Global Uprising Underway

After six months of intermittent or in some cases near-continuous lockdowns, many have reached their limit and uprisings are finally emerging around the world. The last week of August 2020 saw gatherings of tens of thousands of individuals in Berlin,¹ London² and Dublin,³ protesting stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask and vaccine mandates, and Bill Gates’ dictatorial grip on public health matters.

In the U.S., a protest took place August 30, 2020, in Boston, Massachusetts, against a new student flu vaccination mandate,⁴ and in Virginia, protesters gathered September 2 in opposition of unconstitutional COVID-19 mandates.⁵

These are just a few of the many demonstrations that have taken place in recent weeks around the world, as people are starting to realize their human rights are being stripped away over a virus with a lethality on par with that of seasonal influenza and other pandemic viruses, none of which was responded to with a global shutdown of economies and forced quarantining of healthy individuals.

COVID-19 — A Massive Brainwashing Scheme?

In recent weeks and months, more and more experts have come out sharing what they know about the roles of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and global health organizations such as the World Health Organization in the creation of new technocratic world order.

If you missed my interview with financial analyst Patrick Wood, in which he details the technocratic take-over plan, which has been in play for decades, be sure to review it now. Other articles shedding light on what’s happening behind the scenes include “Harvard Professor Exposes Google and Facebook,” featuring a documentary with professor Shoshana Zuboff, and “Plandemic Part 2.”

When you start to put all the puzzle pieces together, it seems clear this pandemic is being used as a cover story for both a global wealth redistribution scheme, and for the implementation of a technocratic system of totalitarian rule by unelected leaders.

The WHO seems to be part and parcel of this global network. While the U.S. has severed ties with the organization, Big Tech is still promoting the WHO as a final arbiter of which views are acceptable and which are not — medical expertise and scientific achievements be damned.

As reported by Reclaim the Net,⁶ the WHO eavesdrops on everything you do online, from reviewing your social media interactions to analyzing your emotions. To counteract the “spread of misleading information” about the pandemic — which was a key area of focus during Event 201 — the WHO has partnered with an analytics company that uses machine learning analysis to scan more than 1.6 million social media posts per week.

The aim of this “social listening approach”— a nicer term than good old-fashioned spying — is to counteract anything that doesn’t align with the WHO’s current narrative on illnesses, treatments, interventions, and causes of disease.

Aiding them in this dystopian censoring process is the United Nations, which has launched an army of 10,000 digital volunteers who troll the internet for “false” information and opposing views.

On top of that, most social media platforms have their own highly biased “fact-checkers” who censor for all they’re worth. Back in April 2020, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, wife of Google product director Dennis Troper, announced they would ban and remove any video from the platform that contradicts the WHO.⁷

Countless examples of wanton censorship of perfectly valid medical and scientific information across all social media platforms and Google can be found at this point.

Just How Deadly Is COVID-19?

According to groundbreaking data⁸ recently released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate.

Six percent of 169,044 (the total death toll as of September 2) is 10,143. “For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC states. As reported by Rochester First,⁹ the top underlying medical conditions included influenza, pneumonia, respiratory failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia, heart problems, and renal failure.

However, the list also includes 5,424 intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning deaths, so basically, accidents and suicides in which the individual just happened to test positive (or was suspected of being positive for SARS-CoV-2) are also included in the grand total.

(Please note, these data were accurate as of this writing. The CDC does not notate when data is altered as new death certificates come in, so the numbers may therefore be different from what is reported here, depending on when you’re looking at it. For the most up-to-date figures, see the CDC’s website.¹⁰)

The fact that only 6% of COVID-19-related deaths are directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 is bad news when you’re trying to keep a doomsday narrative going. In what appears to be a blatant attempt to minimize exposure of these data, social media platforms have censored many trying to share it.¹¹

As noted by independent news commentator Tim Pool in the video below, fact-checkers are digging into nitpicky semantics in their effort to censor the CDC data, and in so doing, they’re really stretching the “false” claim ultrathin.

Similar data have emerged from Palm Beach County, Florida, where an investigation by CBS 12¹² I-Team revealed only 86 of the reported 658 COVID-19 deaths had “COVID-19 pneumonia” listed as the sole cause of death.

All others had multiple comorbidities, including diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and dementia. As noted by CBS 12, “Most Palm Beach County COVID deaths cannot be attributed to COVID alone.”

While Dr. Terry Adirim, senior associate dean at the Florida Atlantic University College of Medicine, told the I-Team that “it makes sense to count them [people with comorbid conditions] toward COVID deaths because the virus may have made an otherwise non-fatal illness like a heart condition deadly,” the converse argument can also be made.

Had it not been for them having one or more serious comorbidities, the risk of the virus to these individuals would have been minuscule, and if they got sick at all, they’d probably have survived. So, ultimately, should the virus bear the brunt of the blame?

Infection Fatality Rate on Par With the Flu

Keeping the “killer virus” narrative going much longer is probably going to become even more difficult in light of a September 2, 2020 article¹³ in Annals of Internal Medicine, which points out that:

“Because many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic, generalizable data on the true number of persons infected are lacking, and that when calculating mortality rates from confirmed cases, you end up overestimating the infection fatality ratio (IFR).”

The paper reads, in part:¹⁴

“To calculate a true infection fatality ratio, population prevalence data are needed from large geographic areas where reliable death data also exist … We combined prevalence estimates from a statewide random sample with Indiana vital statistics data of confirmed COVID-19 deaths.

In brief, our stratified random sample consisted of state residents aged 12 years and older. Known decedents and incarcerated persons were excluded. Because nursing homes were limiting residents' ability to leave and re-enter the facilities, their participation was unlikely.

Participants were tested from 25 April to 29 April 2020 for active viral infection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which would indicate prior infection … We calculated the IFR by age, race, sex, and ethnicity on the basis of the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths as of 29 April 2020, divided by the number of infections.

Although nursing home residents were not tested, they represented 54.9% of Indiana's deaths. Thus, we excluded nursing home residents from all calculations (that is, deaths and infections).

To account for all infections, we added the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the testing period and noninstitutionalized COVID-19 deaths into the denominator …

Our random-sample study estimated 187 802 cumulative infections, to which 180 hospitalizations were added. The average age among all COVID-19 decedents was 76.9 years.

The overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio was 0.26% … Persons younger than 40 years had an infection fatality ratio of 0.01%; those aged 60 or older had an infection fatality ratio of 1.71%. Whites had an infection fatality ratio of 0.18%; non-Whites had an infection fatality ratio of 0.59%.”

The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza are those over the age of 60.

All others have a lower risk of dying from COVID-19 than they have of dying from the flu. Put another way, if you’re under the age of 60, your chances of dying from the flu are greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.

White House coronavirus task force coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx also confirmed this far lower than typically reported mortality rate when she, in mid-August 2020, stated that it “becomes more and more difficult” to get people to comply with mask rules “when people start to realize that 99% of us are going to be fine.”¹⁵

Expect Massive Propaganda Campaign to Boost Vaccine Uptake

With death rates being as low as they are for everyone under the age of 60, it really weakens the rationale for vaccinating the entire world, including newborns, the risk to whom the virus poses is virtually nil.

The vaccine looking increasingly unnecessary is likely a reason why the U.S. government is planning to launch an “overwhelming” COVID-19 vaccine campaign this fall, using carefully researched messages. As detailed in “Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” Yale University has conducted a trial¹⁶ to determine the type of message that will maximize acceptance and uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Messaging slants evaluated in the investigation included:¹⁷

The study, which was completed July 8, 2020, also sought to determine:

• Participant’s confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine after hearing the message in question
• Participant’s willingness to persuade others to get vaccinated
• Their fear of those who have not been vaccinated
• The social judgment of those who choose not to vaccinate

Prosocial Pressure Tactics Work Best

Harvard Business School in collaboration with the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has also published a working paper¹⁸ comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors.

Considering the messages we’ve been bombarded with over the past few months — calling people who don’t wear masks “grandma killers” and so on — it seems clear that results from these kinds of investigations have been capitalized on.

In that paper, “Don’t Get It or Don’t Spread It?” the authors review studies in which various types of messages were compared — messages highlighting the threat to self, versus the threat you might pose to others.

Overall, prosocial messages, i.e., messages that stress the importance of complying with prevention behaviors in order to protect others fared the best. According to the authors:¹⁹

“These results reveal that prosocial framing was more effective than self-interested framing, suggesting a potential primacy of prosocial motivations in supporting prevention intentions …

First, prosocial framing may have been relatively more effective not because prosocial motivations do more to drive prevention intentions, but rather because people believe that COVID-19 poses a greater threat to society than to themselves.

Indeed, subjects in Studies 1-2 did on average report that coronavirus posed a larger public than personal threat.

However, we find that the advantage of the Public treatment (relative to the Personal treatment) was not significantly moderated by ‘threat difference scores’ (i.e., differences between the reported personal vs. public threat of coronavirus), or significantly smaller among subjects who reported the personal threat of coronavirus to be as large or larger than the public threat …

Thus, we find evidence that the relative effectiveness of the Public treatment was not unique to subjects who saw COVID-19 as more threatening to society than to themselves.

A second possibility is that prosocial framing (which encourages people to avoid spreading coronavirus) was more effective than self-interested framing (which encourages people to avoid getting coronavirus) because people feel relatively more empowered to avoid spreading the virus.”

Stop Believing in the Lockdown

A powerful essay²⁰ in the American Institute for Economic Research asks the question: Is the lockdown the best way to minimize casualties in this pandemic?

Using historical examples beginning with Voltaire’s words, “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,” the author reasons that lockdowns are not going to save the world from COVID-19, if for no other reason than whenever lockdowns are eased, infections naturally start to creep back up.

However, the vast majority of these “infections” or “cases” are asymptomatic. A rising “case” load does not mean people are actually getting sick and dying. The misuse of the medical term “case” is an egregious one, as historically, a “case” is defined as someone who has symptoms of a particular disease — someone who is actually sick.

Never in medical history has a “case” meant someone who is perfectly healthy and requires testing to determine whether they are infected with a particular pathogen. Would you get tested for the common cold or influenza if you had no symptoms? If the test happened to come back positive, would you with a straight face say you “have” a cold or the flu?

There are other myths, mostly scare tactics, that people are willingly believing that need to be stopped now, too, the author asserts — and it’s time to start questioning what is credulous and what is not. I encourage you to read that essay in its totality.

The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism

Another article²¹ well worth reading is Mark Petrakis’ “The Fatal Attraction of Techno-Fascism.” This one also starts off with an excellent quote by Cato the Elder: “Those who are serious in ridiculous matters will be ridiculous in serious matters.” One of the first points he makes is that fascism is attractive because:

“… it requires so little from us, so little independent thought; just our basic belief and adherence to a limited set of popularly-shared directives and narratives that once fully accepted, relieve us of the need to address stubborn questions or to fret over subtle differences of opinion and feeling.

Propaganda reassures us that we are complete, that we know all there is to know, that we are rational, pragmatic and pure, that the science has been settled and that we are a part of something special.”

Petrakis goes on to discuss why propaganda and disinformation are required in order to maintain control in a fascist regime, and how truth is a liability that must be disallowed and penalized. In the end, the price we pay for this kind of intellectual laziness is “soul-crushing denial and disconnection.”

No one who has been paying attention this past year, in particular, can have missed that propaganda is in full swing, 24/7 and that both truthful facts and personal opinions that run counter to the established propaganda narrative are being censored and penalized in equal measure.

When it comes to COVID-19, the propaganda is so pervasive and widespread that it has actually shattered what Petrakis refers to as “the grandest illusion of all” that “must be maintained at all costs,” namely the appearance that the propaganda messages are randomly generated.

“It must always appear that the media’s coverage and the comments of experts are entirely free from any preconceived manipulation,” he says. Today, there is little doubt that the narrative we see is anything but free from bias. There’s little doubt that what we’re told is “weaponized storytelling,” to quote Petrakis yet again.

“Looking at our world, we can see that the reach and authority of the transnational global capitalists who run the world’s nation-sized casinos has been cemented. All systems are now in place, up and running LIVE on that criminal syndicate’s vast web of networks. Each one of us has by now been targeted by them for some form of surveillance and financialization …

The ‘A.I. control grids’ are all active and expanding. The technocratic agendas are now fully ready for prime-time.

We have been gradually ‘shepherded’ by propaganda and psychological torture techniques … under the ‘persistent’ control of A.I., which will guide the process of transmuting us into commodities, into plunderable assets, into digitally-regulated and genetically modified ‘livestock.’ Sadly, this is where decades of constant acquiescence to propaganda and institutional hypnosis has brought us …”

Ultimately, the economic system known as technocracy is tailor-made for the transhumanist revolution — which I touch upon in “Will New COVID Vaccine Make You Transhuman?” — where man is merged with technology and AI. As always, the lure will be greater convenience, self-improvement, and “a better world for all.”

What’s never mentioned is the ultimate price. The price for all of it is complete subjugation to faceless leaders who profit from your every move and therefore will dictate all of them.

COVID-19 Rules Mark ‘Hysterical Slide Into Police State’

I’ll end this with some observations by British Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who in a March 30, 2020, interview²² with The Post warned that COVID-19 rules are paving the way for despotism — the exercise of absolute power in a cruel and oppressive manner.

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.

That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying. They want action anyway. And anyone who has studied history will recognize here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria.

Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.”

It is time to ask ourselves some very pressing questions. Is it reasonable to expect the government to eliminate ALL infection and ALL death? They’ve proven they cannot, yet we keep relinquishing more and more freedoms and liberties because they claim doing so will keep everyone safer. It’s an enticing lie, but a lie nonetheless.

Remember, they sold us on the business shutdowns and home quarantining by saying we just need to flatten the curve of infection to avoid hospital overcrowding. Now the curve is in a visible nosedive and hospitals are far from overcrowded with COVID-19 patients, yet lockdowns remain in many areas and some — Australia being a prime example — have reached astonishing new heights.

Sooner or later everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security? Circling back to where I started, the good news is that many are in fact starting to see the writing on the wall; they’re starting to see we’ve been “had,” and are starting to choose liberty over brutal totalitarianism in the name of public health.