It’s been clear that the Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines cause myocarditis for some time. What hasn’t been clear, though, is whether the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is greater than it is after infection. If the risk after infection is even greater than it is after vaccination, then a pretty good case can be made for not worrying too much about vaccine induced myocarditis, under the assumption that almost everyone who doesn’t get vaccinated is sooner or later going to get covid, and thereby be exposed to the risk of post-infection myocarditis.
If, on the other hand, the risk is greater after vaccination, then a more careful weighing of risks needs to be done. For the large segments of the population that face infinitesimal personal risk from covid-19 (basically everyone under 40 years of age who is not overweight and who doesn’t have any underlying health issues), even a small risk of serious disease from the vaccines could be enough to tip the scales in favour of not vaccinating.
And myocarditis is a serious disease, make no mistake. Lately, I’ve been hearing this sentence alot: “but the myocarditis caused by the covid vaccines is mild!”. I’d never heard of “mild” myocarditis pre-covid. Pre-covid, myocarditis was always considered a serious disease. What the people saying this mean is that the patients admitted to hospital with myocarditis after vaccination are usually able to go home after a few days, and don’t generally end up in an ICU. Which is true.
But we don’t say that most heart attacks are “mild” just because they don’t result in a stay in an ICU, and just because the patient is usually able to leave the hospital within a week. A heart attack is a heart attack, and is by definition serious. The same goes for myocarditis. Our heart muscles are not very good at repairing themselves, and it is impossible to know today the extent to which an episode of vaccine induced myocarditis increases the person’s future risk of serious long-term complications, such as chronic heart failure or atrial fibrillation.
So, myocarditis is always serious, regardless of whether it puts you in an ICU or not, and we need to know whether the risk of myocarditis caused by the vaccines is greater than the risk caused by infection.
Thankfully, a study was recently published in Nature Medicine that helps us to answer that question. What the researchers did was to gather data from everyone in the UK over the age of 16 who was vaccinated against covid-19 between December 2020 and August 2021. This works out to about 40 million people (more than half the UK population). For this massive cohort, data was then gathered on myocarditis events and on positive covid tests. 8% of the 40 million people had a positive covid test during the study period. The objective of the study was to see what the risk of myocarditis was within 28 days of vaccination vs infection, and relate that to the background rate of myocarditis.
There is one big problem with taking the numbers in this study at face value, and that is that it used a positive covid test as the indicator for covid infection. But we know that up to half of all covid-infections are asymptomatic, and on top of that there is an unkown number of people who have symptoms but don’t take the test. So the true number of infections is likely to be at least twice as high as the test-confirmed infections. This creates an unfair comparison when comparing with the vaccines, because we know about everyone who gets the vaccine. There aren’t lots of people who have been secretly vaccinated, and aren’t included in the statistics. So whatever risk rate we get for myocarditis after infection should probably be halved, to more accurately reflect reality.
Anyway, let’s get to the results.
The first thing that is important to note is that the relative risk of myocarditis after vaccination vs infection appears to vary massively depending on how old you are. Among people over the age of 40, there was no sign that the vaccines increased risk of myocarditis at all. A positive covid-19 test, on the other hand, increased the risk 12-fold in this group. So for people over the age of 40, the risk of myocarditis after infection was much higher than the risk after vaccination.
Among people between 16 and 40 years of age, however, the situation was very different. In this group, the 28 day risk of getting myocarditis after a positive covid-test was “only” increased four-fold. The risk after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine was increased two-fold, while the risk after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine increased four-fold.
Let’s remember that the the covid test is probably only catching half, at best, of all infections, so the real risk increase after infection is more like two-fold, not four-fold. In other words, in people under 40, the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine causes roughly the same number of cases of myocarditis as an actual covid infection, while the first dose of the Moderna vaccine causes roughly twice as many cases of myocarditis.
Ok, so let’s get to the second dose. The second dose of the Pfizer vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis three-fold, while the risk after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was increased 21-fold!
It’s safe to conclude here that the decision, a few months back, by authorities in many European countries to put a hold on giving the Moderna vaccine to anyone under the age of 30 was wise. One thing that is clear is that the second dose, of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, increases risk substantially when compared with the risk seen after the first dose. Which really begs the question how smart it is to recommend a third dose to people under the age of 40. It’s reasonable to think that the third dose might increase the risk of myocarditis even further.
One thing that is clear from the data in this study is that there is a strong age gradient, with risk of myocarditis after vaccination increasing massively with decreasing age. In fact, for the youngest group (16-29 years), the risk of myocarditis after getting the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was increased 74-fold!
Considering that decreasing age also means decreasing risk of a bad outcome from covid (including decreasing risk of myocarditis after covid), it is reasonable to think that there is an inflection point at which the harms of vaccination outweigh the benefits. On top of that, there is evidence that increasing the number of doses increases the risk of myocarditis. With those two factors in mind, it’s my measured opinion that giving boosters to healthy young people, and especially to children, is nuts. On top of that, many, if not most, young adults and children have already had covid, and therefore have as good immunity as it’s possible to get, so boosting literally exposes them to risk of harm without any possibility of benefit. When the benefits of vaccination are zero, any non-zero risk is unacceptable.
Time to make an educated, perspicacious estimation of where this is heading. The following applies to most countries:
The pretext (problem):
Scientific data is being manipulated to drive public fear, out of all proportion to medical and health norms or recent hospital, infection or mortality rates.
Mask and social distancing rules have a clearly negative impact on social health.
Corporate interests are ‘informing’ government policy: from jabs to ‘immunity’ passports; facial recognition and software that tracks location and distance from other people; to paying hospitals for ‘finding’ Covid and intubating patients.
Corporate interests linked to the above censor social media for the ‘public good’.
Military and ad hoc bureaucratic committees censor information to encourage ‘consent’. The press is used to deliver wartime blanket propaganda.
Lockdowns are extended on numerous pretexts.
The process (reaction):
Rules are tweaked constantly, maximizing disruption and uncertainty perhaps with the intention of disguising the objective of preventing resistance.
Masks, distancing, gathering limits and even attempts to ban singing or speaking loudly, directly curb fundamental liberties.
Economic life is sharply curtailed, killing small and mid-size businesses and rendering the population dependent on government and corporations for support.
Military have been put on standby to assist police in maintaining order, to vaccinate the population forcibly (why else would the military be needed), and to isolate politicians from the public.
Concentration camps for vaccine resisters have been publicly discussed in countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The silence of other countries like Britain speaks volumes (on the other hand Britain is rather small and previously used Australia as its holding pen for deplorables).
The Executive operates by diktat, rules, ‘mandates’ and the misuse of earlier laws. Only sometimes through legislation, often submitted to lawmakers retrospectively or at short notice.
The outcome (solution):
Several front organizations, mainly bankers and tech companies drive this part but the ideology is technocracy, as promoted by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (see second part of this article, Origins of Technocracy):
Food and farming is already disrupted, particularly meat but also soy and other forms of protein. Inevitable impact on diet. Some positive outcome likely, such as reduction in obesity, but may also impact brain health and intelligence.
Energy: Considerable shortfall if politicians implement plans to end use of hydrocarbons. Bio-fuel, solar and wind will make up a fraction of the difference, while plans for smart cities and 5G, electric cars and electric heating will massively increase demand.
Energy-based accounting could make many products uneconomic or expensive. Hard to estimate as governments may subsidize some items.
Innovation to suffer from move to a recycling-based economy where repurposing replaces manufacturing.
Service based economy will replace consumption. Personal ownership of cars may cease. Air travel may become a rarity.
Rationing and waiting lists are likely, as in the Soviet Union where people waited years to acquire a car (this time you may even wait to borrow a car). No private deals, all transactions to be public, not only tracked and surveilled but regulated. Those raised with electronic gadgets and battery-driven everything may experience material privation.
Regulation will see the biggest lifestyle changes. Residence permits will decide where you live. You will need a reason to travel. Social credit scores will determine your access to services.
Economic dependence, from income to spending. Jobs may be allocated, with limited choice of location, as in the former USSR.
Public services may be interrupted as government transition from tax-based system to energy credits and carbon offsets. Massive decline in wealth. Stuff not made is never regained.
Monetary system: Plan to replace money with energy-based credits.
Pensions, savings and assets may be lost, seized by government or compulsorily purchased and exchanged at a rate favourable to the authorities.
It seems clear to me where this is intended to lead. Those who willfully ignore reality will not be persuaded by words and we need to stop focusing on the small data. Yes it is a fraud but perhaps it is intended to distract us. After all, it is only a pretext.
Do you want to go to this outcome? If not, now is the time to turn away.
One must always identify and name one’s enemy. In this case he has hidden for years. Authors like Carroll Quigley were censored, the books pulped, the printing plates smashed. Those like Antony Sutton lost their jobs, too. Thanks, however, to those who knew them, such as Patrick M Wood who collaborated with Sutton, we know where their efforts were directed and some inkling of their intention. In recent years, the mask of secrecy has slipped somewhat. The State Corporatist Media has conceded that the Trilateral Commission is not a conspiracy theory; that front organizations like the Bilderberg Group do in fact exist.
The press still refuses to interrogate the work of these groups, instead mentioning them only in hushed, reverential tones. This does not mean the press ignores them, it simply refuses to acknowledge that it acts on their behalf. It has for years conveyed the message and prepared public opinion clandestinely. We had to wait for David Rockefeller himself to draw aside the curtain in 1991.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ― David Rockefeller
So what’s the plan?
The following is a summary and potted history courtesy of Patrick Wood and his interlocutor Richard Grove of Tragedy & Hope.
ORIGINS OF TECHNOCRACY Utopian movement seeking to abandon the use of money to price goods, instead judging value purely by energy inputs. Technocracy is a method of governance that has no political ideology. Plato’s Republic has a chapter on cybernetics and social control.
Utopians took many forms — communism, socialism, fascism — and some came close to religion, like scientism and humanism.
Henri Saint-Simon stated, “A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”
Saint-Simon’s disciple was Auguste Comte, the father of sociology. They developed Positivism, the concept that truth can only be determined through rationalism or science. Positivism in turn gave birth to Scientism, which says that only science can discover truth about humans and reality and there is no other truth. As it does not explain the soul, emotion, caring or jealousy, it does not acknowledge these truths. The Prussian physiologist and psychologist Wilhelm Wundt took this further, insisting humans have no soul and so can be manipulated like a clockwork orange and this gives rise to outcomes-based education, focused on standardization as an end in itself.
Born in the white heat of industrial expansion. Gained attention from the apparent failure of capitalism during the Great Depression. Boosted when taken up by Columbia University in 1932. Technocracy Inc formed as an ideological movement in 1933.
FOCUS ON DATA PROCESSING, LINKS TO IBM
Shared basement in Hamilton Hall, Columbia U, with the early IBM which was then developing the tabulators which they would lease to the German government for social profiling in the 1930s and 40s. No further information exists as IBM historical documents have been lost.
Brzezinski in his book Political Power: USA/USSR (1964) writes that the DDR Stasi was gathering huge amounts of data on people but lacked the technical power to put it to use.
LINKS TO HITLER’S GERMANY
Technocracy and technocrats don’t care what political system they operate under. It is concerned with the correct scientific methodology rather than the political ends.
German technocracy movement was not connected to the U.S. counterpart but shared and reprinted articles. Hitler saw technocrats as a rival and outlawed the organisation. However, technocrats had a profound influence on Hitler’s Germany and continued to communicate. The Third Reich could not have happeed without technocrats and the Technocracy movement. Ironically, Canada temporarily outlawed Technocracy Inc fearing it had fascists links.
Technocracy started at Columbia U, jumped over to Germany. The experiments in the concentration camps created a body of science that they brought back to the U.S. After WW2, Operation Paperclip transfered thousands of German technocrats to the U.S. where the German scientific experiments were continued under MK-Ultra by the CIA.
TECHNOCRACY IS NOT FASCISM OR SOCIALISM
Mistaken association with Communism. Members of Technocracy Inc would have bridled at association with Communists, who still used money and priced goods in money. However Brzezinski proposed that Marxism could be a stepping stone, destroy capitalism prior to installing the technotronic era. This will not be a personal dictator but a system of control, technology enforcing laws that keep you in line.
As for Fabian socialism, which aimed to merge the corporate and government world but still envisaged private property and a price based system. In short, all former systems have supply and demand, resolved by prices, and technocracy has an energy or resource-based economy. Technocracy is not proposed as a political form of government.
OVERLAP WITH EUGENICS
Eugenics was mostly based in California rather than Columbia but the peak of eugenics coincided with that of technocracy. There was no organizational link between Technocracy and the Eugenics movement, however they shared a common approach. From a scientists’ perspective managing society is similar to livestock.
Eugenics was a response to the challenge of Darwin and Marx and the fascists, challenging people to think of ways to change society in previously unthinkable ways. These were radicals of their time: not of a left-wing radicalism but utopians in a race to the future. The Eugenics Record Office, of Cold Spring Harbor, New York, inspired many of Hitler’s speeches.
ELITES AND TECHNOCRACY
There was no backing from the tax-exempt foundations in the beginning. Technocracy was a grass roots movement and its founders were relatively poor.
In the 1960s Brzezinski taught at Columbia U and many of his books mirror Technocracy.
The Journal on Race Development (1910) became the Journal of International Relations, which in turn was merged with Foreign Affairs in 1922. It was founded by Yale alumnus Stanley Hall who was a student of Wilhelm Wundt and a member of Skull and Bones. This shows the link between the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite secret societies dedicated to “thinking the unthinkable” or shaking up society, as well as the sending of American academics to Europe for indoctrination before returning them to shape U.S. universities, future graduates and social institutions.
THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
At the 1972 Bilderberg meeting, Rockefeller and Brzezinski went to sell the TC. They likely invited the Europeans of the Bilderbergers to join, such as Kissinger. They invite members, like any fraternity.
Brzezinski picked Jimmy Carter as presidential candidate, to whom he became National Security Adviser, gatekeeper to the President (10/17 have been members of the Trilateral Commission). Brzezinski bragged about educating Carter on foreign affairs and economics. At one point Carter had one third of the U.S. membership of the Trilateral Commission to his administration. Of his Cabinet, all were TCs bar one.
The Trilateral Commission decides policy in advance and implements it without reference to Congress through control of the Executive. What’s more, this was not political control.
They only wanted the executive branch in order to use the influence of the U.S. presidency to create their new world economic order. Of U.S. Trade Representatives, the first was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Of 12, nine have been members of the TC.
In addition to the U.S. Executive, the Trilateral Commission influences the World Bank. Of WB presidents, 6/8 have been members of the Trilateral Commission.
David Rockefeller in April 1967 as he spearheaded construction of the new World Trade Center, eight months after breaking ground.
ROCKEFELLER LOCK ON POLICY
Involved in Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia U, and United Nations. It is surprising that they did not fund Technocracy at the start, given that it was housed in Columbia. It’s competitor was the even more radical New School. Until the 1970s, these families never funded Technocracy.
The payback for the Rockefeller influence to the UN was the use of the UN as a contagion mechanism to spread Agenda 21 around the world. The UN makes an ugly project look pretty. It is the user interface that makes evil look friendly. Slogans like interdependence,
Jay Rockefeller is one of the few family members to be elected, in W. Virginia. Nelson had to be appointed as Vice President but as head of the Senate he pushed through the fast-track mechanism for trade treaties. It was used to push through trade deals with minimal oversight, including NAFTA, CAFTA, TIP and TPP. The Senate knew how dangerous this legislation is, by delegating to the executive branch the ability to negotiate treaties. They should be passed with a two-thirds vote but the president can now present a treaty for approval, that has 20 hours of floor debate, no amendments allowed and reduces the floor vote to 50 per cent. In the case of NAFTA, the Trilateral Commission pulled out all the big guns including Henry Kissinger to browbeat Congressmen to pass it. And it only just passed.
NAFTA was written by Carla Hills, member of the Trilateral Commission, signed by George HW Bush a member of the TC, pushed into law by Bill Clinton, a member of the TC, and lobbied by numerous members of the TC like Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger…
Nelson Rockefeller ensured through the fast-track mechanism could force through these changes.
FAMILY TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
NGOs, Trust Funds, Foundations have been the engine of social change for 100 years, as exposed by the Reece committee and the testimony of Norman Dodd.
These have reshaped universities, grade school and common core, business regulation, and then they for the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank. Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was closely associated with the Trilateral Commission at board of directors level.
Beneath this like a submarine is Technocracy, now surfacing.
AGENDA 21, AKA TECHNOCRACY
1930s Technocracy proposed “functional sequences” or common functions that need to be managed by a central authority: health, manufacturing… Their view of the “service sequence” of education is “conditioning”.
Smart Grid is an original specification of Technocracy — the idea of controlling the energy that is consumed.
Total Awareness Surveillance is an original specification of Technocracy — you cannot manage what you cannot monitor. That is an engineer’s mindset.
For an economic system: financial records, people’s purchase intentions and desires, health records, education records like Common Core collects 400 data points on students now.
Public Private Partnership with flavors of partenrship.
All of these are in the Rio 1992 conference which was preceded by the Gro Harlem Brundtland Commission which convened 1982-87 producing a report, Our Common Future, popularising the phrase, sustainable development. Brundtland was a member of the Trilateral Commission, whose stated purpose is to create a new international economic order.
Was Agenda 21 an organic United Nations creation or was it produced by the Trilateral Commission, just like NAFTA? It completely reflects the new international economic order. The UN picks it up, the Rio Conference follows, Agenda 21 is published, book on biodiversity is published… Today Earth Charter and Sustainable Development has spread to every country right dnown to county and district level.
ROTHSCHILD EMPIRE
This overlaps with Agenda 21, as espoused in the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) promoted by Edmond de Rothschild in 1987 with Maurice Strong: they were participating in a United Nations project but if you see where their interests lay, they were gaining authority to pursue personal financial interests.
David de Rothschild wrote the comic book to spread the gospel to young people.
DISARMING THE PEOPLE
How do the Rockefellers and Rothschilds benefit from people not being able to defend themselves.
Why would Rockefeller try to end capitalism?
Bankers’ expertise is money. They don’t make anything. Perhaps it was never meant to be permanent and there is an end to money.
Their view of wealth is different. They don’t see thousands in the bank as security. There is no value in money. It can be declared obsolete tomorrow.
Wealth lies in resources of the Earth that support all life.
These will be licensed to people as the feudal barons let you survive in return for 80 per cent of your produce.
Sustainable development is twisting the resources out of the people and transfering it to a global trust (they never say who are the trustees: they will be those who set up the system).
WHITHER LIBERTY
It took 300-500 years to develop the principles of liberty.
They culminated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
If Technocracy wins it could take hundreds of years, perhaps even longer, for liberty to surface again.
Once they get control of the economic mechanims, they will control life itself.
THE CASTE SYSTEM
The system will manage your carbon footprint. If you use too much electricity at home you may be denied a flight to a funeral. The elite will face no such restrictions.
THE CRISIS IN DEMOCRACY
This paper was issued in 1975 by the Trilateral Commission. The republic and democracy was outmoded for the coming technotronic era.
This suggested democracy is out of date… Brzezinski argued in his book Between Two Ages that bankers and multinational corporations already control countries, rendering the nation state a plaything. People who support nation states are derided as nativists.
THE MEDIA
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, 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.” — David Rockefeller, 1991
Antony Sutton meanwhile was fired and censored for reporting on the Trilateral Commission. Sutton exposed how Wall Street had enabled the revolutions to take place in Russia and Germany and continued to finance and support the fascists and communists. Sutton saw the stacking of the Carter administration and recognized the patterns.
Before he even published anything David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, a member of the Trilateral Commission and trustee of the Hoover Institution had Sutton fired.
THE CHURCH
Steven Clark Rockefeller put together the Earth Charter. A theologian, Rockefeller is an instigator of the interfaith movement and all the major faiths have gone Green, with encyclicals from the Pope on climate change. Global stewardship, sustainable planning and development are the common buzzwords indicating their complete co-option. This goes back to the World Council of Churches and the Dulles brothers.
Nazi Oaks, by Mark Musser, explores the first Green movement to become state policy, which was that of the NAZI movement. Now there are books with titles like, Green Faith. Yet the new priesthood are the scientists who go up the mountain to listen to the volcano and come down and say the god of science says, ‘you must do x or y.’ No one is allowed to go to the volcano themselves, or to question what the scienpriests say they know, otherwise you are punished as a denier and excommunicated as a heathen.
TRANSHUMANISM AND THE DENIAL OF DEATH
Death is central to life. Transhumanism excludes god without being atheistic: they believe that they will become immortal.
In religion, the fall of man prescribes that death will be a feature until god wraps things up in the future. The transhumanists are making an end run around what religion says.
The mass surveillance society competes with god in another way, seeking to be the overseer of humanity and the recording of all your life’s deeds, good and bad. You will pay for your sins through your social credit score.
SURVEILLANCE STATE AS TECHNOCRACY.
In 2005 the intelligence system in the U.S. was completely overhauled with the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, lording it over 17 national intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency.
The legislation to Congress to authorize the ODNI was sponsored by Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein, both members of the Trilateral Commission. George Bush created the ODNI and appointed John Negroponte as the first director: member of the Trilateral Commission.
So the TC proposed the law, filled the position and has taken control of the reorganisation of all intelligence gathering.
We know they want a new international economic order. Now the ODNI takes full control of data gathering, under which the NSA is merely an agent. This is the monitoring network for the whole Technocracy system.
They have all the phone calls and emails, all the health records through Obamacare, all the education data through Common Core, all financial and business data. The collection has grown but the ability to analyse the data has not kept up: moving the data from the storage devices into the CPUs to process, that’s the bottleneck, and putting it back again if necessary. They estimate they will solve that problem in three to five years. Then we’ll be in big trouble (date of interview, 2015).
This alone shows how close we are to the launch of Technocracy. This is an expression of the Trilateral Commission’s dominance over policy for the past 40 years. The odds of this small group having this much influence are, according to mathematicians, infinitesimal.
THE FIGHT NOW
Two economic systems are fighting for control. They cannot co-exist. Technocracy and Capitalism are matter and anti-matter. One will die, one will live.
If the Technocracy system is set up properly, the system does the controlling. It monitors you and self corrects. This allows it to manage populations of billions without many people being involved. That is the idea of a scientific dictatorship.
The global elite are pedestrian academics and intellectuals at best. They have never had an original idea of their own. To gain advantage they have to hijack the ideas of others.
Technocracy was not their idea. It goes way back. The originals Greens of the 1960s will “spit molten nails that they got pushed out of their own movement”. The global elite took over the green movement and the purest objectives were hijacked by this elite who took off in a totally different direction.
They are hijackers. They take whatever idea suits them to push forward their own vested interests. It does not speak too well of their intellectual abilities.
Know who the enemy is. We have had our ladder leaning against the wrong wall, and we are worse off than we’ve been, for 40 years. We must identify the enemy to have any success, and make a target of them.
In the longer term, we must retain some vestige of liberty in the hearts of men, says Patrick Wood. If we lose our liberty people will be living in a scientific dictatorship where freedom is a curiosity. Hopefully enough people can keep a seed of liberty alive so that one day, when the dark ends, it may sprout again.
Notes from an interview by Patrick M Wood given to Richard Grove.
We in Western societies naively imagine we would never descend into Totalitarianism, because such systems are unmistakably evil and we are undeniably good. Not only would we immediately recognise it, but our moral goodness and inestimable courage would see to it that we stopped it before it ever took root.
In reality, however, such systems never arise vowing to deliver evil, but always promising to do good. The Bolsheviks were apparently redressing the plight of the workers against their bourgeois oppressors. The National Socialists were of course restoring the pride of Germany after the ignominies of Versailles and hyperinflation. The theme connecting all such systems is that those propagating them are the self-proclaimed saviours of society, dealing with the problem and the enemy which they themselves have defined, and presenting the cause to the masses not as outright evil, but rather unmitigated good.
In our smugness, we imagine that we could never go along with such systems because we would see from early on the evil intent and — because we’re not evil — would oppose it with all our might. Yet our ability to oppose such a system does not depend on our ability to see the evil from the comfort of our armchairs decades after it reached its hideous fullness. Rather, it depends on our ability to spot Totalitarianism in its fledgling form in our day, and on summoning the courage and resolve to stand against it here and now.
In an address to The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in New York in 1975, Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned his audience against Western complacency by posing the following questions:
“Can one part of humanity learn from the bitter experience of another or can it not? Is it possible or impossible to warn someone of danger?… But the proud skyscrapers stand on, point to the sky, and say: It will never happen here. This will never come to us. It is not possible here … But do we really have to wait for the moment when the knife is at our throat?”
One of the reasons so few have seen what has really been happening to us over the past two years, is that the idea of a public health crisis being used as cover for the ushering in of a Totalitarian system is just too much for most people to grasp. Yet as Solomon taught us, there is nothing new under the Sun, and Solzhenitsyn spoke of this phenomenon back in his day:
“The essence of Communism is quite beyond the limits of human understanding. It is hard to believe that people could actually plan such things and carry them out. And it is precisely because its essence is beyond comprehension, perhaps, that Communism is so difficult to understand.”
The average person can hardly comprehend an ideology that rose to power talking about doing good by improving the conditions of workers, but in actual fact had an agenda to destroy and then reshape the existing socioeconomic order, which (according to the ideology) absolutely necessitated the ruthless destruction of entire people groups that were an obstacle to this, be they propertied, peasants, or priests. Likewise, most of us simply cannot grasp the idea that a small group of ruthless oligarchs with astronomical levels of wealth and power could be using an apparent public health crisis as cover to destroy and reshape entire societies and economies across the globe in their own hideous image. Such evil, masquerading under the banner of good, cannot be easily comprehended — even though it is taking place right in front of our very eyes.
Yet this inability to comprehend such things is not so much a question of an inability to examine facts and assess the situation, but rather an unwillingness to comprehendit, largely arising from the comfortable state of affairs we have enjoyed for so long. Again Solzhenitsyn, this time in a speech made on BBC radio in 1976, identified this phenomenon, calling it a riddle of human nature that suffering often tends to bring a fierce determination to fight for freedom, whilst untold years of unmolested freedom tends to send a people in the opposite direction:
“How is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find strength to rise up and free themselves, first in spirit and then in body; while those who soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly appear to lose the taste for freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery. Or again: Why is it that societies which have been benumbed for half a century by lies they have been forced to swallow find within themselves a certain lucidity of heart and soul which enables them to see things in their true perspective and to perceive the real meaning of events; whereas societies with access to every kind of information suddenly plunge into lethargy, into a kind of mass blindness, a kind of voluntary self deception.”
Access to information? Check! Lethargy? Check! Mass blindness? Check! Voluntary self-deception? Check! All these elements are present with us now. And so as millions pat themselves on the back for doing good during a public health crisis, in reality they have simply facilitated the ability of those intent on drawing a Digital Iron Curtain across society to carry out their aims, thus edging us towards a Totalitarianism system and society that most would recognise as evil if they read about it in an armchair 50 years from now.
Do we really have to wait for the moment when the knife is at our throat before we realise our predicament? I hope and pray to God that the answer is no, and that people will snap out of their lethargy, their blindness, their self-deception. Then together, through God’s grace and power, we can find the strength to rise up and free ourselves — first in spirit and then in body — from the grim future being planned for us and our children.
The video above features Collette Martin, a practicing nurse who testified before a Louisiana Health and Welfare Committee hearing December 6, 2021.1,2 Martin claims she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots among children — including blood clots, heart attacks, encephalopathy and arrhythmias — yet their concerns are simply dismissed.
Among elderly patients, she’s noticed an uptick in falls and acute onset of confusion “without any known etiology.” Coworkers are also experiencing side effects, such as vision and cardiovascular problems.
Martin points out that few doctors or nurses are aware the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, so injury reports are not being filed. Hospitals also are not gathering data on COVID jab injuries in any other ways, so there’s no data to investigate even if you wanted to. According to Martin:
“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.
We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of MAYBE dying, getting sick of a virus — a virus with a 99% survival rate. As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself.
And then, for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant [Omicron] has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing — it’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired … Which side of history will you be on? I have to know that this madness will stop.”
Martin also states she believes the hospital treatment protocol is killing COVID patients. Doctors agree that it’s “not working,” but that “it’s all we have.” But “that’s simply not true,” she says. “It’s just what the CDC will allow us to give.”
What the VAERS Data Tell Us About COVID Jab Risks
I recently interviewed Jessica Rose, Ph.D., a research fellow at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Israel, about what the VAERS data tell us about the COVID jabs’ risks. As noted by Rose, the average number of adverse event reports following vaccination for the past 10 years has been about 39,000 annually, with an average of 155 deaths. That’s for all available vaccines combined.
The COVID jabs alone now account for 983,756 adverse event reports as of December 17, 2021, including 20,622 deaths3 — and this doesn’t include the underreporting factor, which we know is significant and likely ranges from five to 40 times higher than reported. Most doctors and nurses don’t even know what VAERS is and even if they do, they chose not to report the incidents.
You can’t even compare the COVID shots to other vaccines. They’re by far the most dangerous injections ever created, yet there doesn’t appear to be a cutoff for acceptable harm. No one within the CDC or Food and Drug Administration, which jointly run VAERS, has addressed these shocking numbers. Both agencies outrageously deny that a single death can be attributed to the COVID jabs, which is simply impossible. It’s not statistically plausible.
The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation. It’s known as the Bradford Hill criteria — a set of 10 criteria that need to be satisfied in order to show strong evidence of causal relationship. One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect.
Well, in the case of the COVID jabs, 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours of injection. It’s simply not conceivable that 10,000 people died two days after their shot from something other than the shot. It cannot all be coincidence. Especially since so many of them are younger, with no underlying lethal conditions that threaten to take them out on any given day. A full 80% have died within one week of their jab, which is still incredibly close in terms of temporality.4
Children Risk Permanent Heart Damage
Aside from the immediate risk of death, children are also at risk for potentially lifelong health problems from the jab. Myocarditis (heart inflammation) has emerged as one of the most common problems, especially among boys and young men.
In early September 2021, Tracy Beth Hoeg and colleagues posted an analysis5 of VAERS data on the preprint server medRxiv, showing that more than 86% of the children aged 12 to 17 who report symptoms of myocarditis were severe enough to require hospitalization.
Cases of myocarditis explode after the second shot, Hoeg found, and disproportionally affect boys. A full 90% of post-jab myocarditis reports are males, and 85% of reports occurred after the second dose. According to Hoeg et. al.:6
“The estimated incidence of CAEs [cardiac adverse events] among boys aged 12-15 years following the second dose was 162 per million; the incidence among boys aged 16-17 years was 94 per million. The estimated incidence of CAEs among girls was 13 per million in both age groups.”
No doubt, doctors are seeing an increase in myocarditis, but few are willing to talk about it. In a recent Substack post, Steve Kirsch writes:7
“I just read a comment on my private ‘healthcare providers only’ substack. An estimated100X elevation in rate of myocarditis, but nobody will learn of it since cardiologists aren’t going to speak out for fear of retribution.
His comment was a private conversation he had with a pediatric cardiologist. The cardiologist is never going to say this in public, to the press, or have his name revealed since his first duty is to his family (keeping his job).
If a ‘fact checker’ called the cardiologist, he might either refuse to comment or say ‘I’m seeing somewhat more cases after the vaccine rolled out.’ Here’s the exact comment that was posted to the private substack:
‘Pre-jab, one or two cases per year of myocarditis. Now, half his waiting room. Tells parents they are ‘studying’ the causality. Refers them to infectious disease specialist for discussions on their other children.
Admits he and about 50% of his colleagues know what’s going on but are too terrified to speak out for fear of retaliation from hospitals and state licensing boards.
Other 50% don’t want to know, don’t care and/or are reveling in the cognitive dissonance (like Dr. Harvey [Cohen] at Stanford) and/or letting loose their authoritarian demon. Good luck with these former colleagues of mine. The stench is overpowering.’
… From 1 or 2 cases per year to ‘half his waiting room.’ I don’t know the size of his waiting room, but it’s at least two people since he said ‘half.’ So, the rate has increased by: 250 day per year open/1.5 avg cases per year=166X.”
Myocarditis Is Not a Mild, Inconsequential Side Effect
Together with Dr. Peter McCullough, in October 2021 Rose also submitted a paper8 on myocarditis cases in VAERS following the COVID jabs to the journal Current Problems in Cardiology. Everything was set for publication when, suddenly, the journal changed its mind and took it down.
You can still find the pre-proof on Rose’s website, though. The data clearly show that myocarditis is inversely correlated to age, so the risk gets higher the younger you are. The risk is also dose-dependent, with boys having a sixfold greater risk of myocarditis following the second dose.
While our health authorities are shrugging off this risk saying cases are “mild,” that’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56% to 83%.9
Patients with acute fulminant myocarditis (characterized by severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction requiring drug therapy or mechanical circulatory support10) who survive the acute stage have a survival rate of 93% at 11 years, whereas those with acute nonfulminant myocarditis (left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but otherwise hemodynamically stable11) have a survival rate of just 45% at 11 years.12
This could mean that anywhere from 7% to 55% of the teens injured by these shots today might not survive into their late 20s or early 30s. Some might not even make it into their early 20s! How is this possibly an acceptable tradeoff for a virus you have practically zero risk of dying from as a child or adolescent?
Excess Deaths Are Exploding, Including Among Teens
Throughout the pandemic, the COVID jab was held out as the way back to normalcy. Yet, despite mass injections and boosters, excess deaths keep rising. For example, in the week ending November 12, 2021, the U.K. reported 2,047 more deaths13 than occurred during the same period between 2015 and 2019.
COVID-19 cannot be entirely to blame, as it was listed on the death certificates for only 1,197 people. Even more telling is the fact that, since July 2021, non-COVID deaths in the U.K. have been higher than the weekly average in the five years prior to the pandemic. Heart disease and strokes appear to be behind many of the excess deaths, and both are known side effects of the COVID jab.
In a November 28, 2021, Twitter post,14 Silicon Valley software engineer Ben M. (@USMortality) revealed that in the preceding 13 weeks, about 107,700 seniors died above the normal rate, despite a 98.7% vaccination rate. In another example, he used data from the CDC and census.gov to show excess deaths rising in Vermont even as the majority of adults have been injected.15
“Vermont had 71% of their entire population vaccinated by June 1, 2021,” he tweeted. “That’s 83% of their adult population, yet they are seeing the most excess deaths now since the pandemic!”
Even more disturbing, British data show deaths among teenagers have spiked since that age group became eligible for the COVID shots.16 Between the week ending June 26 and the week ending September 18, 2020, 148 deaths were reported among 15- to 19-year-olds. Between the week ending June 25, 2021, and the week ending September 17, 2021, 217 deaths occurred in that age group. That’s an increase of 47%!
Deaths from COVID-19 also went up among 15- to 19-year-olds after the shots were rolled out for this age group. Significant concerns have been raised about the possibility that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE).17 Is that what’s going on here? As reported by The Exposé, which conducted the investigation:18
“Correlation does not equal causation, but it is extremely concerning to see that deaths have increased by 47% among teens over the age of 15, and COVID-19 deaths have also increased among this age group since they started receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, and it is perhaps one coincidence too far.”
Omicron Poses No Risk to Young People
As noted in a recent analysis by Dr. Robert Malone,19 (who recently got banned from Twitter but can be found on Substack), the risk-benefit ratio of the COVID shot is becoming even more inverted with the emergence of Omicron, as this variant produces far milder illness than previous variants, putting children at even lower risk of hospitalization or death from infection than they were before, and their risk was already negligible.
Malone is currently spearheading the second Physicians Declaration20 by the International Alliance of Physicians and Medical Scientists, which has been signed by more than 16,000 doctors and scientists, stating that “healthy children shall not be subjected to forced vaccination” as their clinical risk from SARS-CoV-2 infection is negligible and long term safety of the shots cannot be determined prior to such policies being enacted.
Not only are children at high risk for severe adverse events from the shots, but having healthy, unvaccinated children in the population is crucial to achieving herd immunity.
Shots Double Risk of Acute Coronary Syndrome
Researchers have also found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following injection.21
People who had received two doses of the mRNA jab more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the researchers found, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. ACS is an umbrella term that includes not only heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra wrote:22
“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”
AMA Is A-OK With Sacrificing Children
Tragically, it’s not only the CDC and FDA that have been captured by the drug industry and who are sacrificing public health, including the health of our children, in order to further the technocratic Great Reset agenda.
Even the American Medical Association, which is supposed to lobby for physicians and medical students in the U.S. and promote medicine for the betterment of public health, has abandoned all semblance of ethics, transparency and honesty.
In a mid-November 2021 article on the AMA’s website, “COVID-19 Vaccine for Kids: How We Know It’s Safe,”23 contributing news writer Tanya Albert Henry cites data straight from Pfizer’s press release, and then goes on to claim we “know it’s safe” because “younger children see the same side effects as has been seen in adults and teens.” Based on the VAERS data, that should send shivers down parents’ backs.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics is on board with vaccinating this age group, along with the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society, said Dr. Fryhofer, chair-elect the AMA Board of Trustees,” Henry writes.
“Dr. Fryhofer … noted that myocarditis has been a rare occurrence after the second dose of the mRNA vaccines. ‘The observed risk is highest in young males age 12 to 29, but COVID infection can also cause myocarditis,’ she pointed out. ‘For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination.’”
Really? Where did Fryhofer get that idea? I’ve not seen any data to back that up, and Henry doesn’t provide any.
What Do the VAERS Data Show?
Research published in 201724 calculated the background rate of myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of four cases per million per year. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2020 there were 73.1 million people under the age of 18 in the U.S.25 That means the background rate for myocarditis in adolescents (18 and younger) would be about 292 cases per year.
As of December 17, 2021, looking only at U.S. reports and excluding the international ones, VAERS had received:26
308 cases of myocarditis among 18-year-olds
252 cases among 17-year-olds
226 cases in 16-year-olds
256 cases in 15-year-olds
193 in 14-year-olds
132 in 13-year-olds
In total, that’s 1,475 cases of myocarditis in teens aged 18 and younger — five times the background rate. And again, this does not take into account the underreporting rate, which has been calculated to be anywhere from five to 40.
Meanwhile, the CDC27 claims that, between March 2020 and January 2021, “the risk for myocarditis was 0.146% among patients diagnosed with COVID-19,” compared to a background rate of 0.009% among patients who did not have a diagnosis of COVID-19.
After adjusting for “patient and hospital characteristics,” COVID-19 patients between the ages of 16 and 39 were on average seven times more likely to develop myocarditis than those without COVID.
That said, the CDC stressed that “Overall, myocarditis was uncommon” among all patients, COVID or not. What’s more, only 23.7% of myocarditis patients between the ages of 16 and 24 had a history of COVID-19, so a majority of the cases in that age group were not due to COVID.
We’re also not talking about big numbers in terms of actual COVID infections. The weekly adolescent hospitalization rate peaked at 2.1 per 100,000 in early January 2021, declined to 0.6 per 100,000 in mid-March, and rose to 1.3 per 100,000 in April.28
Using that peak hospitalization rate of 2.1 per 100,000 (or 21 per million) in this age group, and assuming the risk for myocarditis is 0.146% among COVID-positive patients, we get a myocarditis-from-COVID rate among adolescents of 0.03 per million. That’s a far cry from the normal background rate of four cases per million, so the risk of getting myocarditis from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probably quite small.
Now, assuming the COVID hospitalization rate for adolescents is 21 per million, and we have 73.1 million adolescents, we could expect there to be 1,535 hospitalizations for COVID in this age group in a year. If 0.146% of those 1,535 teens develop myocarditis, we could expect 2.2 cases of myocarditis to occur in this age group each year, among those who come down with COVID.
In summary, based on CDC statistics, we could expect just over two teens to contract myocarditis from COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, we have 1,475 cases reported following the COVID jab in just six months (shots for 12- to 17-year-olds were authorized July 30, 202129).
Taking into account underreporting, the real number could be anywhere between 7,375 and 59,000 — again, in just six months! To estimate an annual rate, we’d have to double it, giving us anywhere from 14,750 to 118,000 cases of myocarditis. So, is it actually true that “For adolescents and young adults, the risk of myocarditis caused by COVID infection is much higher than after mRNA vaccination”? I doubt it.
Can You Lessen the Damaging Effects?
There is absolutely no medical rationale or justification for children and teens to get a COVID shot. It’s all risk and no gain. If for whatever reason your son or daughter has already received one or more jabs, and you hope to lessen their risk of cardiac and cardiovascular complications, there are a few basic strategies I would suggest implementing.
Keep in mind these suggestions DO NOT supersede or cancel out any medical advice they may receive from their pediatrician. These are really only recommendations for when there are no adverse symptoms. If your child experiences any symptoms of a cardiac or cardiovascular problem, seek immediate medical attention.
1. First and foremost, do not give them another shot or booster.
2. Measure their vitamin D level and make sure they take enough vitamin D orally and/or get sensible sun exposure to make sure their level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/ml (150 to 200 nmol/l).
3. Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in their diet. This involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings as they are loaded with seed oils.
Also avoid conventionally raised chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.
4. Consider giving them around 500 milligrams per day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for the important antioxidant glutathione.
5. Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two to six capsules, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will merely act as a digestive enzyme rather than digesting fibrin.
FOR several years the public have been bombarded with threats of extreme weather to brainwash them about the dangers of climate change. Every bit of bad weather is relayed by the 24/7 media, which naturally has the effect of making the public believe ‘things are getting worse’. This is then backed up by repeated claims that global warming is to blame, making such events more frequent and more severe.
As part of this propaganda onslaught, the BBC has been broadcasting a monthly Climate Check video for the last couple of years, usually presented by weatherman Ben Rich, who they hope will give a flavour of authenticity. Last month’s edition was a summary of 2021. According to the introduction: ‘Fires, floods, heatwaves and drought – 2021 has been another year of remarkable extremes around the world.’
The video then goes on to cover a heatwave in Canada, floods in Canada, Germany, China, India and Australia, Hurricane Ida, wildfires in Greece and a drought in East Africa. None of these were unprecedented, yet there was the usual sloppy assertion that global warming is making all these types of events worse. No evidence or data is given to back up these absurd claims, which are purely derived from computer models sexed up by alarmist scientists.
Is our weather really any worse than in the past? Recently I looked back at the world’s weather 50 years ago, in 1971. The weather that year was every bit as bad as anything seen either this year or in the recent past.
Was 1971 exceptional? Let’s go back to 1961 for another viewpoint.
It’s ironic that Ben Rich began last month’s report by saying ‘If anywhere in the world sums up a year of extreme weather, it’s Canada’, because he could have said exactly the same if he had been doing his Climate Check 60 years ago.
The drought that summer on the Canadian prairies was reckoned at the time to be even worse than the dustbowl years of the 1930s. Many places had received no proper rainfall for a year and a half, and harvests were devastated, as this CBC video describes.
Wildfires burned millions of acres across much of Canada in what was called at the time ‘The Angriest Summer’.
To cap it off, flash floods killed a family of five in Timmins, Ontario in August, following six inches of rain in 12 hours.
Catastrophic floods hit many other parts of the world that year. New South Wales suffered some of the worst floods in its history in November 1961, probably only surpassed by the ones in 1900. The Nepean Times reported: ‘During a week of rain in which 474mm of rain were recorded at the post office, Penrith received half its annual rainfall on two days.’
In the very same week, the BBC was reporting on flood-stricken Somalia: ‘Unconfirmed reports put the number of homeless at 300,000 . . . The Prime Minister said nearly all Somalia’s food crops have been destroyed, and said food will have to be found for about 600,000 people for eight months, until the next harvest.’
The USA was also badly affected by flooding in 1961. ‘Widespread, prolonged and disastrous’ floods hit Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama in February and March, followed by the Midwest in May, and Idaho in June. The most tragic flood of the year was in July in Charleston, West Virginia when a small area cloudburst flood caused 22 deaths. Severe flooding also occurred in December in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
The worst floods that year in the USA were brought by Hurricane Carla in September, a Cat 4 storm with winds of 170mph, which left a trail of devastation from Texas to Illinois, including 34 dead, 1,900 homes destroyed and a record number of tornadoes.
The Atlantic hurricane season in 1961 saw two in the most powerful Category 5, Esther and Hattie, making it one of only seven Atlantic hurricane seasons to feature multiple Category 5 hurricanes in one season. Hattie devastated Belize City, damaging 70 per cent of the buildings. The damage was so severe that the government relocated inland to a new city, Belmopan.
1961 was certainly not an exceptional year and history is littered with weather disasters like these. The idea that today’s weather is any more ‘remarkable’ or ‘extreme’ is not only ridiculous, it has no basis in fact. But Ben Rich has no intention of presenting an objective account of the weather last year. His final statement gives the game away: ‘2021 has brought into sharp focus the impact that severe weather is having on peoples around the world. Limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5C was at the top of the agenda at COP26 in Glasgow, with scientists urging world leaders to commit to cutting greenhouse gases to stave off a climate catastrophe.’
There is just one purpose in all of this: to brainwash the public into accepting the UN’s climate agenda.
Making it up as you go along
You might have thought that when the head of the Environment Agency was giving a speech on climate change to the Royal Society he would check his facts first. Not Sir James Bevan.
The agency’s chief executive recently stood up to give a talk ludicrously titled ‘Drought risk in the Anthropocene: from the Jaws of Death to the Waters of Life’. In an attempt to show that climate change was making floods worse, he made the claim that ‘in England, three of the five wettest winters on record have happened in the last eight years’. However according to the Met Office only one of the five has occurred in that period, in 2013/14. The other four were 1876/77, 1914/15, 1989/90 and 1994/95.
Bevan also claimed that winters are wetter than in the past on average, but they were just as wet in the early 1900s.
UK Met Office
He went on to warn that climate change was making our summers drier, increasing the risk of drought. As you have probably guessed by now, summers in England are not becoming drier, or for that matter wetter. They are no different from summers in the past!
UK Met Office
Bevan worked as a diplomat all his career prior to joining the Environment Agency in 2015. His ignorant speech makes his lack of qualifications for his job glaringly obvious.
Landscapes will be altered for ever, warns National Trust!
Not to be outdone by the Environment Agency, the National Trust has just published its annual Weather and Wildlife Review. As you would expect from an organisation taken over by the far Left years ago, it carries apocalyptic warnings about the so-called climate crisis.
The report begins: ‘The climate crisis presented serious challenges for nature across the UK this year. A warm winter, low levels of rain and gale-force winds all contributed to various natural disasters, causing devastation across precious landscapes and affecting the wildlife they support.’
As usual they confuse ‘weather’ with ‘climate’.
According to the BBC, the report warns that some of the landscapes under the Trust’s control are being altered for ever as climate change makes some forms of extreme weather the new normal.
Yes, the same landscapes which have remained largely unaltered for thousands of years, other than by mankind: through the warmth of the Middle Ages and the cold of the Little Ice Age, and many other previous climate cycles, and through the huge differences which we see from year to year. Do the National Trust think we are all a bunch of idiots?
And their evidence for this absurd claim?
1) Moorland fires, due to dry springs caused by climate change.
Only one slight problem though. Our springs are not getting drier, or for that matter wetter:
2) Ash dieback – caused by ‘warmer/wetter winters’
Climate has nothing whatsoever to do with dieback, a disease caused by fungal infestation. It has been spreading rapidly across Europe since its introduction about 30 years ago from eastern Asia. It thrives in all climates – warm, cold, wet and dry.
3) Stormy weather
Storms have blown down trees since time immemorial. But just because the Met Office now give them silly names, the National Trust think they must be getting worse. In fact, the opposite is true, as Met Office data clearly proves:
Incredibly their report ends:
Isn’t it time they concentrated on their real job instead?
Apparently, appalled by robust sales of my bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper — in lieu of critically reviewing the work — used his Twitter feed to unleash a barrage of ad hominem insults against me.
Breaking with the traditional restraints of journalistic neutrality, professional propriety and intellectual rigor, he branded me “dangerous,” a “menace,” a “liar,” a “grifter,” a fraud, “unhinged” and more.
But Tapper’s defamations hang in the atmosphere without substantiation or citation. If I’m a liar, then what was my lie? If I’m a grifter, then what is my personal profit or advantage? If I am a fraud, then where is my inaccurate statement?
I concede that I’m a dangerous menace, but only to the pharmaceutical industry, its captive technocrats and its media toadies.
When I responded to his slander with a respectful tweet inviting him to debate me, Tapper declined, explaining he would not debate a “conspiracy theorist.” Characteristically, he neglected to cite any conspiracy theory he believes I promoted.
I’ve won hundreds of successful lawsuits, including milestone victories against Monsanto, DuPont, Exxon, Smithfield Foods and leading polluters from the chemical, carbon, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries. (Many of these also initially dismissed me as a “conspiracy theorist.”)
My current book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” may be the most heavily footnoted volume to ever sit atop global best-seller lists for six consecutive weeks. With 500,000 copies sold, it has attracted a whopping 5,500+ five-star reviews (92%).
Despite extreme hostility toward this volume from mainstream media and the medical cartel, no one has yet identified a factual inaccuracy in its 250,000 words.
If my book is baseless conspiracy theories, then shouldn’t Mr. Tapper welcome an opportunity to correct me with facts or arguments that go beyond name-calling?
Allow me, then, to offer my own theory for Mr. Tapper’s apoplexy.
Many people make Faustian bargains during their lives, trading personal integrity for material advantage. Oftentimes the metamorphosis occurs as a gradual erosion of moral fiber. Occasionally it happens in an instant; a man stands at a moral crossroads and chooses the dark side.
I happened to have a front-row seat when Jake Tapper had his moment of moral crisis. I’m guessing his fierce vitriol toward me is a reaction to his embarrassment that I was witness to the instant when Mr. Tapper chose career over character.
In July 2005, Jake Tapper was ABC’s senior producer when the network ordered him to pull a lengthy exposé on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) secret 2000 Simpsonwood conference.
Here is the background:
In 1999, in response to exploding epidemics of autism and other neurological disorders, CDC decided to study its vast Vaccine Safety Datalink — the medical and vaccination record of millions of Americans, archived by the top HMOs — to learn whether the dramatic escalation of the vaccine schedule, beginning in 1989, was a culprit. CDC’s in-house epidemiologist, Thomas Verstraeten, led the effort.
Verstraeten’s findings propelled CDC into DEFCON 1. The agency’s top vaccine officials summoned 52 pharmaceutical industry leaders, the foremost vaccinologists from academia and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and public health regulators from the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), CDC, World Health Organization (WHO) and European Medicines Agency to a secret two-day meeting at the remote Simpsonwood retreat center in Norcross, Georgia, to strategize about how to hide these awful revelations from the public.
In 2005, I obtained the explosive transcripts of this meeting and was about to publish excerpts in Rolling Stone (Deadly Immunity, July 18, 2005). Those recordings, ironically, portrayed these leading kingpins of the vaccine cartel poised at their own moral brink, and chronicled their collapse into corruption over two sickening days of debate.
Most of these individuals were physicians and regulatory officials who had committed their lives to public health out of idealism and deep concern for children. Verstraeten’s data confronted them with the fact that the cumulative mercury levels in all those new vaccines they had recommended had overdosed a generation of American children with mercury concentrations over a hundred times the exposures the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered safe.
In recommending a vast battery of new vaccines for children, public health regulators had somehow neglected to calculate the cumulative mercury and aluminum loads in all the new jabs.
Dr. Peter Patriarca, the then-director of the FDA Office on Vaccine Research and Review, expressed the general feeling of horror when he asked why no one had calculated the cumulative mercury exposure to children as policymakers added this cascade of new vaccines to the childhood schedule: “Conversion of the percentage thimerosal to actual micrograms of mercury involves ninth-grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?”
In the tense days leading up to the Simpsonwood conclave, children’s health champion Dr. Ruth Etzel of the EPA pleaded with her fellow public health leaders to publicly admit they made a terrible mistake by inadvertently poisoning American children, and to repair the damage.
Dr. Etzel urged AAP and the government regulators to handle the crisis with the same honesty and public remorse that Johnson & Johnson had demonstrated on discovering toxic chemicals in its Tylenol formulations:
“We must follow three basic rules: (1) act quickly to inform pediatricians that the products have more mercury than we realized; (2) be open with consumers about why we didn’t catch this earlier; (3) show contrition. If the public loses faith in the Public Health Services recommendations, then the immunization battle will falter. To keep faith, we must be open and honest and move forward quickly to replace these products.”
Confronted with scientific proof of their role in the chronic disease calamity, the cabal did exactly the opposite. The shocking Simpsonwood transcripts show Dr. Patriarca and the other public health panjandrums warning each other of their reputational liabilities, their vulnerability to litigation by plaintiffs’ lawyers and potential damage to the vaccine program.
Dr. Patriarca cautioned that public disclosure of CDC’s explosive findings would make Americans feel that the FDA, CDC and vaccine policymakers had been “asleep at the switch” for decades in allowing Thimerosal to remain in childhood vaccines.
Over two days of intense discussion, these Big Pharma operatives and government technocrats persuaded each other to transform their disastrous error into villainy — by doubling down and hiding their mistake from the public.
Tapper saw an early draft of my Rolling Stone story and proposed that, in exchange for exclusivity, he would do a companion piece for ABC timed to air on the magazine’s publication day.
Tapper spent several weeks working on the story with me and a team of enthusiastic ABC reporters and technicians. During his frequent conversations with me over that period, he was on fire with indignation over the Simpsonwood revelations. He acted like a journalist hoping to win an Emmy.
The day before the piece was to air, an exasperated Tapper called me to say that ABC’s corporate officials ordered him to pull the story. The network’s pharmaceutical advertisers were threatening to cancel their advertising.
“Corporate told us to shut it down,” Tapper fumed. Tapper told me that it was the first time in his career that ABC officials had ordered him to kill a story.
ABC had advertised the Simpsonwood exposé, and its sudden cancellation disappointed an army of vaccine safety advocates and parents of injured children who deluged the network with a maelstrom of angry emails.
In response, ABC changed tack and publicly promised to air the piece. Instead, following a one-week delay, the network duplicitously aired a hastily assembled puff piece promoting vaccines and assuring listeners that mercury-laden vaccines were safe.
The new “bait and switch” segment precisely followed Pharma’s talking points. “I’m putting my faith in the Institute of Medicine,” ABC’s obsequious medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, declared in closing. Two pharmaceutical advertisements bracketed the story.
After that piece aired, I called Jake to complain. He neither answered nor returned my calls.
During the 16 intervening years, Pharma has returned Mr. Tapper’s favor by aggressively promoting his career. Pfizer shamelessly sponsors Tapper’s CNN news show, announcing its ownership of the space — and Mr. Tapper’s indentured servitude — before each episode with the loaded phrase: “Brought to you by Pfizer.”
Under the apparent terms of that sponsorship, CNN and Tapper provide Pfizer a platform to market its products and allow the drug company — a serial felon — to dictate content on CNN.
This arrangement has transformed CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper into a propaganda vehicle for Pharma and effectively reduced Mr. Tapper to the role of a drug rep — shamelessly promoting fear porn, confusion, and germophobia, and ushering his audience toward high-yield patent pharmaceuticals.
Tapper’s main thrust during the pandemic has been to promote levels of public terror sufficient to indemnify all the official lies against critical thinking.
All that Pharma money naturally requires that Mr. Tapper kowtow to Dr. Fauci, and the CNN host’s slavishness has helped make Tapper’s show the go-to pulpit for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director.
It’s a safe place for Dr. Fauci to hit all Jake’s reliable softballs out of the park.
“The bootlicking competition at CNN is pretty nauseating,” observed investigative journalist Celia Farber who has chronicled Dr. Fauci’s mismanagement at NIAID for more than 25 years. “It’s ruinous for both democracy and for public health.”
Another journalist has compared Tapper’s mortifying on-air servility toward Dr. Fauci to the adulation of a loyal and obedient canine. “It’s like a dog watching a chess match,” says former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson. “So much intensity and so little understanding.”
Tapper has gone two years without asking Dr. Fauci a single tough question. He has covered up Fauci’s involvement with Wuhan, suppressed news of vaccine injuries, gaslighted the injured, and defended every official orthodoxy on masks, lockdowns, social distancing, vaccines, remdesivir, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
He has never asked about the public health, mental health, and economic costs of lockdown, about the disproportionate burdens of Dr. Fauci’s policies on minorities, the working class and the global poor.
He has never asked Dr. Fauci to explain why countries and states that refused Dr. Fauci’s prescription have consistently experienced dramatically better health outcomes. For example, why are U.S. death rates 1,000x the death rates of African countries like Nigeria and Indian states that widely use hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? Mr. Tapper simply never allows contrary views on his show.
He continues to extol COVID vaccines as a miracle technology that individuals can take four times and still both get and spread the illness.
“He never calls Dr. Fauci on his vacillating science-free pronouncements,” said Farber. “Dr. Fauci seems to be able to paralyze the curiosity features of Tapper’s brain.”
Tapper has to ask Dr. Fauci why, under his direction, America suffered the world’s highest body count. With 4.2% of the global population, our nation suffered 15% of COVID deaths.
Instead, he functions as high priest of every official orthodoxy, working to deify Dr. Fauci and anoint all his absurd, vacillating and contradictory pronouncements with papal infallibility. The sure way to earn Tapper’s indignation is to criticize Dr. Fauci.
Here are just a few examples of Mr. Tapper’s brazen deceptions:
On Feb. 2, 2021, Tapper “debunked” claims that baseball great Hank Aaron may have died from a COVID shot. The home run king submitted to a CDC-staged press conference 17 days earlier. Tapper assured his audience that the Fulton County coroner had determined Aaron to have died from “natural causes.”
When the Fulton County coroner subsequently denied ever having seen Aaron’s body, much less performed an autopsy, Tapper refused to correct his story.
In August 2021, Tapper gave Dr. Fauci a platform to spread the rumor that deluded Americans were poisoning themselves with a “horse medicine” called ivermectin.
In an Aug. 29, 2021 interview, Dr. Fauci told Tapper, “There’s no evidence whatsoever that that works, and it could potentially have toxicity… with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick. There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”
Tapper never corrected Dr. Fauci. He never pointed out that there were by then 70 peer-reviewed studies demonstrating ivermectin’s miraculous efficacy against COVID.
He didn’t dispute Dr. Fauci’s characterization of ivermectin as a horse medicine by noting that the drug had won both a Nobel Prize and WHO’s listing as an “essential medicine” for its miraculous efficacy against human illnesses, and that people have consumed billions of doses with no significant safety signals.
Mr. Tapper never thought to ask Dr. Fauci if he was trying to discourage use of a cheap, effective drug that might compete with his experimental vaccines.
Instead, Tapper abjectly parroted Dr. Fauci’s talking points: “Poison control centers are reporting that their calls are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called ivermectin to treat coronavirus, to prevent contracting coronavirus.”
It mattered not to Tapper that both Mississippi and Oklahoma officials quickly denied that anyone in their state had been hospitalized for ivermectin poisoning. Tapper never corrected his false story.
On Sept. 14, 2021, Tapper obligingly gave Dr. Fauci a platform to dispute rapper Nicki Minaj’s worry that COVID vaccines may affect fertility. Dr. Fauci simply declared, “The answer to that, Jake, is a resounding no.”
As usual, Tapper did not ask Dr. Fauci to cite a study to support this assertion. He never pointed out to Dr. Fauci that all of the COVID vaccine manufacturers acknowledge that their products are not tested for effects on fertility, or that recent data has shown dramatic upticks in miscarriages and pre-eclampsia in vaccinated women.
Nevertheless, based upon Dr. Fauci’s word alone, CNN rushed on to defame and discredit the rapper and to assure the public that Minaj was wrong. Dr. Fauci, after all, had spoken!
It’s easy to see how two years of such obsequious deference emboldened Dr. Fauci in November 2021 to declare that “I represent science.”
There are too many other examples of Tapper’s uncritical promotion of government and pharma falsehoods to even summarize. These are not harmless lies. Each of them has potentially disastrous consequences for public health.
The term “psychological projection” describes the uncanny precision with which a certain sort of person applies the very pejoratives to others that most accurately depict their own shortcomings.
When Mr. Tapper calls me “unhinged,” a “menace to public health,” a “fraud,” a “liar,” is he falling victim to projection?
The critical functions of journalism in a democracy are to speak truth to power, relentlessly expose official corruption, and to forever maintain a posture of skepticism toward government and corporate power centers.
What Jake Tapper does is the opposite of journalism. Tapper, instead, aligns himself with power, and makes himself a propagandist for official narratives and a servile publicist for powerful elites and government technocrats.
No wonder his fury at those who challenge their narratives.
Belgium has “overwhelming responsibility” for the killing of Prince Louis Rwagasore, the popular Burundian leader who sought to unite the country’s ethnic groups as it gained freedom from the colonial power, new evidence shows.
Weeks after being elected prime minister in a landslide, Rwagasore, the 29-year-old son of a former king, was assassinated in October 1961. The governing Belgian elite masterminded the shooting while Brussels turned a blind eye, according to archived records uncovered by Flemish sociologist Ludo De Witte.
Although the shooter, a Greek national, and five accomplices were executed, De Witte said that probes by the Belgian colonial court, the government of independent Burundi, and the UN all neglected Belgium’s role in the killing, which led to decades of war, ethnic tensions, and instability.
Publishing his findings in a book titled ‘Murder In Burundi’, De Witte noted that then-Belgian governor Roberto Regnier had told a post-election crisis meeting of senior Belgian officials and allies in the Belgium-friendly Christian Democrat party (CDC) that “Rwagasore must be killed.”
According to the author, the CDC saw his words as an invitation. Regnier’s remarks were apparently confirmed by four people at that meeting to a 1962 inquiry by prosecutors in Brussels. But that report had not been published until De Witte unearthed it during a five-year investigation into the murder.
It also appears the UK was at least aware of the danger faced by Rwagasore, with Britain’s then-ambassador James Murray writing in a 1962 dispatch that influential Belgians had “an almost pathological hatred” of the charismatic leader, who they believed would harm Belgian-Burundian relations. Murray noted that Regnier’s “words… go very far in the direction of incitement to murder,” according to De Witte.
The book also accuses then-Belgian foreign minister Paul-Henri Spaak – today celebrated as a founding father of the EU – of ignoring Regnier and other conspirators on a “war footing” with Rwagasore. It also finds fault with King Baudouin, who “moved heaven and earth” to commute the assassin’s death sentence to life imprisonment.
Last October, a special commission into Belgium’s colonial past admitted it paid “limited attention” to Burundi and Rwagasore’s killing. De Witte attributed this to a “reticence” among the country’s elite to “confront the reality” of colonization.
Meanwhile, a Belgian Foreign Ministry spokesperson did not respond to the book’s charges, but told The Guardian that the government was waiting for parliamentary recommendations before adopting a policy position.
During Tony Blair’s time in office, Downing Street allegedly ordered former defence secretary Geoff Hoon to burn a secret memo that questioned the legality of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Hoon makes the bombshell claim in a new memoir.
In disclosures that have boosted ongoing attempts to strip the former prime minister of his recently conferred knighthood, Hoon reportedly revealed that Blair’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell had instructed him “in no uncertain terms” to destroy the legal document.
When reports of the allegation first surfaced in 2015, they were dismissed by Blair as “nonsense.” But Hoon has resurrected the claim in a tell-all book, titled ‘See How They Run’, according to the Daily Mail. The paper said Hoon has provided details of a “cover-up” at Downing Street.
The former Labour minister said he was sent a copy of the “very long and very detailed legal opinion,” written by then-Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, “under conditions of considerable secrecy” and told he should “not discuss its contents with anyone else.”
Describing it as “not an easy read,” Hoon said he “came to the view” after several readings that the memo was “not exactly the ringing endorsement” of the war effort that the British government and military chiefs had hoped for. Goldsmith had apparently written that the invasion would be lawful only if Blair believed it was in the UK’s national interest.
“When my Principal Private Secretary, Peter Watkins, called Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it.’”
However, Hoon said he and Watkins defied the order and decided to lock the memo in a safe at the Ministry of Defence instead. He noted that the document is “probably still there.”
While Blair has yet to comment, Powell has denied ordering Hoon to burn the memo, telling the Daily Mail that, at Goldsmith’s request, he had asked the former defence secretary to “destroy” a separate “minute” on the legality of the invasion that had been sent months earlier.
The explosive claims come as over 750,000 people have signed an online petition to strip Blair of his knighthood. Anti-war activists have long accused Blair of war crimes for sending British troops into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
For many pilots who have chosen to remain unvaccinated for COVID-19, daily life has become a navigation of Catch-22s not seen since bombardiers were still stationed on Pianosa.
Jason Kunisch, a commercial airline pilot with 20 years experience and co-founder of the US Freedom Flyers, ponders whether OSHA can require him to take a newly approved vaccine, despite his long-held understanding that, “Traditionally pilots are not governed by OSHA… [but] by the FAA,” which prohibits pilots from taking newly approved drugs.
Sherry Walker, a United pilot with more than 24 years experience, and co-founder of Airline Employees for Health Freedom, copes with the reality that, according to her account, despite having received an exemption from United’s vaccine requirement in order to keep her job while unvaccinated, she can longer do her job or receive a paycheck, presumably until she is vaccinated.
Kate O’Brien, the Media Relations Director for the US Freedom Flyers, voices the frustration of her group’s members, as she describes how executive orders supposedly issued to keep Americans employed and maintain the integrity of the supply chain, have arguably led to increases in unemployment and the supply chain’s collapse.
Medical Freedom Organizations Takeoff in the Aviation Industry
Growing up in San Diego, Jason Kunisch learned to fly while still in high school. After earning his private pilot’s license, he attended a four year aeronautical university, graduating with degrees in aeronautical science and business, then went on and earned his instructor ratings before working dispatch for a charter corporation out of California and Texas. From there he went and flew regional jets prior to making his way over to one of the major airlines a little more than eight years ago.
However, over the course of the past year, life took an unexpected turn for Kunisch. Although still working for a major airline when interviewed for this article in late November, Kunisch was now spending a considerable portion of his time immersed in the day to day operations of the US Freedom Flyers, a medical freedom organization he co-founded with fellow pilots Jessica Sarkisian, Joshua Yoder, and Veronica Harris.
When asked to recount what led him to this role, Kunisch detailed the ever-shifting vaccination policies of the major airlines that went from tolerable to utterly unacceptable in his mind, as well as those of his compatriots in just under a year.
“Most of the airlines prior to September 9 [2021] were very reasonable in their approach,” Kunisch explained. “They said, ‘If you want to go and get vaccinated, that’s your personal choice. In fact we’re going to incentivize you to go do that. We’re going to give you days off. We’re going to give you cash. We’re going to give you extra vacation days next year.”
As for those who did not want to get vaccinated, Kunisch said, the companies and the unions took the approach of “‘Hey, we encourage you to do it but at the end of the day it’s a choice between you and your medical practitioner or you and your family doctor or you and your family. Really it’s a personal decision.’”
Yet, at the same time, Kunisch and others had their concerns about how long such a reasonable approach might last.
“We kind of saw the writing on the wall,” Kunisch recalled. The forced masking of individuals, social distancing, and the rules about what one could and could not do with regard to COVID were all disconcerting to him and many of his colleagues.
“So we’re like all right,” Kunisch said. “Really, the next logical thing is the vaccines and vaccine mandates.”
Then, before long, the mandates arrived. “So United Airlines comes out over the summer and says, ‘We’re going to impose our own vaccine mandate and those who don’t want to do it can submit for a religious or medical exemption,’” Kunisch explained.
Sherry Walker, co-founder of Airline Employees for Health Freedom, an organization similar to the US Freedom Flyers, was one such individual from United.
According to Walker, who spoke in an interview as a representative of Airline Employees for Health Freedom, the process of applying for an accommodation was so onerous that many at United who had reservations about taking a COVID vaccine simply acquiesced out of exasperation from the process or fear they might fail to navigate it properly in the time allowed.
Yet, for those that endured, Walker stated, “[United] put every one of us on unpaid indefinite leave.”
Jessica Sarkisian, a 24 year captain and US Freedom Flyers co-founder, had been concerned about something like this happening at her company for quite some time, having circulated a petition on the matter amongst her co-workers as early as January 2021.
In an interview, Sarkisian described the moment her grassroots activism transitioned from an intracompany endeavor to one with a more national scope. “When United announced their mandate, my company said, ‘Yeah, we’re going to mandate it also, but for the 20% who do not want to get the vaccine, [they’ll] get testing options’ and so immediately people started contacting me at my airline because… people already knew how I felt.”
From there the US Freedom Flyers began to take off. “I started collaborating with a few go getters,” Sarkisian explained. “Then I saw Josh Yoder, another co-founder, on the Stew Peters show and I reached out to him and we communicated and I also reached out to the gals at United and communicated with them and just started reaching out to people at other airlines.”
Likewise, Walker’s Airline Employees for Health Freedom saw their numbers grow during this period as well.
Yet, despite this grassroots success for Kunisch, Walker, Sarkisian, and the members of their nascent organizations, it was not long before they would have more to contend with than simply employer mandates.
Pilots Enter Dogfight with the Biden Administration
“So September 9 rolls around and President Biden says he’s going to have a number of mandates and executive orders,” Kunisch said. “[One] is covering employers of more than 100 employees and that is going to be handled through OSHA… That’s the OSHA case. Then there’s the federal contractor case. That’s another one… Initially our response was to raise funds and awareness and to sue the federal government on the grounds of the OSHA issue because that’s what we all thought was going to get us first.”
This though was despite the fact that there was initially some confusion amongst Kunisch and others in their organization regarding whether the OSHA mandate affected pilots specifically, given that they long understood that they were governed by the FAA, not OSHA.
But, before long, whether pilots were affected by a mandate enforced by an agency, that, according to Kunisch, traditionally did not have authority over them, Kunisch and the US Freedom Flyers realized that the OSHA mandate was not actually their most imminent threat.
“What really came to really bite us all was this federal contractor mandate,” Kunisch said. “Now because the airlines have contracts with the federal government to do troop lifts or evacuations and other flying we are considered federal contractors even though we don’t get any of the benefits of federal contractors like better benefits, better pay, etc., etc., holidays off, whatever… I guess we get none of the good, [although] we get all of the bad… Within the federal contractor mandate there’s no provision for testing. So it’s basically get vaccinated or get fired… So that’s a major concern and initially the companies were very strict in their wording. They more or less were saying ‘You get vaccinated because of the mandate or you are on the streets.’”
But the US Freedom Flyers and Airlines Employees for Health Freedom fought back. They continued to grow their numbers. They spread awareness. They became more vocal in the media and with their companies and their unions.
Because of this, Kunisch said, “The companies have started to kind of back off… Southwest was the first to come out and say, ‘We’re not going to fire anybody. We’re not going to let anybody go. We’re going to give medical and religious exemptions and you’re going to be able to continue to work.’ I think Jet Blue has done a similar thing… I think Alaska has done it. But the process is still rather arduous and there are still concerns, very specific grave concerns, with the process with these exemptions that everyone has to go through who chooses not to get vaccinated.”
To give greater context, Kunisch, explained that technically there’s a difference between an exemption and an accommodation. “An exemption is you are exempt from getting vaccinated. However, to comply or to be fully exempt, you need to participate in an accommodation. Now what is that accommodation? That’s the question?”
Depending on the specifics of the accommodation, Kunisch believes this could lead to some form of religious discrimination. If the accommodation is unvaccinated airline employees must wear a mask, while vaccinated ones do not, in essence, those who remain unvaccinated due to their religious beliefs would be getting forced by their employers to wear an outward sign of their religious affiliation.
Kunisch also pointed out how treating unvaccinated people differently from vaccinated people doesn’t even make sense scientifically given recent findings demonstrating that those who have been vaccinated against COVID can still contract and potentially spread COVID.
Possible Paths to Victory
Yet, whether groups like the US Freedom Flyers and Airline Employees for Health Freedom succeed likely will not come down to science, but, instead, a combination of legal technicalities and whether enough people will stand their ground and suffer the consequences while demonstrating their worth to their employers, and perhaps the rest of society, through their absence.
Given the key role the aviation industry plays in society and the narrow margins of personnel that facilitate its continued functioning, this should hypothetically be possible.
According to Sarkisian, it would not take a significant number of pilots or other personnel to cause a disruption for air travel by refusing to get vaccinated. “If you have an aircraft with… let’s call it a crew of seven: five flight attendants and two pilots. One of them calls out, or is not there anymore, that’s going to cause a delay or a cancellation. And then if that’s happening across the board like we’ve seen in the past, it’s going to be quite disruptive.”
Case in point, this is what we saw recently with Southwest and other airlines with alleged sickouts and across the commercial airline industry over Christmas when there were mass cancellations, seemingly on account of omicron.
Additionally, it is important to note that mandates impacting the aviation industry impact more than just commercial air travel.
A FedEx captain, who agreed to a phone interview on the condition of anonymity, described what the Biden administration’s vaccine mandates would mean for his company. “There is such a huge number [of pilots] that have not been vaccinated. And this is far bigger than the pilots. This is maintenance. This is the ground crews in Memphis.”
This FedEx captain went on to explain, “FedEx is centered in Memphis and [has] huge, huge ground crews in Memphis… and a huge percentage of our ground crew workforce is African American which, rightfully so, that group of people are very very distrusting of the government and the vaccine program because…[of] the Tuskegee experiments.”
“In comparison to the pilots,” the FedEx captain continued, “it’s a relatively low paying job where [FedEx is] having trouble having guys work anyway. There’s no possible way they’re going to stick around if a vaccine is mandated for them to work.”
O’Brien also emphasized the impact of vaccine mandates on the transportation of goods when discussing what she sees as the irrationality of the Biden administration’s rationale for their various mandates. “The administration itself has said, has outlined, you know, all the reasons why they feel the mandate is important, is imperative. Some of the reasons were to keep the supply chain intact. Well, we can see that the supply chain is currently in shambles. And why is that?”
Alternatively, on the legal front, both the US Freedom Flyers and Airline Employees for Health Freedom have cases working their way through the courts. There are also similar cases making their way to the Supreme Court. Yet, to be clear, these cases are not about some fundamental question of whether an individual has the right to make their own medical decisions in the absence of government or employer influence or coercion, but more narrow legal concerns such as which government agency has the right to mandate what medical interventions for whom.
Which path may ultimately be more fruitful, or if either will lead to a desirable outcome for the US Freedom Flyers and Airline Employees for Health Freedom, remains to be seen.
Looking Towards the Horizon
But according to the pilots fighting to preserve medical freedom, the simple fact that they are fighting the government on this is having an impact.
“The government put forward these mandates… not expecting the response,” Kunisch said. “I don’t know why they weren’t expecting that. We can come up with reasons. The fact that we are fighting this is the reason why they are kind of on their heels.”
According to Kunisch, this is why the government pushed back their initial deadlines for compliance with the OSHA and contractor mandates. “There’s a reason for [this] and that’s because we’re fighting back. We’re fighting back against these mandates. We’re saying no. We’re not going to do it. We’re not going to be coerced.”
As of November, Sarkisian said the US Freedom Flyers were working with employees from 26 airlines, Amtrak, and trucking companies, as well as the general public. Walker, when interviewed, estimated Airline Employees for Health Freedom had about 4000 members across the transportation industry.
“This isn’t just about crew members,” Sarkisian stated. “This is a fight for freedom for everyone because everybody is obviously affected.”
“The issue is not the vaccine,” Kunisch added. “The issue is medical freedom and anti-coercion.”
Walker, when speaking of the battle ahead, stated, “I have a 16 year old son,” before rhetorically asking, “If I do not fight this now, what world am I leaving him?”
Daniel Nuccio holds master’s degrees in both psychology and biology. Currently, he is pursuing a PhD in biology at Northern Illinois University studying host-microbe relationships. He is also a regular contributor to The College Fix where he writes about COVID, mental health, and other topics.
Almost one year on from the riot at the US Capitol Building, it continues to be used by those in positions of power to develop a culture of fear – yet another example of a threat being amplified and raising public insecurity.
There is no need for a pandemic for the hysterical ruling class to constantly turn on the engine of fear. Without blinking an eye, the American political establishment has casually catastrophised the Capitol protest in Washington on 6 January last year.
Almost immediately a political riot by angry protestors was reframed as an “insurrection” and an act of domestic terror. Leading Democratic Party figures even sought to link the so-called coup attempt to Russia, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that the rioters were “Putin’s puppets”.
Despite the relentless quest to uncover a malevolent conspiracy to overthrow the elected government of the United States, there is nothing to suggest that what occurred on January 6 was anything more than an instance of angry, violent rioters invading the Capitol Building. Despite their best efforts, the FBI and other agencies could find no proof of any conspiracy. Last August, Reutersreported that “the FBI has found scant evidence that the January 6 attack on the US Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result”.
This absence of evidence notwithstanding, America’s cultural elite, along with the leadership of the Democratic Party, continues to remain in hysteria mode. Indeed, its obsession with the threat of an insurrection or a coup has hardened during the past year to the point that it genuinely finds it difficult to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
The New York Times, once a serious news outlet, has become a slave of its paranoia about an impending civil war. Anyone reading its commentary would draw the conclusion that what happened on January 6 was akin to the violent rioting that accompanies a bloody coup d’etat.
On the first day of 2022, its Editorial Board published a piece titled “Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now”. In case anyone failed to get the point of the title, it added, “Jan. 6 is not in the past; it is every day”. The statement evokes a world where the American “Republic faces an existential threat” and insists that “we should stop underestimating the threat facing the country”. The threat it refers to constitutes the millions of voters who continue to support Donald Trump and deny the New York Times’ version of reality. In its typical alarmist tone, it states, “no self-governing society can survive such a threat by denying it exists”.
This feverish irrationality isn’t restricted to America. Across the Atlantic, The Guardian adopts a similar tone in its treatment of the legacy of January 6. “US could be under rightwing dictator by 2030, Canadian warns” runs one of its headlines. In this article, the scaremongering prediction of an academic in The Globe and Mail is presented as a sensible assessment of future possibilities. Political science professor Thomas Homer-Dixon from Royal Roads University in British Columbia urges Canada to protect itself against the “collapse of American democracy”. And he warns, “We mustn’t dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine.”
Projecting a scene akin to one in a dystopian horror film, Homer-Dixon asserts, “By 2025, American democracy could collapse, causing extreme domestic political instability, including widespread civil violence. By 2030, if not sooner, the country could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship.”
The editorial team at The Guardian appears to have become addicted to the political pornography peddled by the likes of Homer-Dixon. It also features a piece by Jason Stanley, who imaginatively recasts the contemporary era as akin to the one that led to the rise of fascism in Weimar Germany. In a commentary titled “America is now in fascism’s legal phase”, Stanley paints a picture that looks depressingly similar to the months leading up to the rise of Adolf Hitler. For Stanley, there is a clear parallel between the behaviour of Trump and Hitler. He contends that “as in all fascist movements, these forces have found a popular leader unconstrained by the rules of democracy, this time in the figure of Donald Trump”.
At first sight, it is tempting to draw the conclusion that the catastrophising of January 6 or the constant evocation of the spirit of Nazi Germany haunting America is pure scaremongering propaganda. No doubt there is an element of media manipulation and conscious twisting of reality at play. But on closer inspection, it seems as if the ruling classes in Western societies have genuinely internalised the culture of fear. January 6 is simply one catastrophe amongst the many that preoccupy them.
A striking illustration of how the self-catastrophising masochistic ruling elite thinks was offered by Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo in a speech he gave to the United Nations General Assembly last September. Pointing to climate, vaccines, and terrorism’, he stated that “nobody is safe until everybody is safe”. By linking together three different and disparate elements, De Croo painted a picture of a world where threats to human existence are endemic. Add this scenario to the threat of American fascism and we end up with a 21st-century version of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
This distorted representation of reality promoted by insecure elites is having a cumulative impact on public life. Put simply, it is raising public insecurity – and at the same time diminishing the capacity of people to confront some of the very real problems they face.
Frank Furedi is an author and social commentator. He is an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent in Canterbury. Author of How Fear Works: The Culture of Fear in the 21st Century.
It is now nearly three decades since the Unites States adopted the policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq. While much has been written about the containment of Iraq, there has been very little in-depth analysis of this policy when it comes to Iran. In a book that is going to be released on March 31, 2008, entitled The United States and Iran: Sanctions, Wars and the Policy of Dual Containment (Routledge), I attempt to address this shortcoming by investigating when and why the US policy of containment of Iran came about, how it evolved, and where it stands today.[1] To the extent that Israel has been involved in US policy making, the study will also include the role that Israel has played in the containment of Iran. Also, since the fate of Iran has been inextricably linked to that of Iraq, occasionally the investigation will overlap with the containment of Iraq.
The policy of dual containment of Iran and Iraq originated during the Carter Administration, but it was not until the Clinton Administration that the expression “dual containment” became popular. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
During Tony Blair’s time in office, Downing Street allegedly ordered former defence secretary Geoff Hoon to burn a secret memo that questioned the legality of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Hoon makes the bombshell claim in a new memoir.
Aletho News
ORIGINS OF TECHNOCRACY
Utopian movement seeking to abandon the use of money to price goods, instead judging value purely by energy inputs. Technocracy is a method of governance that has no political ideology. Plato’s Republic has a chapter on cybernetics and social control.
Utopians took many forms — communism, socialism, fascism — and some came close to religion, like scientism and humanism.
Henri Saint-Simon stated, “A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”
Saint-Simon’s disciple was Auguste Comte, the father of sociology. They developed Positivism, the concept that truth can only be determined through rationalism or science. Positivism in turn gave birth to Scientism, which says that only science can discover truth about humans and reality and there is no other truth. As it does not explain the soul, emotion, caring or jealousy, it does not acknowledge these truths. The Prussian physiologist and psychologist Wilhelm Wundt took this further, insisting humans have no soul and so can be manipulated like a clockwork orange and this gives rise to outcomes-based education, focused on standardization as an end in itself.
Born in the white heat of industrial expansion. Gained attention from the apparent failure of capitalism during the Great Depression. Boosted when taken up by Columbia University in 1932. Technocracy Inc formed as an ideological movement in 1933.
FOCUS ON DATA PROCESSING, LINKS TO IBM
Shared basement in Hamilton Hall, Columbia U, with the early IBM which was then developing the tabulators which they would lease to the German government for social profiling in the 1930s and 40s. No further information exists as IBM historical documents have been lost.
Brzezinski in his book Political Power: USA/USSR (1964) writes that the DDR Stasi was gathering huge amounts of data on people but lacked the technical power to put it to use.
LINKS TO HITLER’S GERMANY
Technocracy and technocrats don’t care what political system they operate under. It is concerned with the correct scientific methodology rather than the political ends.
German technocracy movement was not connected to the U.S. counterpart but shared and reprinted articles. Hitler saw technocrats as a rival and outlawed the organisation. However, technocrats had a profound influence on Hitler’s Germany and continued to communicate. The Third Reich could not have happeed without technocrats and the Technocracy movement. Ironically, Canada temporarily outlawed Technocracy Inc fearing it had fascists links.
Technocracy started at Columbia U, jumped over to Germany. The experiments in the concentration camps created a body of science that they brought back to the U.S. After WW2, Operation Paperclip transfered thousands of German technocrats to the U.S. where the German scientific experiments were continued under MK-Ultra by the CIA.
TECHNOCRACY IS NOT FASCISM OR SOCIALISM
Mistaken association with Communism. Members of Technocracy Inc would have bridled at association with Communists, who still used money and priced goods in money. However Brzezinski proposed that Marxism could be a stepping stone, destroy capitalism prior to installing the technotronic era. This will not be a personal dictator but a system of control, technology enforcing laws that keep you in line.
As for Fabian socialism, which aimed to merge the corporate and government world but still envisaged private property and a price based system. In short, all former systems have supply and demand, resolved by prices, and technocracy has an energy or resource-based economy. Technocracy is not proposed as a political form of government.
OVERLAP WITH EUGENICS
Eugenics was mostly based in California rather than Columbia but the peak of eugenics coincided with that of technocracy. There was no organizational link between Technocracy and the Eugenics movement, however they shared a common approach. From a scientists’ perspective managing society is similar to livestock.
Eugenics was a response to the challenge of Darwin and Marx and the fascists, challenging people to think of ways to change society in previously unthinkable ways. These were radicals of their time: not of a left-wing radicalism but utopians in a race to the future. The Eugenics Record Office, of Cold Spring Harbor, New York, inspired many of Hitler’s speeches.
ELITES AND TECHNOCRACY
There was no backing from the tax-exempt foundations in the beginning. Technocracy was a grass roots movement and its founders were relatively poor.
In the 1960s Brzezinski taught at Columbia U and many of his books mirror Technocracy.
The Journal on Race Development (1910) became the Journal of International Relations, which in turn was merged with Foreign Affairs in 1922. It was founded by Yale alumnus Stanley Hall who was a student of Wilhelm Wundt and a member of Skull and Bones. This shows the link between the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite secret societies dedicated to “thinking the unthinkable” or shaking up society, as well as the sending of American academics to Europe for indoctrination before returning them to shape U.S. universities, future graduates and social institutions.
THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
At the 1972 Bilderberg meeting, Rockefeller and Brzezinski went to sell the TC. They likely invited the Europeans of the Bilderbergers to join, such as Kissinger. They invite members, like any fraternity.
Brzezinski picked Jimmy Carter as presidential candidate, to whom he became National Security Adviser, gatekeeper to the President (10/17 have been members of the Trilateral Commission). Brzezinski bragged about educating Carter on foreign affairs and economics. At one point Carter had one third of the U.S. membership of the Trilateral Commission to his administration. Of his Cabinet, all were TCs bar one.
The Trilateral Commission decides policy in advance and implements it without reference to Congress through control of the Executive. What’s more, this was not political control.
They only wanted the executive branch in order to use the influence of the U.S. presidency to create their new world economic order. Of U.S. Trade Representatives, the first was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Of 12, nine have been members of the TC.
In addition to the U.S. Executive, the Trilateral Commission influences the World Bank. Of WB presidents, 6/8 have been members of the Trilateral Commission.
David Rockefeller in April 1967 as he spearheaded construction of the new World Trade Center, eight months after breaking ground.
ROCKEFELLER LOCK ON POLICY
Involved in Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia U, and United Nations. It is surprising that they did not fund Technocracy at the start, given that it was housed in Columbia. It’s competitor was the even more radical New School. Until the 1970s, these families never funded Technocracy.
The payback for the Rockefeller influence to the UN was the use of the UN as a contagion mechanism to spread Agenda 21 around the world. The UN makes an ugly project look pretty. It is the user interface that makes evil look friendly. Slogans like interdependence,
Jay Rockefeller is one of the few family members to be elected, in W. Virginia. Nelson had to be appointed as Vice President but as head of the Senate he pushed through the fast-track mechanism for trade treaties. It was used to push through trade deals with minimal oversight, including NAFTA, CAFTA, TIP and TPP. The Senate knew how dangerous this legislation is, by delegating to the executive branch the ability to negotiate treaties. They should be passed with a two-thirds vote but the president can now present a treaty for approval, that has 20 hours of floor debate, no amendments allowed and reduces the floor vote to 50 per cent. In the case of NAFTA, the Trilateral Commission pulled out all the big guns including Henry Kissinger to browbeat Congressmen to pass it. And it only just passed.
NAFTA was written by Carla Hills, member of the Trilateral Commission, signed by George HW Bush a member of the TC, pushed into law by Bill Clinton, a member of the TC, and lobbied by numerous members of the TC like Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger…
Nelson Rockefeller ensured through the fast-track mechanism could force through these changes.
FAMILY TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
NGOs, Trust Funds, Foundations have been the engine of social change for 100 years, as exposed by the Reece committee and the testimony of Norman Dodd.
These have reshaped universities, grade school and common core, business regulation, and then they for the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank. Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was closely associated with the Trilateral Commission at board of directors level.
Beneath this like a submarine is Technocracy, now surfacing.
AGENDA 21, AKA TECHNOCRACY
1930s Technocracy proposed “functional sequences” or common functions that need to be managed by a central authority: health, manufacturing… Their view of the “service sequence” of education is “conditioning”.
Smart Grid is an original specification of Technocracy — the idea of controlling the energy that is consumed.
Total Awareness Surveillance is an original specification of Technocracy — you cannot manage what you cannot monitor. That is an engineer’s mindset.
For an economic system: financial records, people’s purchase intentions and desires, health records, education records like Common Core collects 400 data points on students now.
Public Private Partnership with flavors of partenrship.
All of these are in the Rio 1992 conference which was preceded by the Gro Harlem Brundtland Commission which convened 1982-87 producing a report, Our Common Future, popularising the phrase, sustainable development. Brundtland was a member of the Trilateral Commission, whose stated purpose is to create a new international economic order.
Was Agenda 21 an organic United Nations creation or was it produced by the Trilateral Commission, just like NAFTA? It completely reflects the new international economic order. The UN picks it up, the Rio Conference follows, Agenda 21 is published, book on biodiversity is published… Today Earth Charter and Sustainable Development has spread to every country right dnown to county and district level.
ROTHSCHILD EMPIRE
This overlaps with Agenda 21, as espoused in the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) promoted by Edmond de Rothschild in 1987 with Maurice Strong: they were participating in a United Nations project but if you see where their interests lay, they were gaining authority to pursue personal financial interests.
David de Rothschild wrote the comic book to spread the gospel to young people.
DISARMING THE PEOPLE
How do the Rockefellers and Rothschilds benefit from people not being able to defend themselves.
Why would Rockefeller try to end capitalism?
Bankers’ expertise is money. They don’t make anything. Perhaps it was never meant to be permanent and there is an end to money.
Their view of wealth is different. They don’t see thousands in the bank as security. There is no value in money. It can be declared obsolete tomorrow.
Wealth lies in resources of the Earth that support all life.
These will be licensed to people as the feudal barons let you survive in return for 80 per cent of your produce.
Sustainable development is twisting the resources out of the people and transfering it to a global trust (they never say who are the trustees: they will be those who set up the system).
WHITHER LIBERTY
It took 300-500 years to develop the principles of liberty.
They culminated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
If Technocracy wins it could take hundreds of years, perhaps even longer, for liberty to surface again.
Once they get control of the economic mechanims, they will control life itself.
THE CASTE SYSTEM
The system will manage your carbon footprint. If you use too much electricity at home you may be denied a flight to a funeral. The elite will face no such restrictions.
THE CRISIS IN DEMOCRACY
This paper was issued in 1975 by the Trilateral Commission. The republic and democracy was outmoded for the coming technotronic era.
This suggested democracy is out of date… Brzezinski argued in his book Between Two Ages that bankers and multinational corporations already control countries, rendering the nation state a plaything. People who support nation states are derided as nativists.
THE MEDIA
Antony Sutton meanwhile was fired and censored for reporting on the Trilateral Commission. Sutton exposed how Wall Street had enabled the revolutions to take place in Russia and Germany and continued to finance and support the fascists and communists. Sutton saw the stacking of the Carter administration and recognized the patterns.
Before he even published anything David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, a member of the Trilateral Commission and trustee of the Hoover Institution had Sutton fired.
THE CHURCH
Steven Clark Rockefeller put together the Earth Charter. A theologian, Rockefeller is an instigator of the interfaith movement and all the major faiths have gone Green, with encyclicals from the Pope on climate change. Global stewardship, sustainable planning and development are the common buzzwords indicating their complete co-option. This goes back to the World Council of Churches and the Dulles brothers.
Nazi Oaks, by Mark Musser, explores the first Green movement to become state policy, which was that of the NAZI movement. Now there are books with titles like, Green Faith. Yet the new priesthood are the scientists who go up the mountain to listen to the volcano and come down and say the god of science says, ‘you must do x or y.’ No one is allowed to go to the volcano themselves, or to question what the scienpriests say they know, otherwise you are punished as a denier and excommunicated as a heathen.
TRANSHUMANISM AND THE DENIAL OF DEATH
Death is central to life. Transhumanism excludes god without being atheistic: they believe that they will become immortal.
In religion, the fall of man prescribes that death will be a feature until god wraps things up in the future. The transhumanists are making an end run around what religion says.
The mass surveillance society competes with god in another way, seeking to be the overseer of humanity and the recording of all your life’s deeds, good and bad. You will pay for your sins through your social credit score.
SURVEILLANCE STATE AS TECHNOCRACY.
In 2005 the intelligence system in the U.S. was completely overhauled with the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, lording it over 17 national intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency.
The legislation to Congress to authorize the ODNI was sponsored by Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein, both members of the Trilateral Commission. George Bush created the ODNI and appointed John Negroponte as the first director: member of the Trilateral Commission.
So the TC proposed the law, filled the position and has taken control of the reorganisation of all intelligence gathering.
We know they want a new international economic order. Now the ODNI takes full control of data gathering, under which the NSA is merely an agent. This is the monitoring network for the whole Technocracy system.
They have all the phone calls and emails, all the health records through Obamacare, all the education data through Common Core, all financial and business data. The collection has grown but the ability to analyse the data has not kept up: moving the data from the storage devices into the CPUs to process, that’s the bottleneck, and putting it back again if necessary. They estimate they will solve that problem in three to five years. Then we’ll be in big trouble (date of interview, 2015).
This alone shows how close we are to the launch of Technocracy. This is an expression of the Trilateral Commission’s dominance over policy for the past 40 years. The odds of this small group having this much influence are, according to mathematicians, infinitesimal.
THE FIGHT NOW
Two economic systems are fighting for control. They cannot co-exist. Technocracy and Capitalism are matter and anti-matter. One will die, one will live.
If the Technocracy system is set up properly, the system does the controlling. It monitors you and self corrects. This allows it to manage populations of billions without many people being involved. That is the idea of a scientific dictatorship.
The global elite are pedestrian academics and intellectuals at best. They have never had an original idea of their own. To gain advantage they have to hijack the ideas of others.
Technocracy was not their idea. It goes way back. The originals Greens of the 1960s will “spit molten nails that they got pushed out of their own movement”. The global elite took over the green movement and the purest objectives were hijacked by this elite who took off in a totally different direction.
They are hijackers. They take whatever idea suits them to push forward their own vested interests. It does not speak too well of their intellectual abilities.
Know who the enemy is. We have had our ladder leaning against the wrong wall, and we are worse off than we’ve been, for 40 years. We must identify the enemy to have any success, and make a target of them.
In the longer term, we must retain some vestige of liberty in the hearts of men, says Patrick Wood. If we lose our liberty people will be living in a scientific dictatorship where freedom is a curiosity. Hopefully enough people can keep a seed of liberty alive so that one day, when the dark ends, it may sprout again.
Notes from an interview by Patrick M Wood given to Richard Grove.