A leading journalist has called on Americans to get a grip and learn to live with COVID-19, rather than attempting to win an ‘illusory’ victory over the virus.
Speaking to Anderson Cooper on CNN Monday night, Andrew Sullivan said it was time to lift lockdown measures, encourage people to take vaccines, and stop letting federal and state governments continue to impose lockdown rules on Americans’ lives.
Explaining his philosophy on the virus, Sullivan said: ‘Government isn’t there to hold your hand every day. The government has a responsibility to give you the means to protect you and your family from this. Once they’ve done that, as a free country. You get to live.’
Sullivan lives in Provincetown, Massachusetts, which saw one of the biggest outbreaks of COVID among fully-vaccinated people last month.
Earlier this month, he wrote on his blog The Dish that seeing how mild the symptoms were among his vaccinated friends convinced him that it was time to shrug off the fear of the virus.
Sullivan told Cooper: ‘The goal is not to pursue an illusory victory over the virus, but to learn how to live with it, and actually live fully alongside it,’ he said.
While the Delta variant remains on the rise, Sullivan argues that COVID has become ‘less of a plague and more of a disease you live with’.
‘In a free society, once everyone has access to a vaccine that overwhelmingly prevents serious sickness and death, there’s no reason to enforce lockdowns again or mask mandates or social distancing any longer. In fact, there’s every reason not to,’ he said.
Sullivan, who was born in the UK and has enjoyed an illustrious career as a journalist in the US added: ‘There are costs to not living. There are costs to having a year of your life taken away from learning and developing as a child. There are costs of not being with your family. There are costs of not being with your fellow workers,’ he explained.
‘We are a social animal. We cannot live isolated like this. We’ve never done this before. You can’t wrap yourself up in cotton wool for the rest of your life and you mustn’t let children not live.’
He argues that while communities around the nation are experiencing case surges, citizens need to resume normal life.
Grilled by Cooper about the risks to children because under 12s cannot yet have COVID vaccines, Sullivan said that under fives were in more danger each time they went for a swim.
The writer, who is strongly pro-vaccine, explained: ‘If you’re 18 times more likely to drown if you’re aged one to five than to die of COVID.
‘I think putting it in some sort of perspective for children, which is it’s not that serious a disease at all. It’s like a bad cold.
‘The immunocompromised are going to be unfortunately vulnerable for a long time. This now, we now know, is a virus that transmits from vaccinated people. So we’re going to have to live with this thing. We’re going to have to be vaccinated consistently against it.
John Tierney, a former reporter for The New York Times, looks back over the pandemic, providing a timeline of the media-induced viral panic that led to censorship and suppression of scientific research on an unprecedented scale.
Experts who spoke out against the official narrative were attacked and accused of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns.
Numerous research journals refused to publish the results of studies that featured data questioning lockdowns, masks, and other COVID policies.
Certain states have stood out for their refusal to buy into the draconian public health measures that were adopted throughout much of the U.S. — Florida is chief among them and has a COVID mortality rate that’s lower than the national average.
The “crisis crisis,” or the ‘incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians,’ is one reason why so many government, academic and policy leaders could support rampant censorship and suppress scientific debate for so long, all while propagating panic.
Now that we’re more than a year into the pandemic, it’s crystal clear that the panic that ensued was unnecessary and the draconian measures put into place for public health were unwarranted and harmful.
John Tierney, a former reporter for The New York Times, looked back over the pandemic, providing a timeline of the media-induced viral panic that led to censorship and suppression of scientific research on an unprecedented scale.
In his article for City Journal, where he is a contributing editor, he explained that the “moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions” during the pandemic was far more catastrophic than the viral pandemic itself.
Media-induced panic set off in March 2020
The panic was started by journalists beginning in March 2020, when the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team released “Report 9” on the impact of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPSs) to reduce deaths and health care demand from COVID-19.
The report’s computer model projected that intensive care units in the U.S. would be overrun, with 30 COVID-19 patients for every available bed, and 2.2 million dead by summer. They concluded that “epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time,” which led to lockdowns, business, and school closures, and population-wide social distancing. But as Tierney noted:
“What had originally been a limited lockdown — ‘15 days to slow the spread’ — became long-term policy across much of the United States and the world.
“A few scientists and public-health experts objected, noting that an extended lockdown was a novel strategy of unknown effectiveness that had been rejected in previous plans for a pandemic. It was a dangerous experiment being conducted without knowing the answer to the most basic question: Just how lethal is this virus?”
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford, was an early critic of the response, who argued that long-term lockdowns could cause more harm than good. Ioannidis came under intense fire after he and colleagues revealed that the COVID-19 fatality rate for those under the age of 45 is “almost zero,” and between the ages of 45 and 70, it’s somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3%.
In Santa Clara County, in particular, he and colleagues estimated that in late March 2020, the local COVID infection fatality rate was just 0.17%. “But merely by reporting data that didn’t fit the official panic narrative, they became targets,” Tierney explained. “… Mainstream journalists piled on with hit pieces quoting critics and accusing the researchers of endangering lives by questioning lockdowns.”
Journals refused to publish solid, anti-narrative research
The discrediting and censorship of researchers who spoke out against the official narrative — even if they included supportive data — became a common and alarming theme over the last year, one that extended to virtually every aspect of the pandemic-related policy, including masks.
The “Danmask-19 Trial,” published Nov. 18, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that among mask wearers 1.8% (42 participants) ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% (53) among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8% (40 people), which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.
Initially, numerous research journals refused to publish the results, which called widespread mask mandates into question. Tierney said:
“When Thomas Benfield, one of the researchers in Denmark conducting the first large randomized controlled trial of mask efficacy against COVID, was asked why they were taking so long to publish the much-anticipated findings, he promised them as ‘as soon as a journal is brave enough to accept the paper.’
“After being rejected by The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA, the study finally appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the reason for the editors’ reluctance became clear: the study showed that a mask did not protect the wearer, which contradicted claims by the Centers for Disease Control and other health authorities.”
A similar experience was had by Dr. Stefan Baral, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist with 350 publications, who wanted to publish a critique of lockdowns. It became the “first time in my career that I could not get a piece placed anywhere,” he told Tierney.
Harvard epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff also wrote a paper against lockdowns and couldn’t get it published, noting that most other scientists he spoke to were also against them but were afraid to speak up.
Kulldorff and colleagues soon banded together to write the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for “focused protection” of the elderly and those in nursing homes and hospitals, while allowing businesses and schools to remain open. Soon after, they too were attacked:
“They managed to attract attention but not the kind they hoped for. Though tens of thousands of other scientists and doctors went on to sign the declaration, the press caricatured it as a deadly ‘let it rip’ strategy and an ‘ethical nightmare’ from ‘COVID deniers’ and ‘agents of misinformation.’”
Physicians targeted, labeled heretics
Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford’s Hoover Institution was another common target, as he also suggested that protections should be focused on nursing homes and lockdowns would take more lives than COVID-19. According to Tierney:
“When he joined the White House coronavirus task force, Bill Gates derided him as ‘this Stanford guy with no background’ promoting ‘crackpot theories.’ Nearly 100 members of Stanford’s faculty signed a letter denouncing his ‘falsehoods and misrepresentations of science,’ and an editorial in the Stanford Daily urged the university to sever its ties to Hoover.
“The Stanford faculty senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn Atlas’s actions as ‘anathema to our community, our values and our belief that we should use knowledge for good.’”
Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, issued a statement in May prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative.
Actor Clifton Duncan shared the Orwellian message on Twitter, urging his followers to “Read this. Now. And then share it as much as you can.”
— Clifton Duncan: Drapetomaniac. (@cliftonaduncan) May 15, 2021
Because, equally as disturbing as the notion of publicly dictating to physicians what they’re allowed to say, is the fact that, as Duncan said, the statement has a glaring omission, “The health and well-being of the patient.”
Florida’s mortality rate from COVID is lower than average
Certain states have stood out for their refusal to buy into the draconian public health measures that were adopted throughout much of the U.S. Florida is chief among them. After a spring 2020 lockdown, Florida businesses, schools, and restaurants reopened, while mask mandates were rejected.
“If Florida had simply done no worse than the rest of the country during the pandemic, that would have been enough to discredit the lockdown strategy,” Tierney said, noting that the state acted as the control group in a natural experiment. The results speak for themselves:
“Florida’s mortality rate from COVID is lower than the national average among those over 65 and also among younger people so that the state’s age-adjusted COVID mortality rate is lower than that of all but ten other states. And by the most important measure, the overall rate of ‘excess mortality’ (the number of deaths above normal), Florida has also done better than the national average.
“Its rate of excess mortality is significantly lower than that of the most restrictive state, California, particularly among younger adults, many of whom died not from COVID but from causes related to the lockdowns: cancer screenings and treatments were delayed, and there were sharp increases in deaths from drug overdoses and from heart attacks not treated promptly.”
The crisis crisis
It defies reason how so many government, academic and policy leaders could support rampant censorship and suppress scientific debate for so long, all while propagating panic. One of Tierney’s explanations is what he calls “the crisis crisis,” or the “incessant state of alarm fomented by journalists and politicians”:
“It’s a longstanding problem — humanity was supposedly doomed in the last century by the ‘population crisis’ and the ‘energy crisis’ — that has dramatically worsened with the cable and digital competition for ratings, clicks, and retweets.
“To keep audiences frightened around the clock, journalists seek out Cassandras with their own incentives for fearmongering: politicians, bureaucrats, activists, academics, and assorted experts who gain publicity, prestige, funding, and power during a crisis.
“Unlike many proclaimed crises, an epidemic is a genuine threat, but the crisis industry can’t resist exaggerating the danger, and doomsaying is rarely penalized. Journalists kept highlighting the most alarming warnings, presented without context. They needed to keep their audience scared, and they succeeded.”
The politicization of research is another major issue that contributes to groupthink and the suppression of scientific debate in order to support one agenda. Meanwhile, while the media advertised that we’re all in this pandemic together, some were clearly more affected than others — namely the poor and less educated, who lost jobs while professionals were mostly able to keep working from the “safety” of their homes.
Children from disadvantaged families also suffered the most from year-long school closures. “The brunt was borne by the most vulnerable in America and the poorest countries of the world,” Tierney wrote, while many of the elitegot richer. The reality is, lockdowns have caused a great deal of harm, from delays in medical treatment and disrupted education to joblessness and drug overdoses, and for little, if any, benefit.
A new report by People’s Vaccine Alliance reveals how Big Pharma’s monopoly on COVID vaccines generated a massive increase in wealth for a handful of people. #TheDefenderhttps://t.co/xG4wYIvFBT
Data compiled by Pandemics ~ Data & Analytics (PANDA) also found no relationship between lockdowns and COVID-19 deaths per million people. The disease followed a trajectory of linear decline regardless of whether or not lockdowns were imposed. Yet, this is the type of information that has been censored from the beginning. As Tierney put it:
“This experience should be a lesson in what not to do, and whom not to trust. Do not assume that the media’s version of a crisis resembles reality. Do not count on mainstream journalists and their favorite doomsayers to put risks in perspective. Do not expect those who follow ‘the science’ to know what they’re talking about.”
Last week, President Joe Biden took to his pulpit to read from the teleprompter and announced mandatory vaccinations for government workers. Without citing any evidence, Biden claimed that “We have a pandemic because of the unvaccinated.” He must have missed the part where the pandemic started before there was a vaccine.
After this claim, Biden further lambasted those who haven’t gotten the COVID-19 jab, telling them, “If in fact, you’re unvaccinated, you present a problem to yourself, to your family, and to those with whom you work.”
Before going on any further, to dispel any claims that the Free Thought Project is “anti-vax” it is important to point out that we feel people should have a right to informed consent. There are many who can benefit from the COVID-19 vaccine and they should consult their doctors and make the best choice for themselves, individually. The same goes for those who may suffer potential harm from receiving the vaccine. No one here is anti-vaccine, we are, however, pro-safety, and pre-informed consent as anything else is tyranny.
With that being said, the scolding of Americans for asserting their medical freedom has reached a fever pitch and it has shifted from ridicule to outright dehumanization.
Recently, CNN took to calling for “the unvaccinated” to be banned from buying food, going out in public, or even having jobs.
“I’m sure a lot of people are not going to agree with this, but [if you] don’t get the vaccine, you can’t go to the supermarket. Don’t have the vaccine, can’t go to the ball game. Don’t have a vaccine, can’t go to work. You don’t have a vaccine, can’t come here. No shirt, no shoes, no service,” said Don Lemon.
“I think that’s where we should be right now because we continue to waste our breath on people who are just not going to change. You know, circular logic, they keep going back and saying, ‘Well, it’s my freedom.’ ‘It’s whatever.’ ‘I’m free.’”
After CNN’s attack on the vaccine-hesitant, MSNBC followed suit, having NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio on to take it to the next level.
Let me tell you, Joe, the anti-vaxxers are criminal at this point. What they are doing to this country is undermining our future. They really are. They’re taking away the future of this country, because if we go backwards, if we go back to restrictions and shutdowns, this country’s going to be in a horrible, dangerous place in terms of our lives, our livelihoods, our economy. And if we don’t get it right on vaccination, we’re going to lose a huge number of Americans. There are people out there peddling this message, this anti-vax message for their own profit and then attacking people who try and do it the right way like the small businesses you’re talking about. We got to confront them. That’s why I think these mandates are so crucial.
This type of demonization in the media not only flies in the face of everything a free society is about but it is also extremely dangerous. Demonizing or dehumanizing the enemy is a propaganda tactic used by regimes throughout history to make it easier to accept the persecution and even mass murder of those who disagree with a certain principle.
The technique of dehumanizing a perceived enemy — even if they are entirely peaceful and pose no threat — promotes an idea about the enemy being a threatening, evil aggressor with only destructive objectives. In the above media clip, all of these traits are on display.
The demonization of the “vaccine-hesitant” or those concerned about the safety of the vaccine makes it easier for “the other side” to hate them, thereby eliminating the possibility of a diplomatic or trust-based solution and inevitably leads to the worsening of the situation.
Those in the media, who continue to push this tactic of demonization are doing far more harm than they think as the ultimate goal of governments dehumanizing their enemy is to make killing them more acceptable.
These tactics made it easy for most Americans to sit back and watch — and even revel in — the wholesale slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in the Middle East over the last two decades. Now, it’s being used inside our own country.
Demonization, politicization, and lack of transparency are the moves that have gotten us to this point. Employing more of the same will only worsen the situation. No successful freedom-promoting policy has ever been implemented by dividing society and pitting them against each other. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
Had politicians not been caught in lie after lie and deception after deception, rest assured, we would not be in this situation. Unfortunately, however, because the establishment is unable to use honesty, transparency, reason, and logic, this situation will only devolve.
It is entirely possible that the United States as we know it may be over — and all it took was a virus with a 99% survival rate.
The Same Shady People Own Big Pharma and the Media
Big Pharma and mainstream media are largely owned by two asset management firms: BlackRock and Vanguard
Drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that leads the public astray and fosters fear based on lies
Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape
BlackRock and Vanguard form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. In all, they have ownership in 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms
Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a unique structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern, but many of the oldest, richest families in the world can be linked to Vanguard funds
What do The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:1,2
“The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.
The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.
The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.
A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’”
Who Are the Vanguard?
The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.
Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021.3,4 Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded.5 As reported in the featured video:6,7
“The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1% of the world, together owns more money than the other 99%. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1%.
In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.”
While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp.8 and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders.9 Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.
The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts, and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.
BlackRock/Vanguard Own Big Pharma
According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively.10 At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.11
Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some.
Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.
To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.
As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report12 “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.
In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.
BlackRock/Vanguard Own the Media
When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43% of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11%).13,14
In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney, and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.15,16
Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.
If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.
However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and that’s BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.
Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in,17 its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.
Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.
BlackRock and Vanguard Own the World
That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one.18,19 It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.20
BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of a long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet Inc.21 As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below,22 featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.
In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.23
A Global Monopoly Few Know Anything About
To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.
How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:24
“When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?
She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.
In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.
To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.”
As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at top of the article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.
Fearmongering Goes Nuclear — ‘We’re in Brand-New Pandemic’
A “double-mutation” of SARS-CoV-2 is now said to target younger people. Some “experts” interviewed by mainstream media claim it should be viewed as a whole new virus and a brand-new pandemic
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, clusters of positive cases among young people have been “connected to participation in youth sports and extracurricular activities.” As a result, the CDC is now suggesting that such activities should be limited
According to pediatrician and California state senator Dr. Richard Pan, people who criticize the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be labeled as domestic terrorists
The terms “disinformation” and “misinformation” are inconsistently and hypocritically applied to excuse government incompetence and punish opposition
Under the pretext of public health safety, we’re told we need censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask-wearing, new domestic terrorism laws, and vaccine passports. We need none of those things in order to optimize public health. Those things, however, are necessary for the swift and easeful implementation of the Great Reset
In some areas of the world, including Florida, where I live, life has been fairly normal for almost a full year. Restaurants opened last April, and people have flocked here from out of state and even from other countries to enjoy the fresh air and open businesses. This clearly does not benefit the globalists’ agenda, so, right on cue, fearmongering is ramping up another notch. The latest fear du jour is a “double-mutation” of SARS-CoV-2, said to target younger people.
April 5, 2021, the New York Post1 reported the “double mutant” COVID-19 strain has been detected in California — a state that has experienced some of the longest and most restrictive pandemic measures in the U.S. At the time of that report, one case of the variant had been confirmed by a Stanford laboratory. Seven suspected cases were still being screened.
Fear Du Jour: Vaccine-Evading Variants
The double-mutation virus allegedly has two mutations previously found in two separate variants, which “help it latch onto cells,” the New York Post writes.2 What they want you to fear now is that this new variant may be more resistant to vaccine antibodies. Younger people might also be more susceptible to it.3
According to the Observer,4 “COVID-19 variants could beat vaccines within a year if pharma policy doesn’t change.” In other words, they claim that unless sufficiently high numbers of the global population are vaccinated within nine to 12 months, the virus might mutate to evade first-generation vaccines, rendering them useless.
Oklahoma has also confirmed the presence of variants — one that initially emerged in the U.K., and another that emerged in Brazil. According to The Oklahoman,5 “The faster people can get vaccinated, the slower the virus will spread and fewer people will be exposed to variant strains of the virus, said Dr. Dale Bratzler, the University of Oklahoma’s chief COVID officer.”
In other words, they’re putting everyone’s feet to the fire. Hurry, hurry. Get the vaccine now. If you wait, it’s going to be your fault that the vaccine fails and everyone dies. CNN6 also warns that, unless Americans “double down on safety measures until more people are vaccinated,” more contagious variants will spread like wildfire.
According to CNN, the variant known as B.1.1.7 “is changing the pandemic’s playbook and could spell trouble for younger groups that haven’t yet been vaccinated.”
‘We’re in a Brand-New Pandemic’
Dr. Peter Hotez went so far as to state that B.1.1.7 should be thought of as a “brand-new virus” that is “acting differently from anything we’ve seen before.”7 This “we’re in a brand-new pandemic” narrative is also being parroted by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.8 Osterholm, however, claims that current vaccines are, in fact, effective against the B.1.1.7 variant.
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, clusters of positive cases among young people have been “connected to participation in youth sports and extracurricular activities.” As a result, the CDC is now suggesting that such activities should be limited, CNN reports.9
If you’ve got the creeping suspicion that we’re about to face another round of lockdowns around the U.S., your spidey senses are probably working just fine. In a recent interview, Osterholm said:10
“There isn’t a country in the world right now that has seen a big increase of this B117 that is not locking down. We’re the exception. And so the bottom line message from all of these countries is, ‘we could not control this virus until we did lock down.’
We have to do a better job of helping the public understand that this is short term. All we’re trying to do is get through this surge of cases that are going to occur over the next six to eight to 10 weeks because of this B117 variant.”
Where, oh where, have we heard that before? “It’s going to be a short-term lockdown, just a couple of weeks to flatten the curve and ensure a functioning hospital system.” Right. Those short-term measures ended up lasting many months in many places, even though hospitals were at no risk of being overrun.
We now have a year’s worth of data showing that lockdowns simply do not work. They cause far more harm than good. Yet they’re trying to sell us the same non-solution using the same justification once more. As the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Dissenting Is Now Domestic Terrorism
The problem we now face is that logical thinking is being vilified. According to pediatrician and California state senator Dr. Richard Pan, people who criticize the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be labeled as domestic terrorists. In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, he writes:11
“Vaccines don’t stop viruses. Vaccinations do. This common public health saying means a vaccine does no good if we can’t get it into people’s arms … but the overall goal of vaccinating a large majority of the U.S. population may ultimately be hampered by the anti-vaccine movement unless steps are taken to limit its impact …
[T]o poison public opinion against vaccinations, could result in countless American deaths. That is akin to domestic terrorism … Some anti-vaccine leaders’ financial well-being depends on endangering everyone else’s health and safety. Social media companies should not be complicit in this dangerous movement … Getting vaccinated is a patriotic act. So is speaking up to support public health efforts.”
With that manipulative and hostile diatribe against law-abiding citizens, Pan secures a lead role in the medical fascism directorate that is spreading faster than the virus.
He even stresses that local and public health officials, not politicians, should be relied upon to lead us to safety. In other words, he’s promoting iatrarchy — meaning government by physicians — which as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. points out has been catastrophic in every instance that it’s been tried. In his foreword to my new book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” Kennedy notes:
“The medical profession has not proven itself an energetic defender of democratic institutions or civil rights. Virtually every doctor in Germany took lead roles in the Third Reich’s project to eliminate mental defectives, homosexuals, handicapped citizens and Jews.
So many hundreds of German physicians participated in Hitler’s worst atrocities — including managing mass murder and unspeakable experiments at the death camps — that the allies had to stage separate “Medical Trials” at Nuremberg. Not a single prominent German doctor or medical association raised their voice in opposition to these projects.
So it’s unsurprising that, instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on the science, the badly compromised and newly empowered government health officials charged with managing the COVID-19 pandemic response collaborated with mainstream and social media to shut down discussion on key public health and civil rights questions.”
War on ‘Disinformation’ Is Really War on Dissent
Having a frank and open discussion about the pros and cons, risks, and benefits of vaccination or any other pandemic measure is more likely to result in optimal public health than shoving just one side of the argument down everyone’s throat. But optimal public health is not what the technocratic, globalist elite are after. Their end goal is to manipulate the masses into obedience so that they can acquire even more of their assets.
As noted by Ash Staub in his article12 “The War on Disinformation Is a War on Dissent,” the terms “disinformation” and “misinformation” are simply used “to excuse incompetence and punish the opposition.” He provides a number of examples proving that “theories or facts that don’t fit the official narrative, despite being true, are treated as misinformation or disinformation.”
I would add that this is particularly true when it comes to health information, seeing how it’s virtually impossible to find a single remedy or strategy that works 100% for every single person. There are no absolute truths in medicine. It all depends. Many individual factors come into play. Staub continues:
“Whereas misinformation merely refers to inaccurate or misleading information, the label of disinformation implies an intent to deceive. Both have served as the source of much consternation and hand-wringing from media figures and politicians alike …
While our inability as a society to agree on basic facts is certainly a problem, what should be self-evident is that misinformation and disinformation naturally abound when there is very little trust in sense-making institutions.
If the information sources that are deemed ‘authoritative’ are so often wrong or misleading, and inspire little public confidence, is it any wonder that people turn to alternatives? Misinformation and disinformation are natural consequences of our public institutions’ inconsistency and incompetence.”
Most Americans Think Government Officials Are Lying
According to Staub, 69% of Americans “believe their government intentionally lies to them,” and 61% “believe the news media deliberately ignores certain stories or information.” These are record-low rates of confidence, and government and media would do well to take notice of the fact that censorship only erodes trust, it does not build it.
The fact that they turn to censorship rather than trying to be more forthright suggests they are in fact lying and have no intention of stopping. Since they refuse to tell the truth, the only option they have is to silence counter-narratives in the hope that, over time, objections will die out for lack of support.
The problem is, truth has an appeal of its own, and so, in what appears to be a desperate effort to maintain control, “disinformation” is now being called out as “dangerous,” indeed a form of “domestic terrorism,” because if people listen to “bad” information, they might make decisions that will harm them.
Basically, they’re saying that you’re too stupid to think for yourself. You’ll buy whatever you’re sold, no questions asked, and so they have to make sure you’re exposed only to information that will benefit you. Everyone on the planet ought to be insulted by censoring, because, ultimately, it’s a sign that government and media have zero trusts in your ability to make decisions for yourself.
“Just last month, former NSA general counsel Glenn Gerstell called for an ‘integrated disinformation center within the federal government’ that would employ ‘counterterrorism’ tactics to combat disinformation.
It’s not exactly clear what these counterterrorism tactics would entail, but the idea that institutions that so often lie to the public should be able to decide what is and what is not ‘disinformation,’ with the help of a surveillance apparatus designed to combat terrorism, is truly unnerving,” Staub writes.
“When the only acceptable information is that approved by the ruling administration, there can be no meaningful check on state power. Consent for the establishment agenda can easily be manufactured, and opposition can simply be deemed ‘disinformation’ and treated as ‘dangerous,’ deserving of censorship and removal. With a silenced opposition, power can therefore be exercised with impunity.”
Understanding the Plan Robs Their Power
In a nutshell, authoritarians are taking extreme steps to control the public discourse because they know we don’t trust them. What’s more, they also realize that if people understand the grand plan, their power over the people will be stripped away. The public can only be controlled as long as we don’t understand what they’re trying to accomplish.
So, what are they trying to accomplish? As detailed in many previous articles, it boils down to the global implementation of a new economic system based on technocratic ideology, that will so radically transform and dehumanize society that they simply cannot “sell” it with honesty. The vast majority would be horrified and refuse to go along with it.
Their only option is to sneak it in under the guise of something else. Right now, that something else is the so-called COVID-19 pandemic. Under the pretext of public health safety, we’re told we need censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask-wearing, new domestic terrorism laws, and vaccine passports.
We need none of those things in order to optimize public health. Those things, however, are necessary for the swift and easeful implementation of the Great Reset.
Supreme Court Justice Speaks Out Against Censorship
Needless to say, without Big Tech monopolies aiding and abetting, the current level of censorship simply could not occur. The good news is, we may slowly be inching toward a solution. As noted by The Federalist,13 “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas offered a roadmap to eliminating rampant social media censorship from online monopolies on Monday.”
They’re referring to an April 5, 2021, ruling14 for writ of certiorari on the case of President Joe Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in which Thomas weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech. The Federalist explains:15
“Thomas concurred in an opinion to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot, now that Biden is in the White House.
The case, launched in August, questions whether the First Amendment strips government officials of their ability to block third-party accounts on Twitter if the personal account is used to conduct official business. The lower court ruled Trump violated the First Amendment when blocking users on the platform, which served as a public forum.”
However, while then-President Trump was found to have violated free speech rights by blocking certain Twitter followers, Twitter faced no repercussions when it deleted Trump’s account in its entirety, thereby violating the First Amendment rights of 89 million people, which is the number of followers he had when the account was taken down. As noted by Thomas:16
“It seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it. The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least.”
Immunity Without Corresponding Responsibility
Thomas highlights the monopoly power of Big Tech, stressing that when a company has unilateral control over a public forum, it ceases to be a public forum. The solution, then, might be to turn them into public utilities, which aren’t allowed to discriminate against any customer.
“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” Thomas writes.
“We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms … It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information.
A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.
If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform’s right to exclude.
When a platform’s unilateral control is reduced, a government official’s account begins to better resemble a ‘government-controlled spac[e]’ … This analysis may help explain the Second Circuit’s intuition that part of Mr. Trump’s Twitter account was a public forum.
But that intuition has problems. First, if market power is a predicate for common carriers (as some scholars suggest), nothing in the record evaluates Twitter’s market power. Second, and more problematic, neither the Second Circuit nor respondents have identified any regulation that restricts Twitter from removing an account that would otherwise be a ‘government-controlled space.’
Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation … ‘[I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of’ digital platforms. Turner, 512 U. S., at 684 (opinion of O’Connor, J.).
That is especially true because the space constraints on digital platforms are practically nonexistent (unlike on cable companies), so a regulation restricting a digital platform’s right to exclude might not appreciably impede the platform from speaking …
Yet Congress does not appear to have passed these kinds of regulations. To the contrary, it has given digital platforms ‘immunity from certain types of suits’ … with respect to content they distribute, 47 U. S. C. §230, but it has not imposed corresponding responsibilities, like nondiscrimination, that would matter here.
None of this analysis means, however, that the First Amendment is irrelevant until a legislature imposes common carrier or public accommodation restrictions — only that the principal means for regulating digital platforms is through those methods.”
Thomas Confirms Illegality of Government-Sponsored Censorship
Thomas makes another very important point in his statement. He points out that while private entities are “not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” they are indeed so constrained “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.”
In other words, a private company has the right to decide what kinds of speech it will allow and which it will not, BUT, if government officials demand that they censor an otherwise lawful viewpoint on their behalf, then that company is liable for having violated the First Amendment.
This is pertinent right now, as elected officials are getting ever more belligerent in their demands that social media platforms censor certain kinds of speech, such as “anti-vaccine” material. As detailed in “Free Speech Threatened by Censorship Extremists,” what they’re doing is illegal, yet they’re doing it anyway. As noted by Thomas:
“The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly … Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.”
Contrary to What the Media Is Telling You, Freedom Does Not Come From A Vaccine
There is a belief-forming and currently being pushed by the mainstream media and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that Americans can have their freedom back if they just roll up their sleeves and take the vaccine. This push is being backed by multiple experts who are literally comparing it to the “carrot on a string” in order to get more people to be vaccinated.
The new CDC guidelines will allow a real, if qualified, return of freedoms once taken for granted for millions. They could also encourage vaccine skeptics to help create herd immunity needed to stop Covid-19 from spreading. | Analysis by @StCollinsonhttps://t.co/0bDWmiaSDD
“It’s science based. It’s sensible. You can hug your grandkids again. If you’ve been waiting to get a haircut, see the dentist, you can do that,” former CDC Director Tom Frieden told CNN.
The idea that people have refused to hug their children and grandchildren over the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus is heartbreaking. But even more worrisome is the fact that the CDC thinks it can grant or revoke that “freedom” to folks based on whether or not they take the shot.
“We know that people want to get vaccinated so they can get back to doing the things they enjoy with the people they love,” said CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, in a statement last week. “There are some activities that fully vaccinated people can begin to resume now in the privacy of their own homes.”
Aside from the obvious problems of people thinking the government can tell them when and where they can see and hug their children and grandchildren, there is the underlying principle of freedom. Requiring a vaccine for “freedom” is exactly the opposite of “freedom.”
Whether or not you agree with an individual’s choice to vaccinate themselves is irrelevant. While there will likely be many folks cheering on the state in these situations of forced medication and the silencing of critics, how you feel personally about vaccines should never lead to a loss of freedom — for anyone. No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will. This is the very foundation of freedom.
Real freedom is the choice to either take the vaccine or refuse to take it. It is that simple. Many people could benefit from receiving it and that should be their choice and their choice alone, just like some people may choose not to take it.
Our individual freedoms are not granted to us by the government or vaccine manufacturers. They are inalienable. This is the very foundation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Nowhere in the constitution does it state that our freedoms can be taken away if we choose not to take a vaccine. However, this is now becoming a common idea being pushed in the mainstream and by the government.
Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, and the previous health commissioner for Baltimore is leading that charge. In an interview with Chris Cuomo on CNN, Wen expressed her discontent with states going back to normal without touting the vaccine as the reason for doing so.
“We need to make it clear to them (Americans) that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life,” Wen said, adding that states opening back up is not allowing for government to tout the vaccine as that ticket back to normal.
She then went on to insinuate that government needs to make sure that vaccination is required in order for states to reopen.
“We have a very a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status,” she said.
Wen then went on to say that freedoms must be limited or otherwise people won’t line up to get the shot. She literally compared the population to a donkey following a carrot on the stick, that is dangling their freedoms in front of them.
“Otherwise, if everything is reopened, what’s the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to get the vaccine?” she asked.
She then called on the CDC and Biden to “come out a lot bolder” and tell people that “if you’re vaccinated, you can do all these things…. Otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway.”
Imagine people wanting freedom without being forced to take a vaccine…..the horror.
Aside from the insanely tyrannical notion of requiring vaccination for freedom, there is the fact that adverse reactions are being reported by tens of thousands of people.
As TFTP has reported at length over the last several months, though many scientists and medical professionals are reassuring everyone that this vaccine is entirely safe because the vaccine was approved under emergency measures, it has — by definition — not undergone any long-term studies. Anyone making the claim that they know what happens a year or more after receiving this vaccine is purely hypothesizing.
What’s more, over a thousand deaths have been reported after the vaccination, up to and including entirely healthy young people. However, every time someone dies after getting the shot, we are told days later that their deaths had nothing to do with the vaccine. While this could certainly be the case, the sheer number of post-vaccination deaths should warrant a closer look.
In an article from the Epoch Times, which was subsequently “Fact-checked” as “True” by Newsweek, the number of post-vaccination deaths is approaching 2,000.
The CDC told The Epoch Times in an e-mail that as of Mar. 8, 2021, over 92 million doses of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 have been injected, with 1,637 deaths occurring following the injections.
Between Dec. 14 and Feb. 26, 25,072 reports were made to the VAERS system of immunizations with either the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines (the only two vaccines given during the time period assessed).
Currently, on the VAERS website, only 1,136 deaths are shown, however, those numbers, according to the CDC representative who contacted the Epoch Times, are higher.
The 1136 deaths represent 4.5 percent of the total number of adverse events reports. Of those who died, 94, or 8.3 percent, died on the same day they got the shot. An additional 150 (13.2 percent) died the day after. Another 105 died two days after, and 68 died three days after.
A total of 587 (51.7 percent) died within a week, 215 died within 7 to 13 days, and 124 within 14 to 20 days.
85.8 percent of deaths occurred in people over 60. There were five deaths among those aged 20–29; 10 in those aged 30–39; 23 in those aged 40–49; and 69 aged 50–59.
When tens of thousands of adverse events, along with nearly 2,000 deaths are reported after receiving the vaccine, this is significant statistic data to at least raise a red flag and to proceed with caution. However, the mainstream media, Big Tech, and the government alike have chosen to double down on pushing the notion that the vaccine is 100% safe and we need it for freedom. Dangerous times, indeed.
About the Author
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.
**This article (Contrary To What The Media Ss Telling You, Freedom Does Not Come From A Vaccine) was originally published at The Free Thought Project and is re-posted here with permission.**
Social Engineering Via Media 101 – How to Normalize the Absurd
Ever pay attention to trends in the media? Some stories and narratives rise and fall in cycles, along with your awareness of them. It’s kind of like a shell game, where the street hustler directs your attention to one shell as a distraction while he shuffles aside the nut with the goods in it. A ‘now you see it, now you don’t,’ kind of thing.
When you see the same story arise frequently in the mainstream media, you can bet that it’s something you’re supposed to be looking at.
Tonight show host Conan O’Brien knows this, and he rips on the media for the insane homogenization of local news. He does this bit where his team edits together actual footage of local newscasters from around the country saying the exact same thing, word for word, but, each anchor-person personalizes it with their own inflection, pausing, intonation, and so on. It’s hilarious, but at the same time disturbing because it shockingly demonstrates how ideas are forced into the mainstream of today’s corporate culture.
Have a look. This always cracks me up. Not in a ‘ha ha’ sort of way, though, more like in a ‘haha, aren’t we gullible,’ kind of way. Big difference.
The point is, when you see a story being played over and again on various news outlets, you have good reason to believe that the information isn’t coming to you organically. It’s not something you really need to know or something that is genuinely relevant to day-to-day life in your community. It’s the execution of an agenda. The information is being deliberately disseminated to manufacture awareness and recalibrate the standard for normal. It’s something the corporate media wants you to focus on. Like in the shell game.
When you understand this fundamental of corporate media, the landscape of information today looks totally different. You’re able to see narratives unfold and evolve, and able to recognize when your attention is deliberately being drawn towards an issue. Or away from an issue.
Here are a few examples from the present that when taken as everyday happenstance may seem benign, but have serious implications for the future of society and for the human race at large. The fact that these issues are being presented with noticeable frequency these days is a red flag that there is some larger agenda in the works. The norms, values, and standards in our culture are being tweaked, or twerked, and attacked by the repetition of such information.
Vaccines – This is perhaps one of the most common issues thrust on the public in order to fabricate widespread public support for a questionable and very profitable practice. The one-sidedness of the debate on this sensitive issue has successfully created a society where people now openly demand forced medical procedures on others to alleviate a perceived fear.
Gender Neutrality – This is the idea that a person’s biological gender is somehow fluid against their opinion of themselves. There is an apparent effort to make us believe that those with confusion over their gender are horribly oppressed and in danger and that they need to be protected with censorship and speech laws. The aim here is to promote the virtues of censorship and to develop a generation of people who don’t value procreation and the advancement of the human race, but rather shallow social issues and a perceived sense of justice.
Sex Robots – Robot sex toys are increasingly being put in front of the public and lauded as the future of companionship. News stories on the latest advancements in robot sex dolls are ubiquitous these days. We are being told they make great life partners and that they sufficiently synthesize the experience of being with a real woman (or man). The end game here is to further disconnect people from each other, and perhaps also to assist in a broader depopulation agenda by persuading us that sex with plastic and electronics is as good as or better than the real thing. Look for birth rates to decline further as these creepy sex toys become more popular.
Microchipping – Some call this the ‘mark of the beast,’ but the idea of microchipping people for their supposed convenience is being pushed out onto all the major media channels as a great way to take part in our technological future. Issues of privacy, tyranny, and the abuse of power are hardly examined. Feature stories on acquiescent corporate employees who willingly take the chip make it seem as though chipping is fashionable.
These are just a few examples, but the technique in play here is a fundamental method of social engineering via media.
Among the regular flow of info, certain topics or subjects are thrust into public consciousness with regularity. The issues are never quite framed as critically important, but rather positioned as matter-of-fact, sign-of-the-times. Opposing arguments or viewpoints are never fully explored. Frame it in such a way that it seems exciting and cutting edge. Normalize it by mixing it in with everyday things, and repeating it. Make it seem like the future is here now, and that there is a bandwagon you need to get in on order to be part of the gang.
This method works. It’s called conditioning. An idea as reprehensible as exchanging human-on-human love for sex with elaborate robots would have been shocking and totally unacceptable a few generations ago. But, slowly raise awareness of the wonders of this new technology over time, and people become curious rather than repulsed. It becomes normalized.
There really is nothing you can do about living in such a changing world, except opt-out of the insanity, stupidity, and self-destructive tendencies being framed as wholesome cultural advances. To make good decisions in this regard, it’s imperative to be able to process information in a way that acknowledges the true nature of corporate/government propaganda.
Social engineering is real. It’s happening all around you. Are you paying attention?
About the Author
Sigmund Fraud is a survivor of modern psychiatry and a dedicated mental activist. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com where he indulges in the possibility of a massive shift towards a more psychologically aware future for humankind.
Anyone in journalism or media could have told you long ago this would be the case. The dinosaur knowns as Mainstream Media is dying. Before Google conspired with Zuckerberg and other digital giants to crush alternative media, those alternative outlets competed with and beat MSM.
MSM and Big Tech attempted to put a stop to that revolution, but the damage was done. Alternative media gave a large portion of the American people a glimpse of real journalism, and, ever since, MSM has been slowly withering.
Edelman’s “Trust Barometer” shows that Americans’ trust in the media establishment has now hit an all-time low in 2021, falling three more points to 46 percent. For the first time, that figure has dropped below the 50 percent mark.
Social media is taking blows to the chin, with Americans’ trust ranked at only 27% for content found on Facebook, Twitter, and the like.
The lack of faith in the mainstream is not exclusive to America. Across the world, belief in social media is only 35 percent. Globally, only 35 percent of people rank social media as trustworthy for “general news and information.”
Other related information shows that Americans are not happy with journalists or the journalistic profession either. Fifty-six percent of Americans said journalists are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.” Fifty-eight percent agreed that most media outlets were “more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than informing the public.” This website published an article about how the MSM was goading the public back in 2018.
Strange and not so strange statistics regarding politics and Big Business
One unsurprising statistic is that there is a sharp difference between Biden and Trump supporters when breaking up the political party numbers. Only 18 percent of Trump supporters said the mainstream media was trustworthy, while fifty-seven percent of Democrats said MSM was trustworthy. Ironically, though more than half, 57% is far from an overwhelming majority.
With ties to major corporations and particularly Big Oil, Edelman is not “independent.” These connections were quickly called out by many people online, suggesting the general public may be savvier as to who is behind media outlets than they were before.
The one strange statistic that emerged from this poll (possibly due to the polling firm’s connections mentioned) was that out of Government, Media, NGOs, and Big Business, the only group trusted by most Americans were Big Business. One factor that might explain more trust in Big Business than other institutions is the veritable war on the American economy declared by the ruling class due to COVID and climate hysteria.
Journalists respond to Edelman’s report with a plea to help rebuild the infrastructure
Axios and other “journalists” who responded to Edelman’s 2021 report have seized upon this nugget of trust in Big Business to call on those CEOs to “visibly embrace the news media” to help corporate media outlets.
“Now it’s time for [CEOs] to use the trust they’ve built up to help rebuild our civic infrastructure,”Axios stated.
Axios also wanted these CEOs to reach out to Trump supporters who generally have a much more favorable view of Big Business than Biden’s base. Some, however, are wondering if this might hurt the businesses more than help MSM.
Axios also realized that media distrust was not only an American issue but a global one. Therefore, it was not merely a “function of Donald Trump’s war on ‘fake news.’” But that didn’t stop the “news” site from blaming the audience for daring to put their faith in the journalistic profession. The site even posted links to help worried journalists recognize if they’ve overplayed their hands in their propaganda pieces.
Note: Trust in companies headquartered in the United States fell four points to another all-time low of 51 percent.
Many MSM journalists may be shocked at the lack of trust by Americans
It may be a real eye-opener to many journalists working for mainstream outlets that most of America do not trust them or the corporations they work for. Journalists who are shocked by this seem trapped in their own bubble. After four years of the Russia hoax, “everything is racism” reporting, “largely peaceful” protests immediately turning into “terroristic riots,” Trump supporters know full well they cannot trust MSM.
The wave of censorship that has been ongoing in this country for years should confirm that the mainstream media is running scared. Of course, discerning readers already knew mainstream media was nothing more than propaganda, and that’s why, even after Big Tech tried to crush it, the alternative media still survives.
What news sources do you trust the most?
Are there any news sources that you find to be more trustworthy than others? Which are the sources you absolutely do not believe that other people consider reliable? Let’s talk about news and information in the comments.
About the Author
Robert Wheeler has been quietly researching world events for two decades. After witnessing the global network of NGOs and several ‘Revolutions’ they engineered in a number of different countries, Wheeler began analyzing current events through these lenses.
One hour after Joe Biden’s inauguration, the World Health Organization lowered the recommended PCR cycle threshold (CT), which automatically guarantees that the number of “cases,” i.e., positive PCR test results, will plummet in the days and weeks to come
Tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 CTs, yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless, as the accuracy will be a measly 3% — 97% are false positives
The “casedemic” could not have been maintained were it not for the media, over which the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission wield significant influence
Most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies, The Associated Press (AP), Reuters, and Agence France-Presse (AFP)
The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. Governments, military, and intelligence services also use these news agencies as multipliers to spread and reinforce their chosen narrative
COVID-19 cases will drop like a rock from here on, and the reason for that is simple. One hour after Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th president of the United States, January 20, 2021, the World Health Organization suddenly and out of the blue lowered the recommended PCR cycle threshold (CT),1 which automatically guarantees that the number of “cases,” i.e., positive PCR test results, will plummet.
The next day, January 21, 2021, President Biden announced he will be reinstating the U.S.’ financial support for the WHO.2
Editor’s note,* February 3, 2021: PJ Media’s report,3 on the WHO’s update was retracted shortly after publishing, ostensibly because “Facebook’s fact-checking partner Science Feedback claimed it contained multiple misleading or false statements.” The article was written by former Fortune 500 executive and health care professional Stacey Lennox.
At the time of writing, no factual errors or false statements relating to the PCR tests were identified in Lennox’s article, although the writer did refer to Dr. Anthony Fauci as a “Mendacious Midget,” the factual accuracy of which may be argued. Either way, Facebook fact-checkers routinely “debunk” articles based on nothing more than semantics; therefore, quotes from her article remain in the text below. A copy of the retracted PJ Media article is available on the Wayback Machine.4
Tests recommended by the World Health Organization used to be set to 45 cycles,6,7,8 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,9,10,11 as the accuracy will be a measly 3% — 97% are false positives.12 Why in the world did it take them this long to fix this well-recognized problem, which fueled the false idea that asymptomatic people posed a health threat and had to be quarantined? As reported by Lennox:13
“In August of last year, The New York Times published an article stating that as many as 90% of COVID-19 tests in three states were not indicative of active illness. In other words, they were picking up viral debris incapable of causing infection or being transmitted because the cycle threshold (Ct) of the PCR testing amplified the sample too many times …
Shortly before the New York Times article was published, the CDC revised its COVID-19 test recommendations, saying that only symptomatic patients should be tested.
The media went insane, and Dr. Fauci went all over television saying … ‘I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact it is.’
The guidelines went back to testing everyone, all the time, with an oversensitive test. The idea that asymptomatic spread was a concern as of August was just one of many lies Dr. Fauci told …”
Lower CT Results in Lower ‘Case’ Loads
The WHO’s update, dated January 20, 2021, admits that a positive PCR test alone does not equal infection and that the “PCR threshold (CT) needed to detect the virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load.” The higher the CT required to detect a positive, the more likely it is that the test is a false positive.
Therefore, in cases where the patient’s symptoms do not correspond to the result of the test, i.e., they’re asymptomatic but test positive, they should be retested using the same or different test. They also note that the PCR test should only be used as an “aid” in diagnosis and not be relied upon by itself. The diagnosis must also include the observation of clinical symptoms.
So, to get a diagnosis of COVID-19, you now need two positive tests if symptoms are absent, and a doctor’s judgment-call on whether symptoms appear consistent with a diagnosis of COVID-19. This is a radical divergence and sets a much higher bar for positive “case” reporting.
Taking a patient’s symptoms into account should have been the routine practice from the beginning, and lowering the CT count should have occurred months ago. It just didn’t fit the geopolitical narrative.
January 7, 2021, the Kansas Department of Health also lowered the CT for its COVID-19 tests, from 42 to 35 CTs. While it’s unclear if private labs in the state followed suit and, if so, how many, the “case” trend in Kansas did start to drop, from a daily average of 2,752 on January 7 to 1,795 as of January 20.14 Indeed, Lennox’s prediction back in October 2020 is getting more prophetic by the day:15
“Biden will issue national standards, like the plexiglass barriers in restaurants he spoke about during the debate, and pressure governors to implement mask mandates using the federal government’s financial leverage. Some hack at the CDC or FDA will issue new guidance lowering the Ct the labs use, and cases will magically start to fall.
In reality, the change will only eliminate false positives, but most Americans won’t know that. Good old Uncle Joe will be the hero, even though it is Deep-State actors in the health bureaucracies who won’t solve a problem with testing they have been aware of for months.”
On top of all that, the latest data16 shows the PCR test is likely to show false positives up to 27 days after your ability to infect others has passed. Symptoms to clearance time are seven days, but PCR tests, on average, will detect meaningless fragments for 27 days.
The US Slated to Shape the Great Reset
Why did the WHO wait this long to correct the CT guidance? Is it really a coincidence that the updated guidance was issued on the day of Biden’s inauguration? Or is it just more evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic is a political chess piece, the aim of which is to guide the world’s population into a global economic and social “reset”?
Former President Trump spent the last four years publicly stating he was battling globalization and deep state interests, whereas President Biden has a long history of supporting globalist agendas and the “New World Order,” which is the old term for what is now called the “Great Reset.” Clearly, Biden would be the preferred choice for the technocratic elite pushing this nefarious agenda to radically decrease personal liberties.
As noted in an October 29, 2020, article on the World Economic Forum website,17 it is U.S. foreign policy that will shape the Great Reset. “The United States will need to set distinct priorities to ensure its foreign policy efforts can harness its capabilities to shape the global recovery,” the article states.
While much of the discussion therein sound benevolent and good to the untrained ear, those who have investigated the Great Reset plan and are familiar with the jargon and the real meaning behind the buzz words will be able to read the truth between the lines.
Media Are Complicit in Creating the Fake Pandemic Narrative
Just how did the deep state technocracy fool the masses? In short, through their media accomplices. Without the mainstream media pumping out misleading if not flat-out false information on a daily basis (think nonstop ticker-tape with case and mortality data, for example), none of it would have been possible.
A key player behind the Great Reset is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As explained by Swiss Policy Research, “Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all major U.S. media outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations.”18
Not to be confused with the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations or the European Council on Foreign Relations, CFR is a nonprofit think tank, the 5,000-plus members of which also include past and present presidents, politicians, secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, academic professors, and corporate leaders, just to name a few.19
CFR also operates the David Rockefeller Studies Program, which in turn advises the White House on foreign policy matters. Overall, the CFR wields incredible power and influence over the U.S. White House and its policies. As reported by Swiss Policy Research:20
“In his famous article about ‘The American Establishment,’ political columnist Richard H. Rovere noted: ‘The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation …
[I]t rarely fails to get one of its members, or at least one of its allies, into the White House. In fact, it generally is able to see to it that both nominees are men acceptable to it.’ It was not until the 2016 election that the Council couldn’t, apparently, prevail.”
The Synchronization of Fake News
CFR has two international affiliates: the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. As explained by Swiss Policy Research, both of these groups were established by CFR leaders “to foster elite cooperation at the global level.”
Well-known names in the Trilateral group’s U.S. branch include David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Michael Bloomberg, and Google heavyweights Eric Schmidt and Susan Molinari, vice president for public policy at Google. Many of its board members are also members of The Aspen Institute, which grooms and mentors executives from around the world about the subtleties of globalization.
As you can see in the graphic below, major media are well represented in all three groups, which explains how a false narrative (whatever it might be) can be so widely coordinated and synchronized to the day, if not the hour.
As noted in the Swiss Policy Research post, “The Propaganda Multiplier”:21
“It is one of the most important aspects of our media system, and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies [Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France-Presse (AFP)] based in New York, London and Paris.
The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.
A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in whole or in part on agency reports … 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of a U.S. and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed exclusively to the opposite side.”
The ‘Free Press’ Is Far From Independent
Until or unless these news agencies send out a notice, national and local media are unlikely to report on an event. Even photos and videos are typically sourced directly from these global news agencies. This way, people hear, see and read the exact same message everywhere.
“This dependency on the global agencies creates a striking similarity in international reporting: from Vienna to Washington, our media often report the same topics, using many of the same phrases – a phenomenon that would otherwise rather be associated with ‘controlled media’ in authoritarian states,” Swiss Policy Research writes.22
Even media outlets that have foreign correspondents on their payroll do not expect those correspondents to conduct independent investigations. They too simply report whatever the Big Three news agencies want to be covered, and from the angle they want it covered. What you end up with is a sort of echo-chamber where only one view is presented.
As one might expect, this setup makes for a perfect propaganda machine. As noted by Swiss Policy Research, “Due to the rather low journalistic performance of the mainstream media and their high dependence on a few news agencies, it is easy for interested parties to spread propaganda and disinformation in a supposedly respectable format to a worldwide audience.” Military and defense ministries are well aware of this and use it with regularity.
Full Circle Back to the WHO
We’ve already mentioned three key organizations involved in creating and pushing the Great Reset agenda forward: the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group. The WHO, which serves as the medical branch of the U.N., also plays a central role in the technocratic plan, which brings us full circle back to where we started this article.
Its role in the Great Reset agenda is why I don’t believe it’s pure coincidence that the WHO’s sudden decision to change the way we diagnose COVID-19 cases coincided with the inauguration of President Biden. It’s simply too convenient. Another clue: One of the first things Biden did when he entered office was to rejoin the WHO.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation became the WHO’s largest funder when the Trump administration, in mid-April 2020, halted funding until a White House review of the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic can be completed.23
The GAVI Alliance — a partnership between Gates and Big Pharma with a stated aim of solving global health problems through vaccines — is also a top donor to the WHO, and one of the primary initiatives of the World Economic Forum,24 which we’ll review next.
The World Economic Forum
No deep state organizational chart is complete without the World Economic Forum, which serves as the social and economic branch of the U.N. and is the organization that hosts the annual conference of billionaires at Davos, Switzerland.25
The World Economic Forum was founded by Klaus Schwab, who also wrote the books “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”(2016), “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution” (2018), and “COVID-19: The Great Reset.”
The World Economic Forum is a conglomeration of the world’s largest and most powerful businesses, all of which are helping to further the technocratic agenda along. They include:
Microsoft, which made Bill Gates a billionaire
MasterCard, which is leading the globalist charge to develop digital IDs and banking services
Google, the No. 1 Big Data collector in the world and a leader in artificial intelligence services
When you peek behind the curtain at the World Economic Forum and the WHO, you find all the same wealthy individuals and their companies and foundations who, although they claim to be working for a more equitable society and a healthier planet, are really only trying to centralize profit and power.
Technocracy by Any Other Name Is Still Technocracy
Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of from these and other organizations in recent years actually refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include:
The Great Reset26
The Fourth Industrial Revolution27
“Build Back Better”28
The 2030 Agenda
The New Urban Agenda
The green new deal
The Paris Climate Agreement and the global warming movement in general
All of these refer to and are part of technocracy and its resource-based economics. Their common goal is to capture ownership of all the resources of the world for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone.
What they’re aiming for is really the ultimate form of totalitarianism. When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re actually referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them, and that is precisely the kind of wealth transfer the COVID-19 “casedemic” facilitated.
For nearly a year, we were snookered into thinking that millions would die unless we gave up all semblance of a normal life, when in fact faulty testing had been put into place that merely detects inactive viral particles that pose no threat to health. While small business owners were forced to sacrifice everything they owned, the rich gobbled up both the market share and property that they had to forfeit because of lost business.
I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest false flag event in human history, cooked up by technocrats and implemented through their network of global organizations that influence — if not outright direct and control — politics, health, finance and media. As noted by Lennox in her January 20, 2021, article:29
“What I have referred to as the ‘casedemic’ since September will be magically solved just in time for Joe Biden to look like a hero. For doing absolutely nothing. Do not tell me there is not a politicized deep state in our health agencies … Every business owner who has been ruined because of lockdowns due to a high number of ‘cases’ should be livid. Any parent whose child has lost a year of school should be furious. None of this was for your health.”
* Editor’s Note: This article has been modified to reflect that one of the referenced sources has been retracted by PJ Media and to clarify the WHO’s changes on PCR tests for COVID.
Individual Rights and Freedoms Under Siege in Era of COVID
The report explores the legal rights to informed consent, bodily integrity, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, religious expression, and autonomy. All of these rights will be “dramatically constricted” if employers, states, and/or the federal government impose vaccine mandates.
The COVID-19 pandemic has proven an opportunity of convenience for totalitarian elements who have put individual rights and freedoms globally under siege. A medical cartel composed of the pharmaceutical industry, government regulators, financial houses, and telecom and internet billionaires are systematically obliterating freedom of speech and assembly, religious worship, property rights, jury trial, due process, and — ultimately — America’s exemplary democracy.
As a fellow lawyer who has practiced in our country’s courts for more than 40 years, I am alarmed by the growing power of global corporations to overwhelm our justice system, obliterate our constitutional liberty, and destroy public health. Throughout my career as a litigator, law professor, public advocate, and author, I have worked to hold corporate giants and government institutions accountable. My life’s work has provided me with a unique perspective on our individual rights to clean air, clean water, unobstructed access to the commons, and our rights to make our own decisions about our bodies.
As chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), I have now dedicated myself to protecting children’s health by ending harmful environmental exposures to children, ending the exploding chronic disease epidemic that has debilitated over half of the American kids born after 1989, and to hold those responsible accountable.
A 2006 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) study found that 54% of America’s children today have chronic health conditions — allergies, ADHD, autism, eczema, asthma, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and more. When I was growing up, most of these conditions were rare or unknown. When I was a boy, I received three vaccines. Today, children receive 72 mandated doses of 16 vaccines, prior to age 18. A mountain of peer-reviewed studies points to vaccines as the primary culprit in this public health calamity. That isn’t stopping our health authorities from mandating more hugely subsidized, shoddily tested, zero-liability vaccines for children. Our vaccine safety program falls dangerously short of what our children deserve.
The COVID-19 pandemic has allowed captive corporate regulators to hold the population hostage to justify the transfer of $45 billion of taxpayer money to pharmaceutical companies to finance a gold rush of new vaccines.
Protecting individual rights in the era of COVID-19 is essential
Current vaccine mandates now require most school children to receive between 50-75 shots just to attend school. A vaccine-injured child, or adult, cannot sue the healthcare provider or the vaccine producer — but rather must go to a rigged national injury compensation program to sue the very government that ordered vaccine compliance in the first place. After studying this subject for years, I am more horrified than ever by the system’s pervasive corruption.
Given existing federal legislation and judicial precedents, it is all but impossible to hold vaccine manufacturers or healthcare providers accountable for vaccine injury in the courts. Vaccine injuries are not rare — HHS’s own studies show that the agency claims that injuries only occur with “1 in a million” vaccines is a mendacious canard. The true injury rate is actually 1 in every 39 vaccines, according to the Federal Agency for Health Research Quality.
Problems with vaccine safety aren’t isolated just to children
Federal and State officials are considering mandates for the new COVID-19 vaccine. The New York State Bar Association, an organization for which I have great respect, has given its imprimatur to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for all New Yorkers if “experts” deem that necessary. But those experts are the main regulators from captured public health agencies with pervasive and corrupt financial entanglements with pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The pharma-controlled media’s advice that we “trust the experts” is anti-democratic and anti-science. You and I know that “experts” can differ on scientific questions and that their opinions can vary in accordance with and demands of politics, power, and financial self-interest. In every lawsuit, leading, highly credentialed experts from opposite sides routinely offer diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. The trouble is that today, in the political arena, dissenting voices that question government policies and corporate proclamations are silenced by censorship and vilification.
In this special report, our CHD Team explores the legal rights to informed consent, bodily integrity, the right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, religious expression, and autonomy. All of these rights will be dramatically constricted if employers, states, and/or the federal government impose vaccine mandates.
In recent days and weeks, we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of censorship sweep across the internet. The only solution will be decentralized platforms that virtually eliminate censorship
In what appears to be a coordinated attack, Google, Apple and Amazon destroyed Parler, the main competitor to Twitter and Facebook, literally overnight by yanking it from their app stores and web hosting service. All of Parler’s vendors, from text message services and email providers to lawyers, also canceled their contracts
A social media purge began in earnest on January 7 and 8, 2021, with the permanent ban of President Trump and a long list of other conservatives from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Twitter reportedly suspended more than 70,000 accounts during its weekend purge
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is calling for a racketeering investigation into Big Tech, saying Amazon, Apple, and Google’s suspension of Parler is “clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act”
According to an October 2020 report by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google all have monopoly power and are using that power to rid themselves of competition
In recent days and weeks, we’ve seen an unprecedented wave of censorship sweep across the internet. As noted by Coindesk.com,1 that we need a decentralized web is more evident than ever, and now’s the time to advance such plans:
“Just as bitcoin redistributed power from the legacy financial system in favor of peer-to-peer electronic cash, the next-generation internet aims to redistribute power from corporate giants like Google and Facebook to sovereign individuals who own and control their own data.
To achieve this monumental goal, changes must be made to the internet’s underlying architecture. Thankfully, the pace of progress is dramatically accelerating in three foundational components: storage, naming and database …
Obviously 2020 will be remembered for the immense amount of pain and suffering endured by millions around the globe. However, throughout history, moments like these are often accompanied by great periods of innovation and creativity.
It is through this hopeful lens that we see a world where the decentralized web eventually becomes ‘the’ web with fairness, freedom and individual sovereignty at its core. And, as the past year has shown, many brilliant people are laboring tirelessly to make this dream a reality.”
Major Decentralization Advances Are in the Works
The Coindesk article points out that movement toward decentralized storage and databases has been fast and furious, and includes an extensive list of developments. Even changes to how the Domain Name System (DNS) functions are in the works. Why decentralize the DNS? As noted in the article:2
“Within the current system, the bottom line is you can be erased from the Internet at any moment, for any reason, by anyone with enough power. Decentralized DNS makes it virtually impossible for authorities to shut down access to the web and gives individuals real ownership over their digital identities, communication channels and means of commerce.”
One decentralized DNS service is UnstoppableDomains.com, which uses blockchain technology. I recognized this early last year, which is why we purchased the mercola.crypto domain that we hope to launch later this year.
Additionally, I am currently in the process of connecting with the founder of Signal, Moxie Marlinspike, probably the best encrypted private communications platform out there, to strategize about how to decentralize a social platform like Parler.
Affirming the validity of this approach, one of my favorite crypto analysts that I subscribe to is Anthony Pompliano. In a January 11, 2021, blog post,3 he points out that literally everything for the decentralized web must be rebuilt.
“You can’t simply rely on Amazon’s AWS. You have to leverage Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and self-hosting in combination with each other to drastically improve the resiliency of what you’re building,” he says.
“Private companies can do whatever they want. And they are reminding us of that. But in doing so, they are also reminding millions of people that there can be a better world. A world where no single person or organization gets to dictate what information we receive.
No single person or organization gets to choose who gets amplified and who gets silenced. The power of choice was stripped from the user and is now being monopolized by the platform creators … The beloved tech giants are becoming villains. This will lead to a rise in new challengers.
This is the circle of life in technology. If you can’t influence the status quo, just disrupt it. And I think that is exactly what we need at this point. We can leverage technology to take the power back from these monopolies and allow the user to choose who and what to consume.”
Parler Takedown Proves Necessity of Decentralization
Clearly, many others are in agreement that a decentralized web — one in which monopolies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube cannot rule with impunity — has become an urgent necessity.4 Alternatives cannot be created fast enough.
While tech giants have brushed off accusations of monopolizing services saying that they welcome competition, they have in recent days proven they will accept no such thing.
Case in point: In what appears to be a coordinated attack, Google, Apple and Amazon destroyed Parler, the main competitor to Twitter and Facebook, literally overnight by yanking it from their app stores and web hosting service.5,6,7,8
January 10, 2021, Parler CEO John Matze announced the company had been “dropped by virtually all of its business alliances after Amazon, Apple and Google ended their agreements … Every vendor from text message services to email providers to our lawyers all ditched us too on the same day.”9 As reported by St. Louis Discussing the recent social media purge and the destruction of Parler, Glenn Greenwald writes:10
“So much of this liberal support for the attempted destruction of Parler is based in utter ignorance about that platform, and about basic principles of free speech … The platform’s design is intended to foster privacy and free speech, not a particular ideology.
They minimize the amount of data they collect on users to prevent advertiser monetization or algorithmic targeting. Unlike Facebook and Twitter, they do not assess a user’s preferences in order to decide what they should see …
Of course large numbers of Trump supporters ended up on Parler. That’s not because Parler is a pro-Trump outlet, but because those are among the people who were censored by the tech monopolies or who were angered enough by that censorship to seek refuge elsewhere.
It is true that one can find postings on Parler that explicitly advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque. But that is even more true of Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, and Twitter.”
Greenwald is one of my absolute favorite journalists. His brilliant and deep insights into the progressive tyrannical destruction that is occurring is an important perspective that will open your eyes to what is happening to our world.
Glenn actually quit the publishing company he founded, The Intercept, because they censored him.11 This is a man of integrity, committed to the highest ethical principles. He started a substack newsletter to help fund his efforts and you can subscribe to it for $5/month.
Standards Not Applied to Big Tech Apply to Competition
The justification is given by Google, Apple, and Amazon for their takedown was that Parler had “the potential of spreading violent content” and had refused to censor its users over and above taking down posts that violate its stated terms of service.
However, can anyone with a straight face claim that violent content cannot and has not been disseminated via any other social media platforms or telecommunications services?
All communications services have the ability to carry this kind of information. It’s inevitable, seeing how bad actors will use one service or another to communicate ill intent with others. They’re hardly using carrier pigeons or paper bulletin boards anymore.
As reported by Vision Times,12 Apple told Parler it is “responsible for all the user-generated content present on your service and for ensuring that this content meets App Store requirements for the safety and protection of our users.” In response, Matze stated:13
“Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler. Therefor [sic] by the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones.
Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for,” adding that “Standards not applied to Twitter, Facebook or even Apple themselves, apply to Parler.”
Indeed, crimes occur on big tech platforms every day. The April 5, 2018, ABC News article14 “Mayhem and Murder: 10 Most Shocking Facebook Live Moments Ever” detailed some of the most stunning ones.
In 2012, The Guardian reported15 that social media-related crime reports had risen 780% in four years. Data from the British police showed 4,908 crimes in 2012 had been committed in which Facebook or Twitter was a factor. According to a June 4, 2012, article16 in Mail Online, 12,300 crime cases had been linked to Facebook, with a crime happening on the platform every 40 minutes.
News reports from 201417 and 201518 noted the number of crime cases linked to Facebook and Twitter was continuing to climb precipitously, including sexual offenses, harassment, and outright death threats.
Of course, when we start talking about intelligence agencies’ use of big tech services the stakes get even higher. The CIA, for example, which has a history of mind control abuses and secret assassination programs,19 uses Amazon web services, Microsoft, Google, Oracle and IBM.20
Are these companies taking responsibility for atrocities committed by the CIA, such as its “deadly double tap” drone strikes in Pakistan that caused outrage in 2012?21 Is Amazon taking responsibility for the actions of DARPA, since it’s hosting DARPA and provides them with cloud services?22
Parler Refuses to Censor Constitutional Rights
Matze also pointed out that the allegation that Parler can or should be held responsible for the January 6, 2021, violence in Washington, D.C., is false for a number of reasons. First of all, Parler does not have a group feature that will allow people to organize. In fact, Facebook groups were used to plan that and other protests that turned violent.
Secondly, peaceful protests are protected under the U.S. Constitution, and therefore blocking the planning of such events would be unconstitutional. “Bad actors” turned what was a peaceful protest into a riot. Incidentally, the same happened during many protests held during 2020.
In response to the Parler ban, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is calling for a racketeering investigation into Big Tech, saying Amazon, Apple, and Google’s suspension of the Twitter competitor is “clearly a violation of antitrust, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.”23
Indeed, according to October 2020, report24 by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google all have monopoly power and are using that power to rid themselves of competition.
The Great Social Media Purge
Then there’s the great social media purge, which began in earnest on January 7 and 8, 2021, with the permanent ban of President Trump and a long list of other conservatives from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. According to some reports, Twitter suspended more than 70,000 accounts during its weekend purge.
Again, the primary excuse given was that these individuals may incite violence. Other justifications include posting “misleading information about the election outcome” or statements suggesting there was election fraud.25 Even signed witness affidavits and live testimony have been censored since election day.26 As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:27
“In the Trump tweets cited by Twitter, Trump stated that he will not be attending the inauguration and referred to his supporters as ‘American Patriots,’ saying they will have ‘a GIANT VOICE long into the future.’
Twitter said these statements ‘are likely to inspire others to replicate the violent acts that took place on January 6, 2021, and that there are multiple indicators that they are being received and understood as encouragement to do so’ …
In a lengthy monologue,28 Zuckerberg claims: ‘[Trump’s] decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the U.S. and around the world.
However, Zuckerberg’s statement seems to deviate from reality. In an increasingly hard-to-find video29 by Trump on the day of the Electoral College count, the outgoing president asked both his supporters and the rioters to be peaceful:
‘We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order and we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.'”
Contrast this scenario with all the violence and property destruction that was done by the Black Lives Matter movement this past summer and was clearly orchestrated over the Google, Apple, and Twitter platforms. The violence and damage were exponentially worse, yet not a word of censoring these platforms was ever mentioned.
Gab Strikes Back Against ‘Mockingbird Media Complex’
The Gab social network also claims to be under coordinated attack. According to Gab CEO Andrew Torba, there’s been a suspicious rise in violent content on the site that doesn’t appear to be generated by real users. In a January 8, 2021, statement, Torba said:30
“Over the past several weeks I have been openly warning the Gab community to be on the lookout for fedposters and threats or encouragement of violence on Gab.
This PSYOP campaign started back in early December with newly created accounts popping up out of nowhere and making threats of violence. We have zero tolerance for this behavior and it is absolutely not free speech.
This has always been our policy. We have thousands of volunteers, customers, and longtime community members who helped us stomp out this PSYOP campaign over the past several weeks and expose it. After this week, it’s clear why this PSYOP was started: to take down alt-tech platforms and frame them for the January 6th protests that ended with the police killing an unarmed woman.
Almost instantly after police allowed protestors into the Capitol the New York Times started a baseless narrative that this protest was organized on alt-tech sites, and in particular on Gab, without offering any proof, screenshots, usernames, or evidence to back these baseless claims.
I’ve recorded a video highlighting how this all played out. I hope you’ll take some time to watch it to learn how the CIA Mockingbird Media complex operates. The way we fight back is with truth and by speaking truth to their power, which is quickly fading.”
Antiwar Conservative Banned
While “incitement of violence” is being used as the justification for banning social media accounts, Facebook’s suspension of Dr. Ron Paul, a former Republican congressman for Texas and presidential candidate in 2011, punctures that narrative. He’s one of the most peaceful antiwar personalities out there.
“With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified. The only thing we posted to Facebook today was my weekly ‘Texas Straight Talk’ column, which I have published every week since 1976.”
The article in question apparently discussed a “shocking increase in censorship on social media,” though,33 which may have tripped Facebook’s blocking apparatus. Discussing the incident in an article on RonPaulInstitute.org, Jonathan Turley writes:34
“Paul, a libertarian leader and former presidential candidate, has been an outspoken critic of foreign wars and an advocate for civil liberties for decades … His son, United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted, ‘Facebook now considers advocating for liberty to be sedition. Where will it end?’
Even before the riot, Democrats were calling for blacklists and retaliation against anyone deemed to be ‘complicit’ with the Trump Administration.
We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican Party or President Trump.
Others are calling for banning those ‘complicit’ from college campuses while still others are demanding a ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ to ‘hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.’
Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for ‘humiliation,’ ‘incarceration’ and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column … Also, a top Forbes editor Randall Lane warned any company that they will be investigated if they hire any former Trump officials.
The riots are being used as a license to roll back on free speech and retaliate against conservatives. In the meantime, the silence of academics and many in the media is deafening …
The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown has become … It is like having a state media without state control … As we have seen in Europe, such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control.”
In the video35 featured at the top of this article, Paul discusses the dangers of big tech censorship. Unfortunately, he falls short on solutions in that video. In my view, one key strategy that we must focus on is to uphold the Constitution. If you want to live in a free society, you must first understand what a free society is, so educate yourself about your Constitutional rights. As noted by Greenwald:36
“On Facebook and Twitter, one finds official accounts from the most repressive and violent regimes on earth, including Saudi Arabia, and pages devoted to propaganda on behalf of the Egyptian regime. Does anyone think these tech giants have a genuine concern about violence and extremism?”
What’s Behind the Push for Censorship?
According to Big Tech, free speech is “dangerous.” I guess a follow-up question to such a statement would be: “To whom?” As mentioned earlier, agencies such as DARPA are using the online services of private companies, and according to independent journalist Whitney Webb,37 the COVID-19 pandemic has given “a dangerous boost to DARPA’s darkest agenda.”
“Given this foreknowledge and the numerous simulations conducted in the United States last year regarding global viral pandemic outbreaks, at least six of varying scope and size, it has often been asked — Why did the government not act or prepare if an imminent global pandemic and the shortcomings of any response to such an event were known?” Webb writes.38
“Though the answer to this question has frequently been written off as mere ‘incompetence’ in mainstream media circles, it is worth entertaining the possibility that a crisis was allowed to unfold. Why would the intelligence community or another faction of the U.S. government knowingly allow a crisis such as this to occur?
The answer is clear if one looks at history, as times of crisis have often been used by the U.S. government to implement policies that would normally be rejected by the American public, ranging from censorship of the press to mass surveillance networks.”
She goes on to review some of these historical events, and some of the DARPA-developed technologies that are now likely to come into play, from DNA and RNA vaccines to implantable biosensors and nanoplatforms said to detect disease.
If history is our guide, could the clamp-down on free speech be part of a bigger control and manipulation agenda — one that is directed not toward foreign enemies but the local population?
Might it be part of the Great Reset agenda, with its transhumanist bend? As explained by Webb in her article, DARPA has a transhumanist vision for the military, so why not for the general population? Especially seeing how its “health-based” biotechnologies end up meshing so seamlessly with new surveillance technologies.
I believe there may be some truth in that. Most certainly, big tech and social media monopolies are playing a central role in the social engineering currently taking place to pave the way for the technocratic “reset” of the global economy and way of life. That plan simply cannot occur without a sufficient number of the population being onboard with authoritarian conduct.
Greenwald has been a longstanding progressive and no fan of the Republican party, yet he notes that Silicon Valley giants may also be catering to the Democratic party in the hopes they won’t be regulated.
“The Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries,” Greenwald writes.39
“This corrupt motive was made expressly clear by long-time Clinton operative Jennifer Palmieri: ‘It has not escaped my attention that the day social media companies decided there actually IS more they could do to police Trump’s destructive behavior was the same day they learned Democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them.'”
Just Wait — You’re Next
While many appear to be caught up in the schadenfreude of the moment, basking in the perceived power of cancel culture, make no mistake — the censorship will not be limited to conservatives. Years ago, I warned that online censorship would not end at alternative health sites like mine, and guess what? It didn’t. Then I warned it would not stop at questioning vaccine safety, and of course, it didn’t.
In 2020, discussions about certain medical treatments for COVID-19, the sensibility of mask-wearing, and the origin of the virus all became targets for massive censoring and de-platforming. Next came bans on criticism against protests that frequently turned violent. Now one political party is being silenced en masse.
Make no mistake. Eventually, all will be targeted. The acceptable speech will continue to narrow until everyone has something to lose by opening their mouth and expressing an opinion. It’s inevitable, which is why supporting censorship is so ill-advised. As noted by Greenwald:40
“The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg pronounced herself ‘disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is’ and added that ‘it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.’
She nonetheless praised these ‘young tech titans’ for using their ‘dangerous’ power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. In other words, liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced …
That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism. Liberals now want to use the force of corporate power to silence those with different ideologies.
They are eager for tech monopolies not just to ban accounts they dislike but to remove entire platforms from the internet. They want to imprison people they believe helped their party lose elections, such as Julian Assange, even if it means creating precedents to criminalize journalism.
World leaders have vocally condemned the power Silicon Valley has amassed to police political discourse, and were particularly indignant over the banning of the U.S. President … Even the ACLU — which has rapidly transformed from a civil liberties organization into a liberal activist group … found the assertion of Silicon Valley’s power to destroy Parler deeply alarming …
Yet American liberals swoon for this authoritarianism. And they are now calling for the use of the most repressive War on Terror measures against their domestic opponents. On Tuesday, House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) urged that GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley ‘be put on the no-fly list’ …
No authoritarians believe they are authoritarians. No matter how repressive are the measures they support — censorship, monopoly power, no-fly lists for American citizens without due process — they tell themselves that those they are silencing and attacking are so evil … that anything done against them is noble and benevolent, not despotic and repressive.
That is how American liberals currently think, as they fortify the control of Silicon Valley monopolies over our political lives, exemplified by the overnight destruction of a new and popular competitor.”
Take Control of Your Online Presence
Censorship is never directed to specific groups, eventually, it is applied to anything deemed threatening to the ruling class. So, while you wait for a decentralized, censorship-free internet, what can you do to protect your online privacy and your right to free speech? Here are a few suggestions:
Switch from Facebook and Twitter to free-speech alternatives41 such as Gab, MeWe, Minds (and Parler if they manage to come back).
Switch from YouTube to uncensored alternatives42 such as Bitchute, Brighteon, Banned.video, and Thinkspot.
Download the Signal or Telegram app to encrypt your text messages. Telegram also allows you to subscribe to channels (read-only messages are sent to your phone from any channel you subscribe. This feature is starting to be increasingly used by individuals who have been banned on other social media platforms).
Use a VPN on your desktop, laptop, and mobile devices to preserve your privacy.
For content creators and alternative news sources that no longer have a social media presence due to censoring, subscribe to their newsletter if available, and/or mark their website in your favorites and check back on a regular basis.
Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave instead, available for all computers and mobile devices.44 From a security perspective, Brave is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN service (a virtual private network) to further preserve your privacy.
Switch to a non-Google email service such as ProtonMail,45 an encrypted email service based in Switzerland.
Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives.46
Don’t use Google Home devices. These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. Android phones are also always listening and recording, as are Google’s home thermostat Nest, and Amazon’s Alexa.
Ditch Fitbit, as it was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.
If you’re a high school student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts.
Having trouble interpreting what’s really going on in the world? Of course you can always trust the media to lead the way to the promised land of truth. Here’s how the media wants you to think- according to JP and friends.
The COVID “Pandemic”: Destroying People’s Lives. Engineered Economic Depression. Global “Coup d’état”?
Red Zones, the facemask, social distancing, the closing down of schools, colleges, and universities, no more family gatherings, no birthday celebrations, music, the arts: no more cultural events, sports events are suspended, no more weddings, “love and life” is banned outright.
And in several countries, Christmas is on hold …
It’s the destruction of people’s lives. It is the destabilization of civil society. And for What?
The Lies are sustained by a massive media disinformation campaign. 24/7, Incessant, and repetitive “Covid alerts” for the last ten months. … It is a process of social engineering.
Manipulation of the Estimates. The RT-PCR Tests are Misleading.
What they want is to hike up the numbers so as to justify the Lockdown.
This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.
Covid-19 is portrayed as the “killer Virus”.
Falsifying Death Certificates
In the US, the death certificates are falsified on the instructions of the CDC.
COVID-19: The “underlying cause of death”. This concept is fundamental. It is defined by the WHO as “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to the death”.
In France “Churches are threatened with Kalashnikovs over Covid-19 outbreak” (April 2020)
In France “Churches are threatened with Kalashnikovs over Covid-19 outbreak” (April 2020)
The entire urban services economy is in crisis. Shops, bars, and restaurants are driven into bankruptcy. International travel and holidays are suspended. The streets are empty. In several countries, bars and restaurants are required to take names and contact information “to support effective contact tracing if necessary“.
Free Speech is Suppressed
The lockdown narrative is supported by media disinformation, online censorship, social engineering, and the fear campaign.
Peer-reviewed psychological “studies” are currently being carried in several countries using sample surveys.
Accept the “Big Lie” and you are tagged as a “good person” with “empathy” who understands the feelings of others.
…[E]xpress reservations regarding … social distancing and the wearing of the face mask, and you will be tagged (according to “scientific opinion”) as a “callous and deceitful psychopath”.
In colleges and universities, the teaching staff is pressured to conform and endorse the official covid narrative. Questioning the legitimacy of the lockdown in online “classrooms” could lead to dismissal.
Google is marketing the Big Lie. The opinions of prominent scientists who question the lockdown, the face-mask or social distancing are “taken down”:
“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) orlocal health authorities‘ medical information about COVID-19, including on methods to prevent, treat or diagnose COVID-19, and means of transmission of COVID-19.” (emphasis added)
They call it “fact-checking”, without acknowledging that both the WHO and local health authorities contradict their own data and concepts.
March 11, 2020: Engineered Economic Depression. Global Coup d’Etat?
The Pandemic was launched by the WHO on March 11, 2020, leading to the Lockdown and closure of the national economies of 190 (out of 193) countries, member states of the United Nations. The instructions came from above, from Wall Street, the World Economic Forum, the billionaire foundations. This diabolical project is casually described by the corporate media as a “humanitarian” endeavor. The “international community” has a “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). An unelected “private-public partnership” under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has come to the rescue of Planet Earth’s 7.8 billion people. The closure of the global economy is presented as a means to “killing the virus”.
Sounds absurd. Close down the real economy of Planet Earth is not the “solution” but rather the “cause” of a process of Worldwide destabilization and impoverishment.
The national economy combined with political, social, and cultural institutions is the basis for the “reproduction of real-life”: income, employment, production, trade, infrastructure, social services. Destabilizing the economy of Planet Earth cannot constitute a “solution” to combating the virus. But that is the imposed “solution” that they want us to believe in. And that is what they are doing.
Destabilizing in one fell swoop the national economies of more than 190 countries is an act of “economic warfare”. This diabolical agenda undermines the sovereignty of nation-states. It impoverishes people Worldwide. It leads to a spiraling dollar-denominated global debt.
The power structures of global capitalism, Big Money coupled with its intelligence and military apparatus are the driving force. Using advanced digital and communications technologies, the Lockdown and Economic Closure of the global economy is unprecedented in World history.
This simultaneous intervention in 190 countries derogates democracy. It undermines the sovereignty of nation-states Worldwide, without the need for military intervention. It is an advanced system of economic warfare that overshadows other forms of warfare including conventional (Iraq-style) theater wars.
Global Governance Scenarios. World Government in the Post-Covid Era?
The March 11 2020 Lockdown project uses lies and deception to ultimately impose a Worldwide totalitarian regime, entitled “Global Governance” (by unelected officials). In the words of David Rockefeller:
“…The world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” (quoted by Aspen Times, August 15, 2011, emphasis added)
The Global Governance scenario imposes an agenda of social engineering and economic compliance.
“It constitutes an extension of the neoliberal policy framework imposed on both developing and developed countries. It consists in scrapping “national auto-determination” and constructing a Worldwide nexus of pro-US proxy regimes controlled by a “supranational sovereignty” (World Government) composed of leading financial institutions, billionaires and their philanthropic foundations.”(See Michel Chossudovsky, Global Capitalism, “World Government” and the Corona Crisis, May 1, 2020).
The Rockefeller Foundation proposes the use of scenario planning as a means to carry out “global governance”. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, May 1, 2020). In Rockefeller’s 2010 Report entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development Area” scenarios of Global Governance and the actions to be taken in the case of a Worldwide pandemic are contemplated. More specifically, the report envisaged (p 18) the simulation of a Lock Step scenario including a global virulent influenza strain. The 2010 Rockefeller report was published in the immediate wake of the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic.
Another important simulation was carried out on October 18, 2019, less than 3 months before SARS-2 was identified in early January 2020.
Event 201 was held under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, March 1, 2020)
Intelligence and “The Art of Deception”
The Covid crisis is a sophisticated instrument of power elites. It has all the features of a carefully planned intelligence op. using “deception and counter-deception”. Leo Strauss: “viewed intelligence as a means for policymakers to attain and justify policy goals, not to describe the realities of the world.” And that is precisely what they are doing in relation to Covid-19.
Video: The Event 201 Pandemic Exercise. October 18, 2019. Focusses on the extent of the pandemic. Also addresses within the simulation how do deal with online social media and so-called “misinformation”. (Listen carefully)
Macro-Economic Intervention. Evolution of the Global Economy
History of Economic “Shock Treatment”. The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) to “Global Adjustment (GA)”
The March 11, 2020 (simultaneous) closing down of the national economies of 190 member states of the UN is diabolical and unprecedented. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their lifelong savings. In developing countries, poverty, famine, and despair prevail.
While this model of “global intervention” is unprecedented, it has certain features reminiscent of the country-level macro-economic reforms including the imposition of strong “economic medicine” by the IMF. To address this issue let us examine the history of so-called “economic shock treatment”.
Flashback to Chile, September 11, 1973.
As a visiting professor at the Catholic University of Chile, I lived through the military coup directed against the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. It was a CIA op led by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger coupled with devastating macro-economic reforms.
The image on the left: Kissinger together with General Augusto Pinochet (1970s)
In the month following the Coup d’Etat, the price of bread increased from 11 to 40 escudos overnight. This engineered collapse of both real wages and employment under the Pinochet dictatorship was conducive to a nationwide process of impoverishment. While food prices had skyrocketed, wages had been frozen to ensure “economic stability and stave off inflationary pressures.” From one day to the next, an entire country had been precipitated into abysmal poverty: in less than a year the price of bread in Chile increased thirty-six times and eighty-five percent of the Chilean population had been driven below the poverty line.” That was Chile’s 1973 “Reset”
Two and a half years later in 1976, I returned to Latin America as a visiting professor at the National University of Cordoba in the northern industrial heartland of Argentina. My stay coincided with another military coup d’état in March 1976. Behind the massacres and human rights violations, “free market” macro-economic reforms had also been prescribed – this time under the supervision of Argentina’s New York creditors, including David Rockefeller who was a friend of The Junta’s Minister of Economy José AlfredoMartinez de Hoz.
The image on the right: General President Jorge Videla, David Rockefeller, and Argentina’s Economy Minister Martinez de Hoz, Buenos Aires (the 1970s)
Chile and Argentina were “dress rehearsals” for things to come: The imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was imposed on more than 100 countries starting in the early 1980s. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, 2003)
A notorious example of the “free market”: Peru in August 1990 was punished for not conforming to IMF diktats: the price of fuel was hiked up 31 times and the price of bread increased more than twelve times in a single day. These reforms – carried out in the name of “democracy” – were far more devastating than those applied in Chile and Argentina under the fist of military rule.
And now on March 11, 2020, we enter a new phase of macro-economic destabilization, which is more devastating and destructive than 40 years of “shock treatment” and austerity measures imposed by the IMF on behalf of dominant financial interests.
There is rupture, a historical break as well as continuity. It’s “Neoliberalism to the n-th Degree”
The image on the left: Kissinger with Argentina’s Dictator General Jorge Videla (the 1970s)
Closure of the Global Economy: Economic and Social Impacts at the Level of the Entire Planet
Compare what is happening to the Global Economy today with the country by country “negotiated” macro-economic measures imposed by creditors under the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP). The March 11, 2020 “Global Adjustment” was not negotiated with national governments. It was imposed by a “private/ public partnership”, supported by media propaganda, and accepted, invariably by co-opted and corrupt politicians.
“Engineered” Social Inequality and Impoverishment. The Globalization of Poverty
Compare the March 11, 2020 “Global Adjustment” “guidelines” affecting the entire Planet to Chile September 11, 1973.
In a bitter irony, the same Big Money interests behind the 2020 “Global Adjustment” were actively involved in Chile (1973) and Argentina (1976). Remember “Operation Condor” and the “Dirty War” (Guerra Sucia).
There is continuity: The same powerful financial interests: The IMF and the World Bank bureaucracies are currently involved in preparing and managing the” post-pandemic “New Normal” debt operations (on behalf of the creditors) under the Great Reset.
Henry Kissinger was involved in coordinating Chile’s 9/11, 1973 “Reset”.
The Thrust of “Depopulation” under the Great Reset?
Today, Henry Kissinger is a firm supporter alongside the Gates Foundation (which is also firmly committed to depopulation) of the Great Reset under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
No need to negotiate with national governments or carry out “regime change”. The March 11, 2020 project constitutes a “Global Adjustment” which triggers bankruptcies, unemployment, and privatization on a much larger scale affecting in one fell swoop the national economies of more than 150 countries.
And this whole process is presented to public opinion as a means to combating the “killer virus” which, according to the CDC and the WHO is similar to seasonal influenza. (Viruses A, B).
The Hegemonic Power Structure of Global Capitalism
Big Money including the billionaire foundations is the driving force. It’s a complex alliance of Wall Street and the Banking establishment, Big Oil and Energy, the so-called “Defense Contractors”, Big Pharma, the Biotech Conglomerates, the Corporate Media, the Telecom, Communications and Digital Technology Giants, together with a network of think tanks, lobby groups, research labs, etc. The ownership of intellectual property also plays a central role.
This complex decision-making network involves major creditor and banking institutions: The Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB), the IMF, the World Bank, the regional development banks, and the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which plays a key strategic role.
In turn, the upper echelons of the US State apparatus (and Washington’s Western Allies) are directly or indirectly involved, including the Pentagon, US Intelligence (and its research labs), the Health authorities, Homeland Security and the US State Department (including US embassies in over 150 countries).
People have become totally obsessed with their own beliefs, opinions, and biases that their behavior is going completely unexamined. Their reactions to the latest news item are automatic and predictable. The late iconoclast Terence McKenna pointed out that obsessive and unexamined behavior in pursuit of the familiar stimulus (such as what we see with each moment of media outrage) is what drug addiction is about.
McKenna went a step further to say that television was the greatest drug ever introduced into society. What else could persuade people to spend an average of 5-7 hours a day sitting in front of the TV? All the while consuming, in hypnotic states of mind, the scientifically crafted messages of corporate and government propagandists?
Here, McKenna expounds on the idea that television is a drug that is having negative consequences on individuals and on society at large:
“Unexamined behavior is what is alarming about drug addiction, that people behave like they are obsessed. Well on that scale, then, the most powerful drug of the late 20th century is television and propaganda. And the way in which we consume propaganda is amazing. I mean the most intelligent of us, the ones who hold ourselves most aloof, are probably junkies through and through when it comes to the media.” ~Terence McKenna
He goes on to talk about how being able to see violence on tv has changed the nature of warfare, and that if we are to watch violence, we need to see real footage of it, rather than theatrical violence so that we can understand that we have a responsibility in creating a world in which war and violence are so prevalent.
Here he explains how similar watching television is to consuming a drug:
“In fact it is shaping our value systems in ways that are very hard for us to suspect or even detect. I mean television, for example, it’s a drug. It has a series of measurable physiological parameters that are as intrinsically its signature as are teh parameters of heroin or its signature. You sit someone down in front of a TV set and turn it on. Twenty minutes later come back, sample their blood pressure, their eye movement rate, blood is pooling in their rear end, their breathing takes on a certain quality, the stare reflex sets in. They are thoroughly zoned on a drug.” ~Terence McKenna
Here he talks a bit more about the nature of addiction, tv, and our true purpose on this planet as human beings.
What do you think? Is television and mass media making people crazy?
About the Author
Dylan Charles is the editor of Waking Times and host of The Battered Souls Podcast, both dedicated to ideas of personal transformation, societal awakening, and planetary renewal. His personal journey is deeply inspired by shamanic plant medicines and the arts of Kung Fu, Qi Gong, and Yoga. After seven years of living in Costa Rica, he now lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where he practices Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and enjoys spending time with family. He has written hundreds of articles, reaching and inspiring millions of people around the world.
We live in a world where, most would agree, there is a lot that goes on that we will never know about. For some of us, one of the most liberating things is the ability to be a skeptic – to open our eyes and deal with the world not with naivete, but with a questioning mind. Indeed, there are plenty who champion the internet and social media for being a way of getting the facts to people without a filter and without bias.
There is no doubt that a world can’t really work properly without an informed populace. Whatever your own personal views on an issue, or on the world in general, it has to be a good thing if more people know more about how the world works. Informed decisions are, by their very nature, better decisions than gut reactions. However, the flip side of this is that getting informed, staying informed, and processing the information you have is difficult to do.
Avoiding confirmation bias is tough
It is very easy to fall into a trap of only believing stories, or interpretations on a story, that we would like to be true. When we read something, no matter the source, we very quickly judge whether the information has the “ring of truth” about it. Very often, we decide that it does simply because it chimes with how we understand the world. It’s advisable to check in with a source or two that you don’t usually agree with, and to fact check your preferred sources. Because let’s face it, what are the chances that you’re right 100% of the time?
A narrow focus will only harm your attention span
When you feel that you have had your eyes opened on a particular issue, it can be hard to think about anything else, and if you do shift your attention, you can still be looking at it through a filter. If you’re focusing too hard on government and foreign policy, you can lose sight of healthcare matters. If you’re reading everything you can on epidemiology, you might flat out miss things like angel numbers. Opening your eyes is just one part of being an attentive person. Part Two is standing back and surveying everything critically.
It’s OK to disagree; especially among like minds
Similarly to the point about focusing too narrowly, you can waste a lot of time by trying to get people to see the world (and everything in it) from your point of view. Ask yourself, does that sound like free thinking? Can you really decry how people “just believe everything they’re told” and then have an issue when someone challenges what you tell them? People who you consider friends and allies will disagree with you about some things. That’s better than the alternative; disagreement sharpens our own arguments and shows we’re thinking.
It is more than fine to view the world through a skeptical lens, but it’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking everyone else is a drone who blindly obeys authority. None of us has all the answers, and we have to get there in our own time.