted for António Guterres the current Secretary-General of the United Nations or any of the previous ones and I’m sure you didn’t either. But back in 1992, a bill was passed in the United States House of Representatives to commit the country to implementing Agenda 21. It was sponsored by none other than current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and supported by current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bernie Sanders. Though this bill never passed in the Senate, many of its principles have been put in place over the years. No matter where you live, chances are your country has enacted similar laws without your consent.
Concepts like social justice, universal basic income (UBI), and Green New Deal policies all stem from Agenda 21 and when fully in place will do much more harm than good.
Thinking that most people are either in agreement with these plans or still locked into the matrix of false reality, the UN even had the audacity to create a website declaring a New World Order with “happiness, well-being, and freedom of all life on Earth by 2050” that brought so much blowback that they eventually removed it.
The Davos Class and their globalist minions love to pretend that their plans will benefit all humanity while continuing to hold most of the world’s wealth and resources within their own coffers. While they promise global equity, they never reveal that it means everyone will be equally poor and dependent on technocratic overlords for every crumb on the table.
Over the years many brave souls such as Rosa Koire, author of Behind the Green Mask and Patrick Wood, author of Technocracy Rising, have exposed their attempts to pull a bait and switch and leave the 99% with absolutely nothing.
At the heart of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, Build Back Better, Climate Change, and The Great Reset is collectivism. As a pioneer of research into plans for global government, G. Edward Griffin has also explained how collectivism is nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to give up their individual rights and for countries to give up their sovereignty to global elites.
The Insidiousness of Public Private Partnerships
Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s main purpose is to function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s “Mafiocracy” of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own. – Andrew Marshall, World Economic Forum: a history and analysis
One of the biggest takeaways from Davos 2021 was the constant call for public-private partnerships to lead the way in achieving global change.This “ppp” buzzword is just a fancy way of saying fascism, or the merging of corporations and government into one totalitarian entity.
What could go wrong with merging the efforts of global corporations like Bank of America, BlackRock, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, Google, JPMorgan Chase, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, Pfizer, Thompson Reuters, and VISA with government agencies, and civil society? After all, according to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, CEO’s were the heroes of the pandemic! The scary part about all of this is that Davos men like Benioff really believe this and insist that you believe it too. After all, they’re really the “good guys” in all of this.
By cooperating with governments these and many other transnational corporations have completely seized control our food supply, economic systems, transportation, technology, media, utilities, natural resources, health systems, and entertainment industries. These powerful multi-million- and billion-dollar corporations have grown into a beastlike system of control that dictate the rules of the game in each of their industries and are out to destroy independent operators.
Enter Stakeholder Capitalism
If we are the new American slaves, then who is our master? The New Master, like some monster escaped from the laboratories of a noble experiment called the American dream, is the sum total of an amoral coupling between government and business. It looms as a monolith hybrid that is neither government nor business and is composed of individual strands of power that include the president, Congress, the courts, a multitude of governing bureaus and agencies, and an immense cluster of multinational corporations, some as wealthy as great nations. – Gerry Spence, Give Me Liberty!
To deal with the growing backlash to the greed and control exerted by the Davos Class of powerful CEOs and bureaucrats, Klaus Schwab has invented a new economic model called Stakeholder Capitalism, where private corporations are granted the role of trustees of society.
Here’s where that “trust” word comes up again. Along with the new book, Schwab has penned The Davos Manifesto, redefining the role of a company to fulfill a broader role in achieving environmental, social and good governance objectives.
Schwab again attempts to gaslight the public into believing that corporations can become altruistic, uphold human rights, and level the playing field to achieve equality. This is like trying to convince people that a leopard really can change its spots. They are trying to persuade us that the billionaire club is tired of operating soulless, money-grabbing machines, destroying the environment, and really, yes really want to help the little guy. Be warned though, because as the Bible says, Satan’s ministers love to transform themselves as angels of light!
And following this pattern, greedy globalists like John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and of course Bill Gates all transformed themselves into “beloved philanthropists”. It seems like this is also the future path of current wealthiest man alive Jeff Bezos of Amazon.
But how can anyone in their right mind believe this given that Bezos’ company conspired with Google and Apple to remove an entire social media platform (Parler) from the internet? Big Tech companies have obliterated free speech and it has nothing to do with the Democrat/Republican divide, but whether or not you agree with the tenets of the Davos Agenda.
On the surface, Stakeholder Capitalism sounds good, but dig a little deeper and all you’re going to find is a pyramid scheme with a smiley face sticker and you still at the bottom. Stakeholder Capitalism and The Davos Manifesto will only serve to increase the control corporations and their billionaire owners exert over every area of the human experience. Davos’ newly polished schemes would completely usher in the age of full technocratic dominion. They already proclaimed they want the 99% to own nothing. Why would anyone in their right mind believe this new wave of propaganda promising that mega-companies will become instruments of good?
The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Promised Utopia
The world is at a crossroads. The social and political systems that have lifted millions out of poverty and shaped our national and global policies for half a century are failing us…
Public trust in business, government, the media and even civil society has fallen to the point where more than half of the world feels the current system is failing them…
It is in this precarious political and social context that we face both the opportunities and the challenges of a range of powerful, emerging technologies—from artificial intelligence, to biotechnologies, advanced materials to quantum computing—that will drive radical shifts in the way we live, and which I have described as comprising the Fourth Industrial Revolution. – Klaus Schwab, Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution
The real Davos Agenda centers around using the fraud of Climate Change to usher in a technocratic, transhuman, Fourth Industrial Revolution complete with autonomous vehicles, the internet of things, advanced artificial intelligence, smart cities, and an internet of bodies to connect all humans with machines. Yes, Schwab has openly stated that “the future will challenge our understanding of what it means to be human, from both a biological and a social standpoint.”
The Davos Class wants to control the land, air, water and every resource on the planet including humans. It’s why you and I are and all resources on the planet referred to as “capital” in Stakeholder Capitalism. It’s also why COVID-19 provided the perfect gateway to advance the agenda to digitize everything and accelerate authoritarian control. Without the guise of a pandemic, where people were made to fear for their lives, they would have never been able to get this far, so fast. Digital currencies, digital IDs, worldwide 5G coverage, biometric security and an advanced global surveillance state is the true endgame. The Davos con cannot be fully implemented without it.
With talk about how much leisure humans will have once robots and artificial intelligence are taking care of the menial tasks people used to do, many have bought the lie that the Fourth Industrial Revolution will bring freedom and a new utopian era. Maybe this will happen for the Davos class, but what will become of the millions and even billions who will lose their jobs and livelihoods thanks to all this automation? Perhaps more future planned pandemics will spare them the indignity of becoming a serf or mere chattel serving the ruling class. Bill Gates sure seems to be thrilled with the possibilities (of another pandemic).
Perhaps no one has laid out the true agenda of the Davos Class better than the late Aaron Russo, who stated:
The end goal is to get everybody chipped, to control the whole society, to have the bankers and the elite people control the world.
This journey has taken us inside the devious minds of those who believe they are better, smarter, and worthy of making decisions for the rest of us. Decisions that will take away all of our God-given freedoms and plunge us into the depths of slavery and genocide.
But it is we who need to be reminded to use the tools God gave us to defeat the evil within ourselves and in this world. Though this is not fairy tale the lessons of one of the most iconic tales still stand true. To overcome increasing despotism, we need to stop cowering in fear and find courage like the Cowardly Lion. We need to disengage from propaganda and utilize the full capacity of our brains like the Scarecrow. We need stop allowing them to divide us and have our hearts renewed and filled with love like the Tinman. We need to awaken out of the dreamlike state we’re in like Dorothy and realize what is taken place. When we arise from the slumber induced by the media shills and globalist entities pulling their strings, we’ll see that they are just mere men and women behind a curtain trying to manipulate us like the Wizard of Oz.
The only way they win is by deception, fear and misplaced trust.
One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.
Germany has been leading the way. For over a year, anyone questioning or protesting the “Covid emergency measures” or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially “extremism.”
Yes, that’s right, in “New Normal” Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous “extremist.” The German Intelligence agency (the “BfV”) has even invented a new category of “extremists” in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called “New Normal.”
Naturally, I’m a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these “extremist” activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They’re probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thoughtcrimes.
You probably think I’m joking, don’t you? I’m not joking. Not even slightly. The Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (“Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz”) is actively monitoring anyone questioning or challenging the official “New Normal” ideology … the “Covid Deniers,” the “conspiracy theorists,” the “anti-vaxxers,” the dreaded “Querdenkers” (i.e., people who “think outside the box”), and anyone else they feel like monitoring who has refused to join the Covidian Cult. We’re now official enemies of the state, no different than any other “terrorists” … or, OK, technically, a little different.
As The New York Times reported last week (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance), “the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists.” Still, according to the German Interior Ministry, we diabolical “Covid deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-vaxxers” have “targeted the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press, and globalism,” and have “attacked police officers” and “defied civil authorities.”
Moreover, back in August of 2020, in a dress rehearsal for the “Storming of the Capitol,” “Covid-denying” insurrectionists “scaled the steps of Parliament” (i.e., the Reichstag). Naturally, The Times neglects to mention that this so-called “Storming of the Reichstag” was performed by a small sub-group of protesters to whom the German authorities had granted a permit to assemble (apart from the main demonstration, which was massive and completely peaceful) on the steps of the Reichstag, which the German police had, for some reason, left totally unguarded. In light of the background of the person the German authorities issued this “Steps-of-the-Reichstag” protest permit to — a known former-NPD functionary, in other words, a neo-Nazi — well, the whole thing seemed a bit questionable to me … but what do I know? I’m just a “conspiracy theorist.”
But, see, there I go, again “being anti-democratic” and “delegitimizing the state,” not to mention “relativizing the Holocaust” (also a criminal offense in Germany) by comparing one totalitarian system to another, as I have done repeatedly on social media, and in a column I published in November of 2020, when the parliament passed the “Infection Protection Act,” which bears no comparison whatsoever to the “Enabling Act of 1933.”
This isn’t just a German story, of course. As I reported in a column in February, The “New Normal” War on Domestic Terror is a global war, and it’s just getting started. According to a Department of Homeland Security “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin” (and the “liberal” corporate-media propaganda machine), “democracy” remains under imminent threat from these “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority” and other such “grievances fueled by false narratives” including “anger over Covid-19 restrictions.”
These Covid-denying “violent extremists” have apparently joined forces with the “white-supremacist, Russia-backed, Trump-loving “Putin-Nazis” that terrorized “democracy” for the past four years, and almost overthrew the US government by sauntering around inside the US Capitol Building without permission, scuffling with police, attacking furniture, and generally acting rude and unruly. No, they didn’t actually kill anyone, as the corporate media all reported they did, but trespassing in a government building and putting your feet up on politicians’ desks is pretty much exactly the same as “terrorism.”
Or whatever. It’s not like the truth actually matters, not when you are whipping up mass hysteria over imaginary “Russian assets,” “white-supremacist militias,” “Covid-denying extremists,” “anti-vax terrrorists,” and “apocalyptic plagues.” When you’re rolling out a new official ideology — a pathologized-totalitarian ideology — and criminalizing all dissent, the point is not to appear to be factual. The point is just to terrorize the shit out of people.
As Hermann Goering famously explained regarding how to lead a country to war (and the principle holds true for any big transition, like the one we are experiencing currently):
“[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Go back and read those quotes from the German Interior Ministry and the DHS again slowly. The message they are sending is unmistakeably clear. It might not seem all that new, but it is. Yes, they have been telling us “we are being attacked” and denouncing critics, protesters, and dissidents for twenty years (i.e., since the War on Terror was launched in 2001, and for the last four years in their War on Populism), but this is a whole new level of it … a fusion of official narratives and their respective official enemies into a singular, aggregate official narrative in which dissent will no longer be permitted.
Instead, it will be criminalized, or it will be pathologized.
Seriously, go back and read those quotes again. Global capitalist governments and their corporate media mouthpieces are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that “objection to their authority” will no longer be tolerated, nor will dissent from their official narratives. Such dissent will be deemed “dangerous” and above all “false.” It will not be engaged with or rationally debated. It will be erased from public view. There will be an inviolable, official “reality.” Any deviation from official “reality” or defiance of the “civil authorities” will be labelled “extremism,” and dealt with accordingly.
This is the essence of totalitarianism, the establishment of an inviolable official ideology and the criminalization of dissent. And that is what is happening, right now. A new official ideology is being established. Not a state ideology. A global ideology. The “New Normal” is that official ideology. Technically, it is an official post-ideology, an official “reality,” an axiomatic “fact,” which only “criminals” and “psychopaths” would deny or challenge.
I’ll be digging deeper into “New Normal” ideology and “pathologized totalitarianism” in my future columns, and … sorry, they probably won’t be very funny. For now I’ll leave you with two more quotes. The emphasis is mine, as ever.
“These extremists have not yet been held accountable, so they continue to escalate violence against the body public … We must now summon the political will to demand that domestic terrorists face consequences for their words and actions. Our democracy and our lives depend on it … They’ve been building alliances with white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and [others] on the far right …”
“The United Nations and the highest levels of governments must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States. Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counter-offensive.”
We’ll be hearing a lot more rhetoric like this as this new, more totalitarian structure of global capitalism gradually develops. Probably a good idea to listen carefully, and assume they mean exactly what they say.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: A friend of this site, living in Belgium, sent the following account of the May 1st freedom rally in Brussels, Belgium. She is a healthcare professional with children, risking her own career by standing up for truth and for freedom. English is not her first language. All of the photos below, as well as the cover photo, were provided by her. ~ Kathleen
Labour day in Belgium. The day nobody works. Or at least only a small part does.
This day is traditionally a day when people meet each other and enjoy the changes spring brings to nature. Before 2020, a lot of things were happening on May 1. Things that brought people together, such as fairs and happenings. Things that brought laughter and joy into our lives.
This year however, for the second time around, it is forbidden to meet each other, to enjoy the company of friends and family. Or more precisely, you can do that but under strict regulations. This so called pandemic has altered our society in its very essence. Fun is no longer a part of it. Labour is.
So today, instead of meeting with friends we can no longer see, we went to Brussels, the capital of our country. Europe’s hell hole, as Trump used to say. How true his words turned out to be, but not in the meaning I used to think.
A group of youngsters have been organizing a protest march each week by cycling trough a part of Brussels. They traditionally start in a forest, called Bois de la Cambre. This Forest has become the symbolic place of resistance against the oppressive government and the changes to our society they want to push trough.
On April 1, Fools’ Day, a collective had made this joke about a number of dj’s that would come to this Forrest. To host a party: ‘la boum’, French for ‘the party’. Everybody knew that it was a joke and the dj’s on the playlist were from abroad. Everyone knew it was impossible, our borders are still closed. A lot of young people went to the Forrest anyway.
It was a very bright and sunny day and they were (and still are) fed up with the prohibition to live the way young people do. They wanted a party after more than a year of waiting on ‘flatten the curve’. But the police, or better our minister of internal affairs, gave the order to chase the people away with all the means and violence necessary to do so.
And this is what happened, violence against peaceful citizens. Bois de la cambre became a symbol.
Today we started our cycling tour from a park in the middle of Brussels. A lot of people turned up and we got a lot of sympathetic reactions, but also a lot of frightened looks from completely brainwashed and masked spectators.
Afterwards we went to Bois de la Cambre, because ‘la boum 2’ was organized. This time it was different. First there were a lot of people dressed in a light blue vests with on their backs the words: ‘a superhero wears a mask’. They really think we are still toddlers, I guess.
It became immediately obvious that they were police officers. They gathered together to protect a police car in a way only trained staff do. There was also a group present with a very clear goal: starting a fight. They were dressed in black, with combat shoes.
Somebody told me they looked like Antifa. We never had Antifa in Belgium but it wouldn’t surprise me. Of course, this is the only thing main stream media will show, but we know better and since we no longer watch main stream media, who cares?
We will keep protesting because it is no longer a choice. It is a duty. As somebody told me recently, it is not a question whether these protests change anything, it is a matter of doing what is right.
An account of the May 1st protest gathering can also be found at the facebook page of lawyer Carine Knapen, who attended the protest. You will find details of the event, along with videos and more photos.
The following is an unofficial, rough translation from Dutch.
No fines but no dialogue either — only water canons, teargas and beatings without reason. The people were not asked to leave the forest. They were beaten up heavily without warning.
I personally witnessed a couple of people sitting on a fallen tree that were pulled of violently, and if that was not bad enough, 2-3 robocops started to beat on a man who was already fallen to the ground.
An unknown gas was used to spray in peoples faces. Not only in the Forrest but also in the streets around the area. Citizens were treated like heavy terrorists. The act was completely disturbed, sickening, criminal.
Somebody asked what this stuff was and a robocop answered that is was a disinfectant. Yeah right!
Before the intervention of the violent robocops it was all peaceful. Young people were dancing, others were talking in little groups. Some had banners. Others were there to support and to watch. [See video]
The only thing these people ‘did wrong’ was that there were to many of us. According to a ministerial decision — which was ruled unconstitutional by a court marshal — a gathering can’t be more than 50 persons, which is nothing. And gatherings can’t exceed more than 10 people.
The reason for this is because of the virus. But the real reason is because this would prove there is no problem with this virus. If nobody gets sick, there is no problem in people coming together. This must not be known, so large crowds are forbidden.
Proof has already been given since a lot of large gatherings have occurred around the world without anybody getting sick.
After the police came, everything changed. Citizens tried to offer white roses to the cops but they were sprayed with a mixture of water, sand and paint by these very man.
People tried to sit on their knees to prevent the water canons to push back the crowd. But all in vain. They drove at high velocity over the lawn, hitting a man of 60 during this action.
Parents of children present in the park formed a chain against the robocops to protect their children. Citizens were brutally treated (dégage was the order- French for ‘fuck off’), beaten with sticks, sprayed with an unknown gas and locked in when they wanted to leave. They could not, it was inhumane.
I got a lot of video’s and pictures of the event. I only posted some, but the rest I will keep as proof. I received some pictures of myself and I posted one because he shows how I feel and still feel. Immensely sad.
On March 20, 2021 we already encountered police brutality after our peaceful walk in the Bois de la Cambre.
But what happened on May 1 excelled this. It was like a scene in a movie, but it was real.
After sitting on the ground with several others to prevent the water canons from driving back the people, I walked the line of robocops, who were fully armed.
It was surreal to see them on one side of the street and to see the unarmed chain of parents and children on the other side with white roses in their hands forming a barrier to protect the children. They begged to stop this. Multiple parents went to the robocops to talk to them saying, ‘Take off your helmets, stand by our side. The police is our friend, not our enemy.’ But it was all in vain.
I addressed the officers in command. ‘Stop this, please. This is not necessary. Why do you do this? These people do nothing wrong.’ The first person pushed me aside and told me to ‘fuck off’ (in French). The second one looked down on me as if I were a lice on a dirty coat. ‘Are you serious? Let me do my job’, but I answered that this was not a job but a crime against humanity. But this didn’t help either.
I couldn’t believe what I saw. Baffled doesn’t cover it. It brought me to tears and it stayed that way. I am still in shock.
I saw what they did afterwards. It looked like a war. WWIII. I will never forget this.
The unnecessary violence against good citizens just because they were there. The water canons, the gas, tear gas that was thrown and the way they closed us in. I saw how policeman on horses chased young people fleeing the scene and forced them to go back instead of leaving.
I saw how robocops prepared themselves for a second attack by putting on gas masks used to protect against chemical agents and going into the woods to search for people.
Today I am still shocked at what has happened. And I still can’t understand something like this can take place in a country that calls itself a democracy.
Update 5/14/2021 — provided by our friends in Belgium:
This is composition of CS, the product they used to spray us in the face with.
O-Chlorobenzalmolonitril (CS) this is a very irritable substance that causes tears and irritates the mucosa of the nose, troath and the skin.
Coal when it burns, it forms pure Carbon
Pottassium nitrate (salpeter) When it is lit, vast amounts of pure oxigen is sets free, which stimulates the burning of coal
Silicone When coal and potassium nitrate are being burned, silicone forms drops of siliciumdioxide which are used to ignite the other components
Sugar as fuel. It melts when it reaches 186 °C, heats and evaporates the chemical substances without destroying them. It keeps the burning going due to oxidation.
Potassiumchlorate oxidator. When heated, vast amounts of oxigen is set free and it becomes potassiumchloride, that gives the smell of the pommogranate
Magnesiumcarbonate. Potassiumchloratie is not stable in a acid environment (the mixture is explosive), so the magnesiumchlorate keeps the pH value slightly alkalic and neutralizes the acids that are formed due to chemical impurities or damp. When heated, CO2 is set free, that helps the teargas to spread -nitrocellulosis. A coal like substance and explosive. When burned, vast amounts of gas and warmth are set free. It has a low nitrogencontent and serves as a bindingmaterial to make sure all the ingredients are equaly mixed and stay that way.
When CS is being heated, very toxic fumes are set free like hydrogenchloride, hydrogencyanide, Nitrogenoxides and carbonmonoxyde.
In the product there is also oléorésine de capsicum present (cayenne pepper) in a gel form, which dissolves when in contact with skin or mucosa.
When exposed to 140 mg/m3 during 10 minutes, this product can be deadly. The capsule CM6 contains 98 mg of active substance. Or 11 mg/m3 during one hour or 1,5 mg/m3 during 4 to 8 hours.
Following the convention of Paris of 01/13/1993, this gas can’t be used even when there is a war going on. (article 1 alinea 5)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}