Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

What is happening in Australia’s Aboriginal communities?

OffGuardian | November 26, 2021

The last few days we have heard some alarming reports about how the Northern Territories of Australia are treating their indigenous communities.

Tweets and videos have emerged claiming aboriginal people are being removed from their land and sent to “quarantine centres”, allegedly to protect them from the virus.

Some representatives of the community have sent out videos asking for “international aid”, and claiming Aboriginal communities are being placed under “martial law” and people are being removed from their homes “at gunpoint”

At a protest against the measures, one aboriginal elder was violently arrested by officers witnesses claim were not wearing ID badges.

Another elder, June Mills, posted a video to facebook expressing concern about how difficult it is to get information out of the locked down communities. She says she has heard that the army is “removing people against their will”, ending with the emotive cry “they are killing us!”

Australia has been so rapidly descending into a fascist hellhole that none of this, if true, would be at all surprising. The very fact they have a huge quarantine camp they unironically refer to as “The Centre for National Resilience” should be a massive red flag for everyone.

Michael Gunner, Chief Minister of the Northern Territories, was a caricature of wide-eyed zealotry in a recent press conference. When asked whether vaccine mandates might alienate some people, even those already vaccinated he said:

If you support or give comfort to anybody who argues against the vaccine, you are an anti-vaxxer, I don’t care what your personal vaccination status is.”

The phrase “give comfort too” should alarm people, because it’s only ever used in warlike settings, discussing treason and collusion. “Giving comfort to the enemy“.

In another press conference, Gunner also announced a “hard lockdown” in aboriginal communities, meaning people are not allowed to leave their homes except for medical treatment or if required by law. Adding that people are being “removed” to quarantine centres in military trucks. Not just people diagnosed with “covid”, but “close contacts” too:

Police are going door to door in Aboriginal communities to “intensively engage” with those who do not want the “vaccine”.

All this is being sold in the mainstream as “concern” for communities which could be “extra vulnerable”.

Voices on social media – who are totally real, and not at all shills there to control the narrative – are claiming strict measures are necessary to protect indigenous Australians from Covid, because it would rip through their communities “like syphilis did to the Native Americans”. There is, so far, very little evidence to support this fear-mongering.

However, written statements, allegedly from people detained, are emerging online saying they are being well taken care of, and that “irresponsible” social media posts are “hurting people”.

Amnesty UK issued a press release condemning the moves, but this was swiftly countermanded by Amnesty Australia, and dismissed as “disinformation” in the press and by Michael Gunner as “conspiracy theorising” from “tinfoil hat-wearing tossers”.

Some other Australian states are already building quarantine camps specifically for Aboriginal communities.

South Australia announced a tender for these camps last week, with press coverage underlining they would be only for those people who are “unable to isolate at home”.

Whether genuinely well-intentioned or not, it can certainly be argued this is an example of massive governmental overreach, especially for a virus that is at worst a bad seasonal flu.

It’s a convoluted and complex situation, with the real facts being hard to establish. Whatever the reality, it’s a situation that bears close watching.

November 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

New Zealand Doctors Speaking out with Science

NZDSOS – 15/11/2021

‘NZ Doctors Speaking out with Science’ featuring Drs Alison Goodwin, Matt Shelton, and Emanuel Garcia. News Conference 15th November, 2021.

See also:

CV19… four basic assumptions

November 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccinated “No Less Infectious” Than Unvaccinated, CDC Study Finds

By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • November 24, 2021

A pre-print study out this week from the U.S. Government’s Covid Response Team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found vaccinated people to be “no less infectious” than unvaccinated people.

The study tested inmates in a federal prison with high vaccination rates daily during a SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant outbreak.

The study was very thorough. Inmates who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were, where willing, PCR-tested for 10 consecutive days and reported symptoms via a questionnaire. The researchers performed whole genome sequencing and viral culture analysis on a high proportion of the 978 specimens collected, allowing them to assess the duration of PCR positivity and viral culture positivity.

There were 95 participants in total, of whom 78 (82%) were double vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not double vaccinated (two having received one dose and 15 having received none). No significant differences were found between double vaccinated and not double vaccinated either in duration of PCR positivity (13 days each) or in duration of culture positivity (five days each).

The authors conclude that “clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons”.

This is in line with the findings of Public Health England and others.

While this sounds like more good news for countering vaccine passports, vaccine mandates and all other vaccine-based coercion and discrimination, it may be less good news for ending general restrictions and interventions. The authors state: “These findings are critically important, especially in congregate settings where viral transmission can lead to large outbreaks.” Which suggests they think the lack of efficacy against transmission is a reason to intervene more generally to prevent “large outbreaks” in “congregate settings”. It could be a long winter.

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

French Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen speaks out against vaccine passports

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | November 25, 2021

Presidential candidate in next year’s election in France, Marine Le Pen, has promised to remove vaccine passport mandates if she is elected because they are “useless” and a “disproportionate” restriction.

She will be running against current President Emanuel Macron, who supports the controversial measures.

“What is the vaccine passport for, apart from imposing a useless and disproportionate constraint on the French people?” Le Pen said in an interview on French radio France Inter.

Le Pen is against mandatory vaccination for everyone, including medical professionals. She supports “vaccine-freedom,” especially considering the vaccine does not prevent you from getting COVID or from contaminating others.”

Referring to vaccinated Prime Minister Jean Castex testing positive for the virus, Le Pen said, “I think we have a good example at the top here.”

“The real question is: can the vaccine prevent the spread of the virus? I think today the answer is no,” she said.

When asked if she supported vaccine boosters, she reiterated that vaccination should be a choice.

“I don’t have to be for or against it. I think everyone has to be free to do it or not, since in reality, it’s only your own life which is at stake,” Le Pen said.

“Everyone has to determine the risks and benefits for themselves.”

Le Pen said those with a vaccine passport could be more dangerous than the unvaccinated because they “shake hands and go to the restaurant” while sick with the virus.

“Nothing, it seems, can stop the spread of this virus, so all these constraints are meaningless,” she insisted.

She said she would remove the “senseless restrictions” if she is elected, particularly the suspension of healthcare workers who have not been vaccinated.

“The suspension of healthcare professionals is useless, [and] we need them,” she said.

“Hospitals are the main problem,” she added.

“It’s the government’s responsibility [to ensure there are enough hospital beds]…. They’ve removed beds [and] have allowed hospitals to become medical deserts with 30% of posts now vacant,” she continued.

“For the rest, we remove all of these constraints which are obviously useless.”

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

The Magical Thinking and Dangers of Masks

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 24, 2021

Are you prepared to wear masks forever? Some are, but their positive attitude toward masks is a likely result of deceptive and misleading information. The resulting magical thinking relating to masks has created one of the most polarized debates in U.S. history and led to anti-maskers being labeled as “grandma killers.”1

To be clear, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has blatantly lied about masks’ effectiveness. November 5, 2021, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tweeted, “Masks can help reduce your chance of #COVID19 infection by more than 80%.”2

But as Dr. Vinay Rasad, MPH, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, put it in the Brownstone Institute, “I don’t know how to put this politely, but it is a lie, and a truly unbelievable one at that … The idea that masks could reduce the chance of infection by 80% is simply untrue, implausible and cannot be supported by any reliable data.”3

Masks Have Meager Effectiveness, if Any

Walensky didn’t give a reference for her claim that masks reduce COVID-19 infection by 80%, but a large study4 from researchers at Yale, Stanford and the University of California Berkeley found much less impressive results from masks.

The trial involved 342,183 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh from November 2020 to April 2021. In villages that received masks, the number of symptomatic COVID-19 infections were 9.3% lower compared to villages without masks, or 11% lower in villages that received surgical masks instead of cloth masks.5
Why, then, hasn’t Walensky’s tweet been flagged for misinformation and targeted by “fact checkers” calling out the blatant lie? Rasad featured a tweet6 by Carnegie Mellon University mathematician Wesley Pegden, who said:7

“The head of the agency responsible for providing Americans with accurate and trustworthy information about interventions (like vaccines) that we actually know are really effective should not also be making fabricated quantitative statements in support of poorly evidenced ones.”

Antibiotic-Resistant Pathogens Live on Face Masks

While face masks continue to be recommended or mandated, little has been said about the risks inherent to covering your mouth and nose with fabric or other materials. Both cotton and surgical masks collect pathogens that may increase your risk of infectious illness — a factor that’s rarely taken into account when discussing their merits.

When researchers from the University of Antwerp, Belgium, analyzed the microbial community on surgical and cotton face masks from 13 healthy volunteers after being worn for four hours, bacteria including Bacillus, Staphylococcus and Acinetobacter were found — 43% of which were antibiotic-resistant.8

In order to best clean masks to remove the bacteria, the study found boiling at 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees F), washing at 60 degrees Celsius (140 degrees F) with detergent or ironing with a steam iron worked best, but only 21% of survey respondents said they cleaned their cotton face masks daily.9 According to the researchers:

“Taken together, this study suggests that a considerable number of bacteria, including pathobionts and antibiotic resistant bacteria, accumulate on surgical and even more on cotton face masks after use. Based on our results, face masks should be properly disposed of or sterilized after intensive use. Clear guidelines for the general population are crucial to reduce the bacteria-related biosafety risk of face masks …”

Researchers from Germany similarly questioned whether a mask that covers your nose and mouth is “free from undesirable side effects” and potential hazards in everyday use.10 It turned out they were not and instead posed significant adverse effects and pathophysiological changes, including the following, which often occur in combination:11

  • Increase in dead space volume
  • Increase in breathing resistance
  • Increase in blood carbon dioxide
  • Decrease in blood oxygen saturation
  • Increase in heart rate
  • Decrease in cardiopulmonary capacity
  • Feeling of exhaustion
  • Increase in respiratory rate
  • Difficulty breathing and shortness of breath
  • Headache
  • Dizziness
  • Feeling of dampness and heat
  • Drowsiness
  • Decrease in empathy perception
  • Impaired skin barrier function with acne, itching and skin lesions

Mask-Induced Exhaustion Syndrome Is Prevalent

The study referred to this cluster of symptoms as mask-induced exhaustion syndrome (MIES) and warned that children, pregnant women and those who are sick or suffering from certain chronic conditions may be particularly at risk from extended masking. While short-term effects include microbiological contamination, headaches, exhaustion, carbon dioxide retention and skin irritation, the long-term effects may lead to chronic issues:12

“Extended mask-wearing would have the potential, according to the facts and correlations we have found, to cause a chronic sympathetic stress response induced by blood gas modifications and controlled by brain centers. This in turn induces and triggers immune suppression and metabolic syndrome with cardiovascular and neurological diseases.”

Further, “it can be assumed,” they wrote, “that the potential adverse mask effects described for adults are all the more valid for children: … physiological internal, neurological, psychological, psychiatric, dermatological, ENT, dental, sociological, occupational and social medical, microbiological and epidemiological impairments …

The masks currently used for children are exclusively adult masks manufactured in smaller geometric dimensions and had neither been specially tested nor approved for this purpose.”13

Again, in taking on these unknown risks — both short- and long-term — to wear masks, the benefits are highly questionable and intended to thwart a pathogen with a low death rate for most populations:14

“[R]ecent studies on SARS-CoV-2 show both a significantly lower infectivity and a significantly lower case mortality than previously assumed, as it could be calculated that the median corrected infection fatality rate (IFR) was 0.10% in locations with a lower than average global COVID-19 population mortality rate.

In early October 2020, the WHO also publicly announced that projections show COVID-19 to be fatal for approximately 0.14% of those who become ill — compared to 0.10% for endemic influenza — again a figure far lower than expected. On the other hand, the side effects of masks are clinically relevant.”

‘The Mask of Your Enslavement’

It’s clear that the evidence in support of masks for physical protection against disease is lacking, while their potential for psychological harm is immense. Brownstone Institute highlighted the story of folk saint Escrava Anastácia, a slave of African descent who lived in Brazil during the 19th century.15

She was forced to wear a metal, muzzle-like mask during her lifetime in order to silence her from speaking out about the oppression and injustice she was facing. As written by Roberto Strongman, associate professor in the department of black studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara:16

“The apparition of Anastásia at anti-lockdown rallies represents an opportunity to understand the current medical tyranny as a form of enslavement and to forge links of solidarity between communities whose freedom is threatened across all racial groups. The claim of cooptation deserves to be unpacked for a valid claim of cultural usurpation could easily work towards severing important alliances in a divide-and-conquer model.

While there are clear specificities between the suffering of Africans under the system of chattel slavery and the deprivation of civil liberties endured by most citizens around the world during the current pandemic panic, Anastásia reminds us of certain transhistorical constants in the process of dehumanization and subjugation of populations through the gagging and muzzling of their bodies to quell their protestations.”

Strongman pointed out several undeniable reasons why face mask mandates “fashion the citizenry as slaves” and act as symbols of enslavement. Among them, they:17

  • Lead to oxygen deprivation, promoting a state of physical and mental weakness
  • Are symbols of submission and used as part of master-slave dynamics
  • Enforce the creation of a carceral culture
  • Erase personhood and homogenize the masses — “The collectivized wearing of masks results in an enforced uniformity in which the individual cedes way to the nameless collectivity as the neo-meta citizen.”18
  • Are theatrical and act to conceal identities, rendering us alien to others and ourselves
  • Delete facial expressions and inhibit nonverbal communication, including that necessary for social organization that can lead to revolution
  • Reduce verbal output
  • Are visible displays of allegiance to the “system of medicalizing technocratic control”
  • Are part of preparing individuals for new societal roles — “However transitory the current regime of face masking might be, the population must face that we are beingforced to undergo a rite of passage, a process of resocialization into the new normal.”
  • Promote a culture of fear
  • Act as deterrents of solidarity by making your neighbor into a “nameless pathogenic vector instead of your ally”

Magical Thinking on Masks

In addition to flat-out lies, the CDC also makes nonsensical statements, like this: “Cloth masks will not protect you from wildfire smoke … They might not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”19

But we are to believe that they will protect us from an aerosolized virus? “The virus is 25X smaller than a smoke particle,” wrote Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. “So it’s like trying to stop a mosquito with a chain link fence.”20

Yet magical thinking — the belief that you can influence outcomes by doing something that has no causal connection to them — persists. Robert Dingwall, a consulting sociologist, questioned why the U.K.’s Health Security Agency expert panel used only a second-class evidence base that failed to demonstrate clear benefits on which to base their conclusion that face masks in the community help reduce transmission. He wrote:21

“The state of the face mask debate is rather as if Galileo had published his account of the heliocentric universe and then included a paragraph at the end telling the reader to ignore all the evidence because the Church had declared that everything revolved around the Earth.

In the absence of better-quality work — and we must ask why that research has not been done — some of the claims for face masks look much more like magical thinking than anything that demonstrates the sort of casual connection that might be recognizable as science.”

As the pandemic stretches on, science continues to be ignored and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.

In the beginning, health officials did, in fact, advise against masks for healthy people,22 but somewhere along the way — early on — they flip-flopped. Why? According to Strongman:23

“Just as masks function as liminal artifacts in rites of passage and as part of animal training, these covid mask are harbingers of further intrusions to our integrity.

Wearing the masks is just one step away from receiving the shots, then accepting the vaccine passports and the implantable neural links until one’s original persona is buried by a cyborg. The masks function as an empirical compliance test for the projected acceptability of future corporeal technologies of control. Where will you draw the line?”

Sources and References

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Why another lockdown would be met with mass non-compliance

By Andrew Devine | TCW Defending Freedom | November 25, 2021

LIKE many people, I went along with the first lockdown. I wasn’t very keen, and I was somewhat critical of it, but I believed the lie that it would be a temporary one-off measure. From the time of the second lockdown, I have been vehemently opposed to the policy. While I have never denied that Covid can be a nasty life-threatening illness for some people, I am critical of the way that governments have manipulated data to exaggerate the extent of the threat. 

When Covid 19 vaccines were first rolled out in the UK and around the world in late 2020, we were promised by Western governments and their teams of scientific ‘experts’ who wield enormous, unaccountable power, the media and Big Pharma that the vaccines were a game-changer and that mass vaccination would lead us back to some kind of normality. I was initially very resistant to take the vaccine because it is a new drug with no long-term data regarding side effects and risks. I also have two autoimmune conditions, and while they are easily treated, I am genetically predisposed to a third one that can be quite serious.

However, in the end, and with much hesitation due to the already known side effects and autoimmune risks, I took the Pfizer vaccine. I did so for several reasons. Firstly, I am around my elderly parents a lot, and I thought I would be protecting them as I believed the ‘experts’ that the vaccines would significantly reduce transmission.

This has turned out to be false.

Secondly, I was convinced by the data that seems to show that getting vaccinated almost entirely eradicates the chances of someone my age ending up in hospital with a severe case of Covid. Due to fitness and age, my risk of serious illness was already low, but as a neurotic who is sometimes prone to viewing the glass half empty, I admit to having moments when I worried that I might be one of those outliers for my age group cut down prematurely by Covid and so this was an added factor, but not the main one, in my capitulation. The final reason was because I currently reside in the Republic of Ireland where the government have been very keen to enforce some of the harshest lockdowns globally with draconian rules on both inward and outward travel as well as compulsory vaccine certificates for access to various sectors. Therefore, one of my main reasons for getting jabbed, while I still defended vehemently the rights of others not to do so, was that I thought I would be doing my bit to put an end to these hideous lockdowns and other excessive restrictions once and for all. Looking at what has happened in Austria and Holland and the refusal of both the UK and Irish governments to rule out more lockdowns, it is now clear how very wrong I was. Another way of putting it is that I’ve realised how easily I have been duped.

In recent weeks, I have become even more sceptical of everything that the UK and Irish governments and their appointed health experts tell me with regard to Covid-19. For a start, if they were wrong about the effectiveness of the vaccines with regards to transmission, why would I trust them with regards to how rarely serious side effects occur? There would be far more political and career capital at stake to motivate suppression of this data. I’m not accusing governments, scientific ‘experts’ or Big Pharma of doing so, merely noting that there is a much bigger price for them to pay if they didn’t.

With regards to coercive measures and the removal of rights from the unvaccinated, governments don’t even have recourse to the dubious argument that it’s for the greater good as we now know that the vaccinated can also transmit the virus. I keep making the argument to vaccine zealots that people can exercise their right to abstain from taking any medications due to the risks of side effects, but that many governments now believe this right should be removed solely with regard to Covid vaccines. There is no compelling moral argument for why Covid vaccines fall into an exceptional category that warrants the state using coercion whether it be direct (vaccine mandates) or indirect (segregation and removal of rights) to force its citizens to reluctantly take a medicine they would otherwise refuse.

The enthusiasm for vaccines and excessive restrictions are now articles of faith for their proponents. It has become an ideological stance that no amount of reasoned scrutiny can alter. Rational analysis of the extent of the threat from Covid and strategies to deal with it have been abandoned for the simplistic dogma of ‘vaccines good’ and ‘lockdowns and restrictions good’. The truth is much more nuanced than the doom-mongering analysis which permeates the mainstream media. Lockdown enthusiasts and vaccine zealots, like all ideologues, have opponents whom they despise and whom they seek to demonise. This is why only ‘far Right conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ would have an issue with mandatory vaccines which can have serious side effects being given to children to protect them from a virus that rarely makes children very ill.

How have we reached a stage in Western liberal democracies when those of us questioning and disagreeing with extreme public health policies that strip individual citizens of their inalienable rights under false pretences are the ones deemed to be the extremists? Asking questions and being critical of government policy is now viewed by the obedient media class and the political elites and partisan scientific ‘experts’ they serve as being synonymous with the far Right. In truth, it is your democratic duty to question all government policies and especially more so those that would remove your fundamental freedoms. For any government to wish to suspend the rights of its citizenry on a temporary basis, it must first seek consent from the people after explaining the exceptional circumstances in which they seek to do so. There has been no public debate and little media scrutiny across the English-speaking world about whether the threat posed by Covid-19 meets the very high threshold that could justify temporary lockdowns and other extreme restrictions imposed on the citizenry.

If the UK or Irish government or any of the devolved administrations try to impose another lockdown, I predict there will be mass non-compliance. It is very likely that much of the population of these islands will conclude that if several lockdowns, mask mandates and ‘game changing’ vaccines have not eradicated transmission, why comply with another lockdown, possible financial ruin and separation from loved ones? What would be the purpose? As someone once said (it wasn’t actually Einstein): ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Family of Capitol rioter who died by ‘overdose’ demands autopsy review

RT | November 24, 2021

The family of a woman whose death during the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill was ruled a drug overdose is crowdfunding an autopsy review, after Washington, DC police refused to release body camera footage of her final moments.

Rosanne Boyland was 34 when she traveled in January from her home in Georgia to Washington, DC to protest the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. After crowds of Trump supporters took their rowdy protest to the US Capitol, Boyland would later be found dead among them, with her death ruled an amphetamine overdose by the DC medical examiner’s office several months later.

Her family aren’t buying the story, and have launched a crowdfunding campaign to finance a review of her autopsy.

“There are still many questions about exactly what happened to her,” the family wrote on GiveSendGo this month. “Videos show her being beaten by a female officer after being crushed by protesters pushed by police. Yet the DC Medical Examiner said Rosanne’s body showed no signs of trauma, and attributed her death to the prescription medication she took every day for years.”

In an update to the campaign posted on Tuesday, they added that Boyland was not abusing amphetamines. Rather she was taking adderall, a prescription drug containing four kinds of amphetamine used to treat ADHD and narcolepsy. “The only drugs in Rosanne’s body were her prescription medications,” they wrote.

Thousands of hours of video footage – from both surveillance cameras and police body cameras – captured during the Capitol protest remain unreleased, with authorities citing the importance of this footage to ongoing criminal investigations. Boyland’s family filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the DC Metropolitan Police to obtain body camera footage from officers who handled her unconscious body, but their request was denied.

Some of this footage allegedly shows Boyland being carried into a space beneath the House majority leader’s office, where lawyers for other defendants claim that their clients were assaulted by Capitol Police officers. Conservative journalist Julie Kelly reported on the story last week, after seeing legal documents alleging a series of brutal beatings taking place in the tunnels under the Capitol.

Three other protesters died in the Capitol on January 6. Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt was shot dead by a Capitol Police officer. Two other Trump supporters in their 50s – Benjamin Philips and Kevin Greeson – died of medical emergencies.

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, whose death was initially blamed on the pro-Trump mob, passed away of a stroke the day after the riot.

November 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Will You Be Jailed for Protesting Vaccine Mandates?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 22, 2021

On the surface, the Online Safety Bill, being pushed by the U.K. government, appears to protect children and adults from online messaging, content and websites through regulations and removal of those deemed to be “harmful.”1 After the draft of the bill was published in May 2021, it became apparent that it is another iteration of the controversial 2019 “Online Harms White Paper.”

The White Paper,2 which proposed legislative and nonlegislative strategies to purportedly protect you from online content that might harm you, was quickly criticized. Aside from the fact that unnamed entities would determine what kind of content, platforms and websites are harmful or inappropriate, serious concerns were raised that, if implemented, the paper’s dogma essentially was a model for stifling freedom of speech.

Britain’s Online Safety Bill evolved from that paper, but it, too is under scrutiny as critics say it not only is too “vague in its wording,” but “poses a threat to freedom of expression and places too much power in the hands of social networks.”3

In fact, it is poised to be yet another government-imposed step to limit personal freedoms and individual rights under the guise of transforming the world into a single body run by elites who believe they can make the world and your life better by limiting what you do, where you go and even what you own — if you own anything at all.

It is a world vision with global implications that, if implemented, would even control how you think. The foundation for these changes began long before the 2020 pandemic. The World Economic Forum and the United Nations have been working together to push the related WEF 2030Vision4 and the UN Agenda for Sustainable Development — an action plan that they say is for the people, the planet and prosperity. According to the United Nations this will involve:5

“All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership … to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.”

Again, on the surface, it appears that Big Brother is looking out for all the little people. But in essence, to achieve the goals set out by the WEF and the UN they must have ultimate control over your ability to make individual decisions for your life. Otherwise, in their estimation, America and every other free nation in this world will continue living in the same “chaos” that they have been in for as long as they have been free.

To achieve these goals, it is necessary that you purchase and eat only the types of food they deem sustainable. You may only work and get paid if you choose the right health plan, make the right medical decisions and use the correct currency.

In fact, the WEF said it best in their strangely ominous dictum that you will “own nothing and be happy.” While inexplicable in 2016 when it was first published in Forbes Magazine,6 the unstated implication that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite is coming closer and closer to reality.

It’s coming so close, in fact, that fact checkers at Reuters rushed to publish a rebuttal in February 2021 after a three-minute video clip with a mere 862 likes and 1,100 shares made the rounds on Facebook.7 With these small numbers, that video could hardly have been called viral. Yet, Reuters raced in to argue that the WEF has no stated goal that people will own nothing by 2030, despite Forbes’ 2016 prediction.

Should the Online Safety Bill in the U.K. pass with all its possible regulations and repercussions, this is exactly the type of video that, had it been a law in 2021, could have landed the video’s creator in jail for two years. This, despite the fact that the WEF published a video on Facebook two days after the Forbes article in which they said, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. This is how our world could change by 2030.”8

Trolling May Get You Two Years in Prison

The media appear to come down on both sides of the fence as they report what’s happening with the Online Safety Bill. Rather unsurprisingly, the mainstream media, such as The Times,9 report the proposed law favorably while headlines from independent media read:

  • British Government May Jail Those Accused of Causing ‘Online Psychological Harm’10
  • Brits Who Post “False Information” About Vaccines Could Be Jailed For Two Years11

Before the internet, a troll was a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore who inhabited the caves or hills.12 Today, it is slang for a person or actions that intentionally try “to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.”13

The bill’s critics are focusing on a part of the bill that calls for a jail sentence of two years for anyone who causes psychological harm as a result of online trolling. But proponents of the bill stress how threats of punishment for trolling will stop these harms. In its support of this idea, The Times explains that the bill is:14

“… the flagship legislation to combat abuse and hatred on the internet. The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.”

In other words, the bill will change communication laws in the U.K. and create new offenses under which people can be jailed. The messages targeted will contain “threats of serious harm.” You might imagine those threats would be of abuse or death, but The Times reported that government sources used “the example of antivaxxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.”15

The government spokesperson justified the bill as a good thing to do, even though former cabinet minister David Davis urged them to rethink the proposal and Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called it “too broad.” The spokesperson said:16

“We are making our laws fit for the digital age. Our comprehensive Online Safety Bill will make tech companies responsible for people’s safety and we are carefully considering the Law Commission’s recommendations on strengthening criminal offences.”

But, as Principia Scientific International 17 points out, since the beginning of the pandemic, authorities have called multiple pieces of information posted on social media “false” that later turned out to be true. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci’s ongoing changes to his definition of herd immunity could fall under knowingly spreading false communication. But would it?

The most obvious example is when the vaccine was first released, and claims were made that it was not fully effective at stopping the spread of the disease. That would have fallen under the bill’s definition of disinformation. Yet, months later this was proven to be fact. So, if the bill passes in the U.K., what happens to someone who is in jail for making a “false” statement, which months later turns out to be true? Will they get an early release or recompense for false imprisonment?

New Law Sets Stage for Greater Public Control

On the surface it looks like the law is meant to protect people against threats of death or physical violence. But, in fact, this is a law that protects governmental agencies from outspoken citizens who would like to retain their right to free speech that is enjoyed by those who do not live under communist rule.

Should the law pass, what would stop the government from extending the definition of “false” statements? This could now cover any statement governmental agencies find “offensive” or that creates a “threat of serious harm.” For example, if you make statements against the high price of gasoline, food or heating oil, the government could say you are inciting anger.

The new law will also include something called “pile-ons.” This is a situation in which several individuals will join in sending harassing messages. However, which messages are defined as pile-ons or harassment will be determined by those in power, who are yet to be named. Therefore, as the reporter from Principia Scientific International wrote:18

“And if you think that will stop those of a certain political leaning who routinely form “pile-ons” against conservatives for expressing dissenting opinions, think again.”

According to Principia Scientific International,19 the bill is being promoted with “relentless propaganda.” Despite online abuse toward Black football players in the U.K. originating from Middle Eastern countries, the media is using the situation to justify the bill.

According to an analysis20 by Chris Pikes, CEO and co-founder of Image Analyzer, the bill will also pertain to any website where other people can upload content, videos or comment on each other’s posts. Image Analyzer21 is a software program designed to analyze visual threats using artificial intelligence.

If the bill passes, every digital platform operator will be responsible for removing illegal content. But since there is no clear definition of “harm” in the bill, how enforcement of the bill is determined and what content it will affect may be based on decisions made well after the bill has been approved.

The vague language threatens freedom of speech and the mandate to remove content may require companies to prescreen anything posted. Taking this a step further, all website companies would be responsible for removing content posted by U.K. citizens that may be covered by the Online Safety Bill. This means website owners in the U.S., France, Sweden and any other country would also have to comply with the British law.

This could create a system where journalists enjoy the freedom to report information and speak on social media, while citizens face censorship. The vague language in the bill also opens questions of advertising content. In this draft of the Online Safety Bill, there is the power to levy fines of up to £18 million22 (approximate $24.17 million in the exchange rate November 2021) or 10% of the company’s global profits, whichever is higher.

Tyrannical Regulations Justified by Ongoing ‘Emergency’

Using this definition of social media — anywhere that content can be posted by readers — it includes blog owners, family websites and author blogs where individuals have always enjoyed the freedom of sharing their opinions that were not indecent or grossly offensive. This is freedom of speech — except in socialist or communist regimes where the state dictates what you think, feel and how you act.

If the U.K passes this bill that may affect every website where comments are allowed, how many months could it be before a similar legislative action is drafted in other currently free countries, including the U.S.?

When you step back from what’s been happening over the past 18 months to two years, you have to ask the question of what is driving these legislative actions and political inaction to protect citizens. The process began under the guise of a medical emergency in which it was predicted that people would be dropping dead in the street.

But people have not been dropping dead in the streets. And, while the infection is a very real infection, it currently does not meet the threshold of “emergency.”

Successful treatment protocols have been developed23,24 but are not used or promoted as government agencies are pushing for as many people as possible to accept the genetic therapy shot being called a vaccine.25 Just a reminder: For the shot to meet the definition of a vaccine, the CDC had to change the definition of it.26

When it comes to death counts, according to data from the CDC,27 COVID-19 deaths accounted for 11.3% of all deaths in 2020 and 13.5% of all deaths in 2021. According to recounts and analysis of data in Alameda and Santa Clara counties in California, these numbers may be 20% to 25% too high.28

If the number of deaths were conservatively reduced by 15%, then the deaths from COVID-19 would drop to 9.6% in 2020 and 11.4% in 2021. This is far lower than the 19.4% of all deaths from heart disease in 2020.29

Your Personal Liberty Is Worth Fighting For

You might fortunately be in a position where life as you know it has not changed drastically. However, it’s important to recognize what personal freedoms we lose will be exponentially harder to get back. You only have to look at the history of other socialist and communist countries or hear the stories of people’s oppression to understand the direction that society is taking.

Our personal freedom is critically important and may be most important for our mental and physical health. The freedom to interact with other human beings is crucial. We may tolerate a lack of interaction for a short period of time, but as that time grows it takes a toll on health, emotional stability and longevity.

In mid-2020, the CDC30 wrote that adults were reporting considerably elevated mental health conditions, elevated suicide ideation and increased substance use — all because of lockdowns, job losses and the subsequent trauma that the pandemic fear campaign put on our lives. In 2021, news sources reported that the CDC estimated there were more than 93,000 drug overdose deaths in 2020.31 This was a 30% rise over 2019 and was an all-time high for the U.S.32

This is not something we should be prolonging by instituting new restrictions on our freedoms of expression, speech and thought. It is vital to stand your ground and fight peacefully for freedom now, before it’s too late. There are people who know what it’s like to lose their freedoms and be incarcerated systems that appear to purposefully forget them,33 and others who are held in jails without convictions or sentencing.34,35

And if you think such things can’t happen to you, think again. With every new piece of legislation that rips away at your personal freedom, we are one step closer to the “state” controlling what we think, eat, say and feel. By 2030, we could “own nothing and [NOT] be happy.”

Sources and References

November 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The Spy Business

Just follow the money

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 23, 2021

I have been following the story regarding the arrest of the sub-source who reportedly provided much of the apparently fabricated “intelligence” that went into the Christopher Steele dossier that was commissioned by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to get the dirt on GOP candidate Donald Trump. The real story is, of course, that the Democrats used their incumbency in the presidency to illegally involve various national security agencies in the process of defaming Trump, but for the time being we have to be content with the detention of Russian born Virginia resident Igor Danchenko for the crime of lying to the FBI.

My problem is that apart from the lying, which might be categorized in a file labeled “Everyone Lies to the Police,” I can’t quite figure out what the poor sod did that was criminal. I have reconstructed the sequence of events as follows: A business intelligence research firm Fusion GPS originally began researching Trump’s possible ties with Russia during the primary elections on behalf of a conservative who wanted to damage Trump’s campaign. After Trump became the Republican nominee, the original funder discontinued the search, but Fusion GPS was hired to keep going by the Perkins Coie law firm, which was working for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Christopher Steele, former MI-6 officer with a good reputation and reported access to information coming from Russia among other places, was sub-contracted by Fusion to assist in the effort by compiling a dossier containing defamatory material on Trump. As he had limited access to the kind of sleaze that was being sought, Steele contacted a known intelligence researcher who appeared to have such access. That was Danchenko, an analyst who specialized in Russia, whom Steele subsequently described as his “primary sub-source.” Danchenko had worked for the Washington DC based and Democratic Party linked Brookings Institution from 2005 until 2010 and was considered reliable.

Steele tasked Danchenko with finding out details about Trump and the Russians, to include possible contacts with the Kremlin’s intelligence services during a trip to Moscow in 2013 where the Trump Organization was hosting the Miss Universe contest. Danchenko did just that to Steele’s satisfaction, which also pleased Steele’s clients. The information collected subsequently was incorporated into what became the notorious Steele Dossier and was used by the FBI among others to make a case against Donald Trump and his associates. Among other initiatives, the Bureau used the file, which it knew to be largely innuendo, as justification to obtain a secret surveillance court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) which authorized a wiretap targeting former Trump adviser Carter Page.

The only problem was that some of the information was fabricated, apparently by Danchenko, though that is by no means clear. The fake material included the notorious anecdote about Trump urinating on a prostitute in the bed that Barak Obama had slept in when he had visited the Russian capital. The assumption was that Trump would have been photographed in flagrante and the Kremlin would have been able to use the material to blackmail him. Other parts of the final dossier were also discovered to be false.

Making something up in a criminal investigation might be wrong, even criminal, but both Steele and Danchenko were private citizens with no legal status at the time. It was up to Steele to validate the information he was receiving. As for Danchenko, he was one of numerous former officials of various governments that have set themselves up profitably as intelligence peddlers. Some of them make a very nice living from it and many of them are quite willing to bend the facts to make a client happy. In my own experience in CIA I have run into many intelligence peddlers in Europe and the Middle East and they all use the same MO, namely mixing confirmable factual information with fabricated information so the former validates the latter. Since leaving government, I have also worked for three private security firms in the US and I would suggest that at least two of them would have been quite willing to slant what they were discovering to fit what the client was seeking to find. Such behavior is not at all unusual in the business since ex-intelligence officers and policemen tend to have a history of operating with little oversight and minimum accountability.

In this case, the charges cited in the indictment derived from statements made by Danchenko describing the sources he claimed to have used in providing sensitive information to Steele’s United Kingdom investigative firm with which he had contracted to prepare what are identified in the indictment as “Company Reports.” The implication would of course be that he had no actual sources and instead used his creative writing skills to come up with some suitable narratives relating to Trump’s behavior. Danchenko, for his part, reportedly claimed to investigators that it was Steele who overstated the information that had been provided from confidential Russian sources which was in the nature of “raw intelligence,” not a finished product. Be that as it may, the final dossier was a concoction of verifiable facts mixed with gossip, rumors and sheer speculation. Danchenko also denied knowing who was paying for the investigation even though it appears that he had had contact with several Clinton associates, most notably one Charles H. Dolan, who may have actually suggested to the investigators what type of “information” was being sought.

The arrest came as part of the special counsel John Durham investigation into Russiagate and related matters, most specifically the claim that Russian intelligence agencies had interfered in the 2016 election. This latest activity comes after Durham’s recent charging of Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann in an indictment that alleges that he lied to federal investigators in September 2016, when he gave them information that he falsely claimed showed a connection between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank in Russia.

So the takeaway from all of this is that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to subvert the 2016 election. On the contrary, it was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that sought the dirt on Trump and used a largely fraudulent dossier to make its case. And, oh yes, President Barack Obama knew exactly what was going on, which led to the completely illegal involvement of the intelligence and law enforcement federal agencies. And you can bet that if Obama knew, so did his Vice President Joe Biden. And the former head of CIA John Brennan and FBI head James Comey, who corruptly engaged their agencies in the conspiracy, are still walking free instead of in jail where they should be. And as for Hillary… I will leave that up to the reader.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

November 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Commission cautions against “objectivity” in journalism and calls for censorship of “misinformation”

A chilling read

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 22, 2021

The Aspen Institute has released the results of its study on how to protect the public from “misinformation.” The 16-person Commission on Information Disorder recommended more censorship, warning misinformation propagated other issues such as social injustice.

Last week, the Aspen Institute published an 80-page report on how to fight misinformation and disinformation. The long-standing solution to misinformation is better information. However, the organization insisted that the best solution is censorship.

“The biggest lie of all, which this crisis thrives on, and which the beneficiaries of mis- and disinformation feed on, is that the crisis itself is uncontainable. One of the corollaries of that mythology is that, in order to fight bad information, all we need is more (and better distributed) good information. In reality, merely elevating truthful content is not nearly enough to change our current course,” the report read.

One issue raised by critics when it comes to misinformation and disinformation is the lack of proper definitions. They are a matter of “we know when we see it.” However, the report ignores the definition of the terms and focuses on the harm caused, such as inflaming existing issues.

“Disinformation inflames long-standing inequalities and undermines lived experiences for historically targeted communities, particularly Black/African American communities. False narratives can sow division, hamper public health initiatives, undermine elections, or deliver fresh marks to grifters and profiteers, and they capitalize on deep-rooted problems within American society. Disinformation pours lighter fluid on the sparks of discord that exist in every community.”

The report also endorses a growing movement against what it describes “objectivity and both sideism” in the media, some of the hallmarks of responsible journalism.

“Commissioners also discussed the need to adjust journalistic norms to avoid false equivalencies between lies and empirical fact in the pursuit of ‘both sides’ and ‘objectivity,’ particularly in areas of public health, civil rights, or election outcomes,” the report shockingly reads.

The Commission also recommended the involvement of the government in fighting misinformation, ignoring the First Amendment.

Ultimately, the commission’s solution to the “deep-rooted problems in American society” is the regulation of speech, not free speech.

November 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Did Klaus Schwab Create an Army of Davos ‘Yes Men’ to Facilitate His Great Reset?

By Robert Bridge | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 19, 2021

At a time when the world is being overwhelmed with an array of perplexing problems, the political leadership necessary for solving them is coming up short everywhere. Is this perceived shortage of talent on the global stage a mere coincidence, or is it by design?

For 40 years, Klaus Schwab, the German economist and engineer, has played host to the World Economic Forum in the picturesque town of Davos, Switzerland, a venue that the WEF itself describes as “sufficiently removed to foster among participants a feeling of seclusion and camaraderie.” It is amid that comfortable setting that the global elite are seeing through their plans without much transparency in the process. It’s probably safe to say that the financial elite deciding the fate of the planet at an isolated Swiss ski resort is probably not what the Ancient Greeks had in mind when they theorized about democracy and ‘rule of the people.’

Yet that is exactly what we’ve come to inherit from this exclusive Forum, which fervently believes that global affairs are best managed by an unelected assembly of corporations and technocrats that exert unprecedented power over governments and civil society. And now, thanks to the totally, 100% completely unexpected visitation to planet Earth by a virus of uncertain origins, the elite have been blessed with “a rare but narrow window of opportunity,” according to Schwab, to “reset our world” through a grand initiative known as the Great Reset, which can be summed up in six words: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

With such a downsized future ahead of us, the one question that seems to have escaped the world’s divided attention is: how is it remotely possible that one individual has managed to concentrate so much unwieldy power into his hands? The short answer is that it was probably no accident.

The young Schwab studied at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government (1966-67), where he earned a Master of Public Administration degree. During his stay, he developed friendships with a number of luminaries, including the macroeconomist Dean Baker, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and the great godfather of RealPolitik, Henry Kissinger. Schwab’s relationship with Kissinger, the trigger-happy Secretary of State in the Nixon and Ford administrations, was more than casual. Schwab described it as a “50-year-long mentorship” that continues paying dividends to this day.

As the quaint story goes, in February 1971 the 32-year-old Schwab somehow managed to organize the first ‘European Management Symposium’ in Davos, which would change its name in 1987 to the World Economic Forum. That first meeting managed to attract over 400 corporate executives from 31 nations, an astonishing feat even for an ambitious young man like Schwab. In fact, the native of Ravensburg, Germany may have been less directly involved in the formation of the group than is typically believed.

As the journalist Ernst Wolff explains, “the Harvard Business School had been in the process of planning a management forum of their own, and it is possible that Harvard ended up delegating the task of organizing it to him.” Incidentally, 1971 was the very same year that President Richard Nixon enacted a plan that ended dollar convertibility to gold, a move that soon brought an end to the Bretton Woods System.

Now that Klaus Schwab and the WEC have drafted up the blueprints for their highly coveted technocratic state, there remains one crucial key, and that is making sure leaders sympathetic to the message are in positions of power to see it through.

Welcome to Schwab’s ‘Young Global Leaders’

In 1992, Schwab and the WEC established the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which went on to become Young Global Leaders in 2004. The Who Who’s list of past members of this “most exclusive private social network in the world,” as Bloomberg described it, suggests that Davos Man was fishing for a very particular type of future leader.

Included among the alumni of this elite grooming factory are former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Aside from Blair, who hailed from an earlier, more muscular period of U.S.-dominated history that focused heavily on the ‘war on terror,’ the two common features that unite these politicians is their strong liberal tendencies and draconian approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

Last month, Jacinda Ardern, for example, without the slightest hint of regret, smiled as she said that New Zealand was on its way to becoming a “two-tier society,” divided between those who choose to get the Covid vaccine and those who do not. Currently, residents must scan into stores using a QR code, which isn’t tied to a person’s vaccine status, but rather used for ‘contact tracing.’ Eventually, the Ardern government plans to implement vaccine passports and all of the delightful chaos that will inevitably incur.

In France, another graduate from the Young Global Leaders (YGL), French President Emmanuel Macron, has made it mandatory that visitors to cultural venues, like museums and theaters present a so-called ‘green pass’ to gain entry. Thus far, however, public resistance is stalling any future efforts at preventing the unvaccinated from shopping at the large retail outlets.

“There are protests all the time,” said Peter Kellow, a correspondent from London now residing in Toulouse. “I can use all the shops now. They tried making hypermarkets illegal for the non-vaxxed but backed down.”

“I expect the big companies were losing too much business,” he added.

Meanwhile, across the pond, in the United States, California Governor Gavin Newsom (Class of 2005), after mandating first-in-the-nation school masking and staff vaccination protocols, now wants to enforce vaccinations on children as young as five years old. Protesters gathered at the State Capitol in Sacramento this week in an effort to prevent the mandate from passing. Organizers of the rally emphasized they are not against vaccines, but simply want to have a democratic say in the matter.

A striking thing about the global leaders who passed through Schwab’s tutelage is their relative lack of any special achievements before rising to power. As Wolff further explains in an interview with the RAIR Foundation, “the thing that the Global Leaders graduates have in common is that most of them have very sparse CVs apart from their participation in the program prior to being elevated to positions of power…” Wolff goes on to surmise that this may demonstrate that it is “their connection to Schwab’s institutions that is the decisive factor in launching their careers.”

As shocking as it may be that so many like-minded politicians did an apprenticeship under the direction of Klaus Schwab, that twist of fate pales in comparison with the news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates also fell under the sway of YGL (Class of 2003). Perhaps more than any other person, Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and despite having no medical training whatsoever, has been a staunch proponent of Covid-19 vaccines. The problem here is not the vaccines per se, but rather the massive conflict of interest for the parties involved.

Here we have the secretive World Economic Forum not only grooming young overachievers who go on to advocate on behalf of Mr. Schwab and his technocratic vision for the future (i.e. the Great Reset), but also the business leaders who will profit handsomely from the great global transition, which the pandemic has made possible.

Take, for example, Jeff Bezos, yet another alumnus of YGL. Mr. Bezos saw his personal wealth explode exponentially as small businesses, many of which will never rise from the ashes, were forced to close their doors at the peak of pandemic. Millions of consumers, forced to ‘shelter in place,’ did the only thing possible, which was to flock to online stores, like Amazon.

Again, it is the glaring conflict of interest that makes the story of Klaus Schwab, the WEF and these fine, young protégés, who are perfectly placed at just the right moment in Schwab time, not a little disturbing. Not only did the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security anticipate with astonishing accuracy the outbreak of a pandemic just two months before it happened with a security exercise dubbed ‘Event 201,’ the predicted health emergency allowed for Schwab’s long sought-after “better world” that he discussed with such enthusiasm in his book, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset.’

“At the time of writing (June 2020), the pandemic continues to worsen globally,” Schwab writes, once again, with amazing foresight, especially considering the pandemic was just six months old. “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.”

“Some analysts call it a major bifurcation, others refer to a deep crisis of “biblical” proportions,” he continues, “but the essence remains the same: the world as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more, dissolved in the context of the pandemic.”

Few other men have had the pleasure of watching their life dream – and a bold one at that – play out in real time as Klaus Schwab has. Indeed, the 83-year-old may just live to see his Great Reset come to fruition in his own lifetime. How much of that was the result of intense planning and preparation, or a random roll of the dice is anybody’s guess, but it may be wise to heed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s keen observation that “in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

November 22, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »