The Corona crisis is the trigger for a global coup d’état of monumental dimensions. It is the beginning of a new era, with a new international economic order that risks completely destroying human freedoms. Tyrants have now taken over to forcibly steer us into a “climate smart” and “healthy” world through the World Economic Forum’s new techno-totalitarian roadmap – “The Great Reset”.
On June 13, 2019, Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and UN Secretary-General António Guterres signed a partnership between their two organisations. This was done without any direct media attention despite the tremendous implications this poses to humanity. By and large, this means that the power over our lives with a stroke of a pen has been transferred to the big global corporations and their owners.
The agreement includes six focus areas:
Funding for the UN Agenda 2030
Gender equality and women’s liberation
Education and skills development.
The aim of the partnership is to accelerate the UN Sustainability Agenda and the 17 global targets.
“Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals is essential for the future of humanity. The World Economic Forum is committed to supporting this effort, and working with the United Nations to build a more prosperous and equitable future.”
The agreement also states that the WEF’s fourth industrial revolution is an important component in implementing the agenda. Digitisation is seen as the key.
A few months later, during the Meeting in Davos in January 2020, this was made very clear by the launch of the Unlocking Technology for the Global Goals report compiled by PWC. This means that the world’s tech giants (which are part of the WEF working groups) will solve the world’s problems through the use of AI, satellites, robotics, drones and the Internet of Things, and with synthetic food on the menu.
CORONA VIRUS AS TRIGGER EVENT
By declaring Covid-19 as a pandemic on March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) opened up an opportunity window for the WEF to quickly implement its new world order. Everything was very carefully prepared.
As early as 2006, the WEF’s first report on global risks had discussed the measures to be taken in the event of a pandemic (some of the recommendations were tested in the context of Swine Flu in 2009). After that, the working groups continued to sew their network. In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, which described the scenario of a future shutdown almost prophetically:
“At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose orders in the ways they saw fit.”…
After a few months of extreme measures in which communities were shut down and authoritarian control rules were introduced simultaneously around the world, Klaus Schwab and António Guterres, along with Prince Charles, among others, on June 3 forward and offered a solution to all problems – “The Great Reset”.
“The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not adapted for the 21st century. It has exposed a fundamental lack of social cohesion, justice, inclusion and equality. Now the historic moment has arrived, not only to fight the real virus, but also to reshape the system according to the needs of corona’s legacy. We have a choice to remain passive, which would reinforce many of the trends we see today. Polarisation, nationalism, racism and ultimately increasing social unrest with conflict. But we have a different choice, we can build a new social contract, which specifically integrates the next generation, we can change our behaviors to be in harmony with nature again, and we can ensure that the technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is best utilized to give us better lives.”
On July 9, 2020, the WEF released the book “COVID-19: The Great Reset” in which the thoughts were developed by Schwab and co-author Thierry Malleret (director of the WEF’s Global Risk Network). The purpose of the book is to create an understanding of the future ahead and is divided into three main chapters.
Macro Reset – which analyzes the impact on the economy, society, geopolitics, environment and technology.
Micro Reset – which analyzes consequences for industries and businesses.
Individual Reset – which discusses consequences on an individual level.
According to the authors, we are faced with a choice. One way will take us to a better world: more inclusive, more equal, and respectful to Mother Earth. The second way will take us to a world reminiscent of the one we have left – but worse and with ever-recurring unpleasant surprises. They thus threaten to harass us until we give way and accept their techno-utopian vision for the world….
Geopolitical Reset: COVID-19 has reminded the world that the main problems are global in nature (climate, pandemics, terrorism, international trade). However, global organisations have not been sufficiently equipped and lacked effective leadership. According to the authors, the current system has not been able to deal with the corona crisis, but has instead been characterised by uncoordinated national measures. According to the authors, this demonstrates the need for more effective and coordinated leadership and that nationalism only leads us wrong.
“Therefore, the concern is that, without appropriate Global Governance, we will become paralysed in our attempts to address and respond to global challenges.”…
Technological Reset: According to the authors, the Corona crisis has meant that digital development in a month has taken a step that would otherwise take up to two years. Everything has been largely moved online. It is the technology companies that are the winners and their merits during the crisis have been massive while all business ideas based on face-to-face meetings (such as the cultural sector and restaurants) are the losers. This is something that, according to Schwab and Malleret, will largely remain. The Corona crisis has caused a lasting impact on work, education, commerce, medicine and entertainment. In addition, it has caused a major intrusion into our privacy.
“… the pandemic will accelerate innovation even more, catalysing technological changes already under way and “turbocharging” any digital business or the digital dimension of any business.”
“We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi-essential place in the armoury needed to combat COVID-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance.”…
For entrepreneurs, according to the authors, there is now no return to the system that existed before. COVID-19 has changed everything….
In the last chapter, the authors examine the individual consequences of the pandemic. They write that unlike other disasters such as earthquakes and floods, which bring sympathy and bring people closer together, the pandemic has had the opposite effect. It has been devastating for us humans. The pandemic is a protracted process that combines a strong fear of dying with uncertainty about when the danger is over. The pandemic can keep coming back. It has also been accompanied by authoritarian and erratic measures by the authorities. This results in anxiety.
The pandemic also gives rise to selfish acts because everyone around is perceived as a potential carrier. We’re not helping others because of the fear of death. It also creates guilt and shame. It is impossible to act “right”. This is also evident in the macro scale through countries that closed their borders and severely restricted travel. These measures have also given rise to racism and trigger patriotism and nationalism. The authors see this as a “toxic mixture”.
“Humans are inherently social beings. Companionship and social interactions are a vital component of our humanness. If deprived of them, we find our lives upside down. Social relations are to a significant extent, obliberated by confinement measures and physical and social distancing, and in the case of the COVID-19 lockdowns, this occured at a time of heightened anxiety when we needed them most.”
The authors show the awareness that disaster makers have about the psychological effects that social isolation has on humans. We have not been able to seek support among friends and family in the same way. We have been deprived of the closeness that we need to function. It becomes like a prolonged torture where we slowly degrade. This means that mental illness has increased dramatically during the year. They point out that:
Individuals with previous mental problems will have worse anxiety attacks.
Social distance will increase mental problems even after the measures have been withdrawn.
Loss of income and jobs will increase the number of deaths through suicide, overdoses and alcoholism etc.
Domestic violence will increase as the pandemic continues.
‘Vulnerable’ people and children, carers, socially disadvantaged and disabled people, will have increased mental ill-health.
The authors point out that this will reflect the need for mental health care in the years following to deal with the trauma. The area will thus have a major priority for decision-makers in the aftermath of the Corona crisis.
This shows how chilly and ruthless these tyrants are. They know very well what they have caused. This is the effect they sought and that will make us make the “right” choice. As a flock of sheep, we shall be driven into their technological dictatorship.
The chapter on entrepreneurship presents how future care will take shape:
“Like for any other industry, digital will play a significant role in shaping the future of wellness. The combination of AI, the IoT and sensors and wearable technology will produce new insights into personal well-being. They will monitor how we are and feel, and will progressively blur the boundaries between public healthcare systems and personalized health creation systems…”
The technology should also be able to measure our carbon footprint, our impact on biodiversity and toxicity in everything that we put in us! The control needs of the technocrats seem to be insatiable.
According to the authors, the pandemic has also given us time to reflect on what we value in life, the time in isolation provides insight into our previously unsustainable lifestyle as neglected climate and environment. According to Schwab, this can now be corrected:
“The pandemic gives us this chance: it represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world.”
The conclusions discuss the somewhat surprising death rate of the pandemic. It is pointed out that COVID-19 until the end of June only killed 0.006% of the world’s population. It should be put in relation to the Black Death (30-40% of the population) and Spanish Disease (2.7% of the population). Coronan’s death toll is thus not exactly something that justifies the total shutdown of the world.
We have paid and will have to pay a high price for something that has been exaggerated beyond all proportions and which has been used as a trigger to introduce a new techno-totalitarian order. The tyrants have operated according to the principle of ‘crises open up to business opportunities’ and have been able to effectively capitalise on the suffering they have caused us humans. They also threaten us to come back with their terror if we do not accept their plans to govern and regulate our lives in detail. These are purely mafia-like methods. None of us have chosen Schwab and his friends within the billionaire club to dictate our lives. It is high time to depose the tyrants. Their rightful place is behind bars.
Words are weapons to these people. This entire “crisis” is a psyop which is quickly leading to a real and much more serious catastrophe.
Cure for covid: turn off the TV and NPR, go outside and walk around without a shirt or a mask on, eat real food rather than what these satanic snake oil serpents peddle, call the “authorities” who still claim to represent you and demand that they do so.
The Victorian government will debate a new bill in the State Parliament this week which would hand authorities the power to forcibly detain “conspiracy theorists” and people suspected to likely spread coronavirus, such as anti-lockdown protesters and their close contacts.
If passed, the Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Bill will allow the state to detain anyone they suspect of being “high risk” or likely to negligently spread COVID-19, either if they have the virus or have been in contact with an infected person….
- After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world
- The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin, London and Dublin, protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters
- According to data released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention August 26, 2020, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate
- A September 2, 2020, study found the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio was 0.26%. Among those under the age of 40, the infection fatality ratio is 0.01%, while those over 60 have an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%
- The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza is 0.8%, so the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza are those over the age of 60. Everyone else has a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu
After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world. The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin,1 London2 and Dublin,3 protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters.
In the U.S., a protest took place August 30, 2020, in Boston, Massachusetts, against a new student flu vaccination mandate,4 and in Virginia, protesters gathered September 2 in opposition of unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates.5
These are just a few of the many demonstrations that have taken place in recent weeks around the world, as people are starting to realize their human rights are being stripped away over a virus with a lethality on par with that of seasonal influenza and other pandemic viruses, none of which was responded to with a global shutdown of economies and forced quarantining of healthy individuals.
COVID-19 — A Massive Brainwashing Scheme?
In recent weeks and months, more and more experts have come out sharing what they know about the roles of Big Tech, Big Pharma and global health organizations such as the World Health Organization in the creation of a new technocratic world order.
If you missed my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, in which he details the technocratic take-over plan, which has been in play for decades, be sure to review it now. Other articles shedding light on what’s happening behind the scenes include “Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook,” featuring a documentary with professor Shoshana Zuboff, and “Plandemic Part 2.”
When you start to put all the puzzle pieces together, it seems clear this pandemic is being used as a cover story for both a global wealth redistribution scheme, and for the implementation of a technocratic system of totalitarian rule by unelected leaders.
The WHO seems to be part and parcel of this global network. While the U.S. has severed ties with the organization, Big Tech is still promoting the WHO as a final arbiter of which views are acceptable and which are not — medical expertise and scientific achievements be damned.
As reported by Reclaim the Net,6 the WHO eavesdrops on everything you do online, from reviewing your social media interactions to analyzing your emotions. To counteract “spread of misleading information” about the pandemic — which was a key area of focus during Event 201 — the WHO has partnered with an analytics company that uses machine learning analysis to scan more than 1.6 million social media posts per week.
The aim of this “social listening approach”— a nicer term than good old-fashioned spying — is to counteract anything that doesn’t align with the WHO’s current narrative on illnesses, treatments, interventions and causes of disease.
Aiding them in this dystopian censoring process is the United Nations, which has launched an army of 10,000 digital volunteers who troll the internet for “false” information and opposing views.
On top of that, most social media platforms have their own highly biased “fact-checkers” who censor for all they’re worth. Back in April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, announced they would ban and remove any video from the platform that contradicts the WHO.7
Countless examples of wanton censorship of perfectly valid medical and scientific information across all social media platforms and Google can be found at this point.
Just How Deadly Is COVID-19?
According to groundbreaking data8 recently released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.
Six percent of 169,044 (the total death toll as of September 2) is 10,143. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC states. As reported by Rochester First,9 the top underlying medical conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, heart problems and renal failure.
However, the list also includes 5,424 intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning deaths, so basically, accidents and suicides in which the individual just happened to test positive (or was suspected of being positive for SARS-CoV-2) are also included in the grand total.
(Please note, these data were accurate as of this writing. The CDC does not notate when data is altered as new death certificates come in, so the numbers may therefore be different from what is reported here, depending on when you’re looking at it. For the most up-to-date figures, see the CDC’s website.10)
The fact that only 6% of COVID-19-related deaths are directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 is bad news when you’re trying to keep a doomsday narrative going. In what appears to be a blatant attempt to minimize exposure of these data, social media platforms have censored many trying to share it.11
As noted by independent news commentator Tim Pool in the video below, fact-checkers are digging into nitpicky semantics in their effort to censor the CDC data, and in so doing, they’re really stretching the “false” claim ultrathin.
Similar data have emerged from Palm Beach County, Florida, where an investigation by CBS 1212 I-Team revealed only 86 of the reported 658 COVID-19 deaths had “COVID-19 pneumonia” listed as the sole cause of death.
All others had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and dementia. As noted by CBS 12, “Most Palm Beach County COVID deaths cannot be attributed to COVID alone.”
While Dr. Terry Adirim, senior associate dean at the Florida Atlantic University College of Medicine, told the I-Team that “it makes sense to count them [people with comorbid conditions] toward COVID deaths because the virus may have made an otherwise nonfatal illness like a heart condition deadly,” the converse argument can also be made.
Had it not been for them having one or more serious comorbidities, the risk of the virus to these individuals would have been minuscule, and if they got sick at all, they’d probably have survived. So, ultimately, should the virus bear the brunt of the blame?
Infection Fatality Rate on Par With the Flu
Keeping the “killer virus” narrative going much longer is probably going to become even more difficult in light of a September 2, 2020 article13 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which points out that:
“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking, and that when calculating mortality rates from confirmed cases, you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio (IFR).”
The paper reads, in part:14
“To calculate a true infection fatality ratio, population prevalence data are needed from large geographic areas where reliable death data also exist … We combined prevalence estimates from a statewide random sample with Indiana vital statistics data of confirmed COVID-19 deaths.
In brief, our stratified random sample consisted of state residents aged 12 years and older. Known decedents and incarcerated persons were excluded. Because nursing homes were limiting residents’ ability to leave and re-enter the facilities, their participation was unlikely.
Participants were tested from 25 April to 29 April 2020 for active viral infection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which would indicate prior infection … We calculated the IFR by age, race, sex, and ethnicity on the basis of the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths as of 29 April 2020, divided by the number of infections.
Although nursing home residents were not tested, they represented 54.9% of Indiana’s deaths. Thus, we excluded nursing home residents from all calculations (that is, deaths and infections).
To account for all infections, we added the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the testing period and noninstitutionalized COVID-19 deaths into the denominator …
Our random-sample study estimated 187 802 cumulative infections, to which 180 hospitalizations were added. The average age among all COVID-19 decedents was 76.9 years.
The overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio was 0.26% … Persons younger than 40 years had an infection fatality ratio of 0.01%; those aged 60 or older had an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%. Whites had an infection fatality ratio of 0.18%; non-Whites had an infection fatality ratio of 0.59%.”
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60.
All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you’re under the age of 60, your chances of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.
White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”15
Expect Massive Propaganda Campaign to Boost Vaccine Uptake
With death rates being as low as they are for everyone under the age of 60, it really weakens the rationale for vaccinating the entire world, including newborns, the risk to whom the virus poses is virtually nil.
The vaccine looking increasingly unnecessary is likely a reason for why the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign this fall, using carefully researched messages. As detailed in “Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” Yale University has conducted a trial16 to determine the type of message that will maximize acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Messaging slants evaluated in the investigation included:17
Personal freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s personal freedom and how working together to get enough people vaccinated can preserve society’s personal freedoms. Economic freedom message — A message about how COVID-19 is limiting people’s economic freedom and how, by working together to get enough people vaccinated, society can preserve its economic freedom. Self-interest message — A message that COVID-19 presents a real danger to one’s health, even if one is young and healthy, with the idea being that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the best way to prevent oneself from getting sick. Community interest message — A message about the dangers of COVID-19 to the health of loved ones. The idea to promote is that the more people who get vaccinated against COVID-19, the lower the risk that one’s loved ones will get sick. The idea: Society must work together and all get vaccinated. Economic benefit message — A message about how COVID-19 is wreaking havoc on the economy and the only way to strengthen the economy is to work together to get enough people vaccinated. Guilt message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community, with the idea that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated, and that society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease. Embarrassment message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The idea to promote is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure enough people get vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and subsequently spread the disease. Anger message — This message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The sales idea is that the best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and by working together to make sure that enough people get vaccinated. It then asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease. Trust in science message — A message about how getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is the most effective way of protecting one’s community. It promotes the idea that vaccination is backed by science, and that anyone who doesn’t get vaccinated doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science. Not bravery message — A message which describes how firefighters, doctors and front line medical workers are brave, and infers that those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.
The study, which was completed July 8, 2020, also sought to determine:
- Participant’s confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine after hearing the message in question
- Participant’s willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
- Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
- The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate
Prosocial Pressure Tactics Work Best
Harvard Business School in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have also published a working paper18 comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors.
Considering the messages we’ve been bombarded with over the past few months — calling people who don’t wear masks “grandma killers” and so on — it seems clear that results from these kinds of investigations have been capitalized on.
In that paper, “Don’t Get It or Don’t Spread It?” the authors review studies in which various types of messages were compared — messages highlighting the threat to self, versus the threat you might pose to others.
Overall, prosocial messages, i.e., messages that stress the importance of complying with prevention behaviors in order to protect others fared the best. According to the authors:19
“These results reveal that prosocial framing was more effective than self-interested framing, suggesting a potential primacy of prosocial motivations in supporting prevention intentions …
First, prosocial framing may have been relatively more effective not because prosocial motivations do more to drive prevention intentions, but rather because people believe that COVID-19 poses a greater threat to society than to themselves.
Indeed, subjects in Studies 1-2 did on average report that coronavirus posed a larger public than personal threat.
However, we find that the advantage of the Public treatment (relative to the Personal treatment) was not significantly moderated by ‘threat difference scores’ (i.e., differences between the reported personal vs. public threat of coronavirus), or significantly smaller among subjects who reported the personal threat of coronavirus to be as large or larger than the public threat …
Thus, we find evidence that the relative effectiveness of the Public treatment was not unique to subjects who saw COVID-19 as more threatening to society than to themselves.
A second possibility is that prosocial framing (which encourages people to avoid spreading coronavirus) was more effective than self-interested framing (which encourages people to avoid getting coronavirus) because people feel relatively more empowered to avoid spreading the virus.”
Stop Believing in the Lockdown
A powerful essay20 in the American Institute for Economic Research asks the question: Is the lockdown the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic?
Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.
However, the vast majority of these “infections” or “cases” are asymptomatic. A rising “case” load does not mean people are actually getting sick and dying. The misuse of the medical term “case” is an egregious one, as historically, a “case” is defined as someone who has symptoms of a particular disease — someone who is actually sick.
Never in medical history has a “case” meant someone who is perfectly healthy and requires testing to determine whether they are infected with a particular pathogen. Would you get tested for the common cold or influenza if you had no symptoms? If the test happened to come back positive, would you with a straight face say you “have” a cold or the flu?
There are other myths, mostly scare tactics, that people are willingly believing that need to be stopped now, too, the author asserts — and it’s time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. I encourage you to read that essay in its totality.
The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism
Another article21 well worth reading is Mark Petrakis’ “The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism.” This one also starts off with an excellent quote by Cato the Elder: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” One of the first points he makes is that fascism is attractive because:
“… it requires so little from us, so little independent thought; just our basic belief and adherence to a limited set of popularly-shared directives and narratives that once fully accepted, relieve us of the need to address stubborn questions or to fret over subtle differences of opinion and feeling.
Propaganda reassures us that we are complete, that we know all there is to know, that we are rational, pragmatic and pure, that the science has been settled and that we are a part of something special.”
Petrakis goes on to discuss why propaganda and disinformation is required in order to maintain control in a fascist regime, and how truth is a liability that must be disallowed and penalized. In the end, the price we pay for this kind of intellectual laziness is “soul-crushing denial and disconnection.”
No one who has been paying attention this past year in particular can have missed that propaganda is in full swing, 24/7, and that both truthful facts and personal opinions that run counter to the established propaganda narrative are being censored and penalized in equal measure.
When it comes to COVID-19, the propaganda is so pervasive and widespread that it has actually shattered what Petrakis refers to as “the grandest illusion of all” that “must be maintained at all costs,” namely the appearance that the propaganda messages are randomly generated.
“It must always appear that the media’s coverage and the comments of experts are entirely free from any preconceived manipulation,” he says. Today, there is little doubt that the narrative we see is anything but free from bias. There’s little doubt that what we’re told is “weaponized storytelling,” to quote Petrakis yet again.
“Looking at our world, we can see that the reach and authority of the transnational global capitalists who run the world’s nation-sized casinos has been cemented. All systems are now in place, up and running LIVE on that criminal syndicate’s vast web of networks. Each one of us has by now been targeted by them for some form of surveillance and financialization …
The ‘A.I. control grids’ are all active and expanding. The technocratic agendas are now fully ready for prime-time.
We have been gradually ‘shepherded’ by propaganda and psychological torture techniques … under the ‘persistent’ control of A.I., which will guide the process of transmuting us into commodities, into plunderable assets, into digitally-regulated and genetically modified ‘livestock.’ Sadly, this is where decades of constant acquiescence to propaganda and institutional hypnosis has brought us …”
Ultimately, the economic system known as technocracy is tailor-made for the transhumanist revolution — which I touch upon in “Will New COVID Vaccine Make You Transhuman?” — where man is merged with technology and AI. As always, the lure will be greater convenience, self-improvement and “a better world for all.”
What’s never mentioned is the ultimate price. The price for all of it is complete subjugation to faceless leaders who profit from your every move, and therefore will dictate all of them.
COVID-19 Rules Mark ‘Hysterical Slide Into Police State’
I’ll end this with some observations by British Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who in a March 30, 2020, interview22 with The Post warned that COVID-19 rules are paving the way for despotism — the exercise of absolute power in a cruel and oppressive manner.
“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.
That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognize here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.
Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.”
It is time to ask ourselves some very pressing questions. Is it reasonable to expect government to eliminate ALL infection and ALL death? They’ve proven they cannot, yet we keep relinquishing more and more freedoms and liberties because they claim doing so will keep everyone safer. It’s an enticing lie, but a lie nonetheless.
Remember, they sold us on the business shutdowns and home quarantining by saying we just need to flatten the curve of infection to avoid hospital overcrowding. Now the curve is in a visible nosedive and hospitals are far from overcrowded with COVID-19 patients, yet lockdowns remain in many areas and some — Australia being a prime example — have reached astonishing new heights.
Sooner or later everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security? Circling back to where I started, the good news is that many are in fact starting to see the writing on the wall; they’re starting to see we’ve been “had,” and are starting to choose liberty over brutal totalitarianism in the name of public health.
Sky News contributor Cory Bernardi says the panic surrounding the health pandemic is being used as a weapon by socialists wanting to bring about economic destruction to usher in the introduction of the Green New Deal.More: https://bit.ly/35vHiJU
Posted by Sky News Australia on Sunday, September 13, 2020
On Sunday afternoon we asked how long before the twitter account of the “rogue” Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who yesterday “shocked” the world of establishment scientists and other China sycophants, by publishing a “smoking gun” scientific paper demonstrating that the Covid-19 virus was manmade, is “silenced.”
We now have the answer: less than two days. A cursory check of Dr Yan’s twitter page reveals that the account has been suspended as of this moment.
The suspension took place shortly after Dr Yan had accumulated roughly 60,000 followers in less than 48 hours. The snapshot below was taken earlier in the day precisely in anticipation of this suspension.
It was not immediately clear what justification Twitter had to suspend the scientist who, to the best of our knowledge, had just 4 tweets as of Tuesday morning none of which violated any stated Twitter policies, with the only relevant tweet being a link to her scientific paper co-written with three other Chinese scientists titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route” which laid out why the Wuhan Institute of Virology had created the covid-19 virus….
While it’s tempting for american politicians to blame china, especially given the culpability of the US govt itself (see below), there is no direct evidence linking the outbreak to the wuhan lab in particular, only the geographic proximity of the lab to the first reported illnesses, which isn’t realistically suggestive of wuhan culpability given the ease with which bioweapons can be transported and covertly released while framing foreign labs, and the difficulty of tracking down “patient zero”, who still hasn’t been found btw.
The closest thing to a “chain of culpability” that I know of is the research of prof Francis Boyle whose interviews appeared on this blog numerous times earlier this year (see the index). Here’s a transcript of one of those interviews: https://www.newswars.com/full-transcript-of-smoking-gun-bombshell-interview-prof-frances-boyle-exposes-the-bioweapons-origins-of-the-covid-19-coronavirus/ Fauci himself seems to be a prime culprit in covid’s development! It’s probably more accurate to call it the NIH virus.
In any case a more productive line of inquiry is why such offensive research is legal in the first place. Even without the military bioweapon factor, it’s not hard to see the profit incentive for big pharma to develop and release new pathogens in order to profit from vaccine sales, just as they currently release toxic vaccines (without legal liabilty btw, per the national childhood vaccine injury compensation act ) while profiting from sales of conventional drugs to treat the resultant lifetime chronic illnesses. Quite a business model.
It does however, provide convincing evidence that the democrats believe Trump will win.
Now that a top Democrat data analytics firm has finally confirmed that Democrats plan to claim victory weeks after the presidential election once enough of their “votes” show up in the mail to be counted, I don’t think any rational observer could view this as anything but a promise to destroy the legitimacy of the 2020 election. The Democrats’ mission to fracture America permanently should be codenamed “Operation Chaos,” because it is chaos they are preparing to unleash.
(Article by J.B. Shurk republished from AmericanThinker.com)
It was not a few thousand dollars’ worth of Russian Facebook posts and online internet trolls that nearly destroyed the Union after the 2016 election. It was the way the Obama White House and an intelligence–law enforcement cabal run by the Democratic Party maliciously and intentionally magnified Russia’s limited hijinks into the greatest political hoax in American history. The Democrats preferred to drag the United States through four years of nonsensical conspiracy theories, needless investigations, and cries of high treason rather than to acknowledge that President Trump had legitimately defeated Hillary Clinton. The Democrats chose an unprecedented campaign of sabotage against an American president, and in doing so, they accomplished what Putin’s Russia could never have dreamed: they succeeded in convincing half of America that the 2016 election was stolen from them. The Democrats and the Deep State that has aided and abetted their cause have sold bitter acrimony for four years and birthed our precarious pre-civil war tinderbox today.
With American peace now hanging in the balance, will Democrats choose country over socialism and temper passions already overinflamed? Of course not. If four years of the Russia hoax has brought our nation to the brink of civil strife, the Democrats’ Operation Chaos will make it nearly impossible for wisdom and reason to succeed in the months ahead. This fact alone should disqualify Democrats from office in 2020. A party that is driving the country to civil war cannot be trusted to have the country’s best interest at heart.
Most Republicans (except the “useful idiots” who will look past corruption and fraud for the chance to remove President Trump) understand how the Democrats plan to use “cheat-by-mail” chaos to elevate a man who can’t remember his opponent’s name (or even his running mate’s) to commander in chief. They have a three-tailed con in play: (1) attempt to win swing states fast and declare victory before fraudulent ballots can be scrutinized; (2) harvest loose ballots after election day until Trump vote leads disappear; (3) throw the whole mess into state and federal courts until a Democrat-leaning judge gives them a Democrat lead. At any time that one of these tails secures a Democrat victory, the “useful idiot” NeverTrumps and hacks in the press will aid the Democrats in quickly declaring the election over and calling for President Trump’s concession. (When executing a good con, it’s always best to have “disinterested” third parties move the con along.) By that point, offending ballots will be “disappeared” before they can ever be scrutinized again. And at any stage of this dangerous game, if President Trump and his supporters fight the outcome, our efforts — not Democrat vote fraud — will be framed as “threats to democracy.”
All the chaos lying ahead was preventable, of course. In the most modern and technically advanced nation in the history of the planet, the idea that the United States cannot vouchsafe the results of a democratic election is absurd. All over the world, successful elections take place without high-tech voting booths or sophisticated methods for tallying votes, but in America, we are plagued with so much uncertainty as to whether our elections are the outcomes of massive fraud that election integrity is impossible. You can’t have fair and equitable elections when every single American believes the vote is already rigged.
Obviously, if our constitutional republic is to utilize democratic elections to decide whether we choose Donald Trump’s “America First” policies or Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal, then safeguarding the American vote is paramount over any other responsibility of our federal and state governments. Instead, because the political establishment in America routinely ignores the wishes of American voters, it has turned a blind eye to the corruption and inaccuracy of American elections.
Democrats (and “Republican” enablers like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan) argue that election fraud is a myth when it is, in fact, well documented. They argue that non-citizen voting occurs in such low numbers as to be meaningless when meaningful elections every year are decided by a few hundred votes. They argue that election judges can be trusted when many have been prosecuted for altering votes and stuffing ballots. They argue that sensible voter identification laws are unnecessary (and racist) when votes routinely show up from dead voters, non-voters, and voters who long ago left the jurisdictions in which they’re now cast. They argue that ballot-harvesting is nothing to worry about when the outcomes of elections are overturned days and weeks after election day. They argue that the same U.S. Postal Service that just endorsed the Democratic Party can be trusted to impartially handle Republican votes….
You’ve heard that a swine flu vaccine causes narcolepsy, but do you know why? Here’s the explanation of what is causing it and why it’s happening. The worst part, though, is that narcolepsy is likely just the beginning.
by Heidi Stevenson
Recent horrifying news has shown that influenza vaccinations in Sweden and Finland cause narcolepsy in children. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has done an in-depth and very cautious study of the outbreak and reports that it is, indeed, a result of the vaccine.
Two factors are significant in explaining why these two countries had such serious outbreaks of narcolepsy. One is that their vaccination coverage in children was exceptionally high—significantly higher, in fact, than for any other European country. The other is that the brand used was Pandemrix, made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
Narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder. It’s caused when the immune system turns on hypothalamus cells that excrete the hormone hypocretin, which helps control wakefulness and sleep.
Pandemrix contains the adjuvant AS03. The active ingredient in AS03 is squalene. It is known to cause autoimmune disorders when injected.
Squalene sounds innocuous, and therein lies its danger. You can eat it with no harm resulting. You can slather it on your skin with good effect. It acts as an antioxidant and is a precursor to another critical substance, cholesterol. It may even help prevent cancer.
Squalene is found in many foods, including super-healthy olive and palm oils, amaranth, and shark liver oil. However, it is this friendliness that makes it so dangerous when injected.
That vaccines are injected is no accident. The act of injection is an injury, and the body responds to injuries rapidly, both to heal and to address foreign substances. The problem is that virtually anything injected can be seen as a foreign substance, including things that are normally found in the body.
The very fact that squalene is a normal body substance is the problem. By injecting it, the immune system sees it as an enemy and treats it as an antigen. Therefore, squalene can trigger a process that results in creating antibodies to it.
When the immune system creates antibodies to a substance that normally exists in the body, that substance will be attacked and destroyed. That is the definition of an autoimmune disease. Squalene is seen as the enemy, but this enemy exists throughout the body and is a critical component involved in many functions.
That the particular effect of narcolepsy in children would be the first autoimmune disorder noted as a result of its injection with the swine flu vaccine wasn’t predictable. However, the fact that there is an autoimmune disorder should not be a surprise. It was a virtual certainty. The only real question now is just how much more autoimmune disease will be seen.
A Macchiavellian Approach to Vaccines
In Gary Matsumoto’s book,Vaccine A, on the autoimmune diseases caused by injection of squalene with an experimental anthrax vaccine during the first Gulf War, a compelling tale is told of both the devastation wrought on unwitting soldiers and the Macchiavellian thinking that went into it.
The dangers of squalene are well known. In fact, they’ve been known for decades, ever since Freund’s adjuvant was developed….
Bill Gates just ratcheted up his PR campaign to sow doubts about President Trump’s alleged ‘political meddling’ with the FDA, while also placing him in league – if only temporarily – with the vaccine skeptics Gates frequently rails against. During an interview with Bloomberg News, the Microsoft founder and Gates Foundation chairman, who has persisted in his defenses of the WHO despite growing evidence of missteps, attacked the FDA’s credibility, claiming that he no longer believes the FDA is ‘the world’s premier public-health authority’, as Bloomberg says during the opening paragraph of the post.
Gates, who has helped finance several vaccine projects around the world, said he doesn’t trust the CDC, either, because credibility and a focus public welfare have become “casualties of a presidency that has downplayed or dismissed science and medicine in the pursuit of political gain.”
He cited FDA chief Stephen Hahn’s decision to “backtrack” on the agency’s statement on convalescent plasma to back up his claims.
“We saw with the completely bungled plasma statements that when you start pressuring people to say optimistic things, they go completely off the rails. The FDA lost a lot of credibility there,” Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “Historically, just like the CDC was viewed as the best in the world, the FDA had that same reputation as a top-notch regulator,” Gates said. “But there’s been some cracks with some of the things they’ve said at the commissioner level.”
While he said he applauds the Trump Administration’s “Project Warp Speed”, which has put up billions of dollars for private partnerships and pharmaceutical companies to fund trials and research, Gates is taking issue with the lack of funding for “manufacturing and procurement” – ie building out permanent supply chains for medicines and vaccines – in the developed world.
Hmm…if only somebody had thought of that…
Anyway, by spending another $8 to $10 billion – peanuts in the grand scheme of things, where Democrat are pushing to dump trillions more in fiscal stimulus – the US government could save “trillions” in lost economic output, Gates insists.
“The inequity of this – whether it’s between citizens in the country, blue collar versus white collar, blacks experiencing a higher sickness rate than others – poor countries can’t borrow money and spend money like the U.S. and other rich countries have,” Gates said. “Almost every dimension of inequity has been accentuated here.”
Asked about his newfound status as a “polarizing figure” in the pandemic era, Gates insisted that “conspiracy theories” circulating about him on social media are “crazy” – and that social media companies are to blame for the reputational damage he has endured….
Reputational damage? Does he mean windows?
I know of a toxic waste disposal company that can be trusted with handling the gates injection concoction and a hospital for the criminally insane that could handle gates himself.