Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Alberta Premier suspends cooperation with WEF

Free West Media | November 25, 2022

The newly elected Premier Danielle Smith of the province of Alberta in Canada has recently made several powerful statements against the globalist foundation World Economic Forum and its leader Klaus Schwab. She has also decided to cancel a strange consulting agreement that WEF had with the province.

The now-revealed collaboration began in the middle of the alleged Corona pandemic and contributed to the draconian restrictions and lockdowns Canadians were subjected to. There are also those who believe that it is part of something much bigger. At the same time, she demanded that the Trudeau administration end the agenda-driven carbon tax.

On October 11, Danielle Smith was sworn in as Premier of the oil-producing province of Alberta in Canada. It came just five days after she won the leadership election of her United Conservative Party (UCP), largely on promises to stand up to the federal government in Ottawa led by the increasingly unpopular Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau has been leader of the Liberal Party of Canada since 2013 and Prime Minister of Canada since 2015. He distinguished himself during the alleged Corona pandemic as one of the most tyrannical leaders in the world, violently cracking down on peaceful popular protests. Trudeau is a member of the notorious globalist organization World Economic Forum (WEF) elite school Young Global Leaders (YGL).

YGL is a leadership program within the WEF, where politicians are schooled and initiated into the globalists’ plans and are then helped into leadership positions.

‘I find it offensive’

On October 24, barely two weeks after taking office, Danielle Smith made a move that sent the establishment in Canada into a tailspin. The new Premier harshly criticized the WEF and its chairman and founder Klaus Schwab.

“I find it uncomfortable when billionaires brag about how much control they have over political leaders like the head [Schwab] of that organization [WEF] has,” Smith said after a ceremony where her ministers were sworn in to the new provincial government.

“I find it offensive. The people who should be running the [provincial] government are the people who vote for them. And the people who vote for me and my colleagues are people who live in Alberta and who are affected by our decisions,” explained the Premier.

“So quite frankly, until that organization [WEF] stops bragging about how much control they have over political leaders, I have no interest in being involved with them. My focus is here in Alberta, to solve problems for the people of Alberta, with the mandate I received from the people of Alberta,” said Smith, announcing the suspension of the province’s cooperation with the globalist foundation.

Alberta’s new leader was referring to provocative statements made by WEF chief Klaus Schwab. One of these that specifically concerned Canada was done in 2017 at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics where political commentator David Gergen interviewed Schwab. The WEF chief then said that his organization had “infiltrated governments” all over the world. A visibly proud Schwab then also named several heads of state, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as examples of the WEF’s global power and influence.

“Yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I learned that half of his ministers or even more than half are actually our Young Global Leaders (YGL) of the World Economic Forum,” said the arch-globalist Schwab.

WEF health experts?

Danielle Smith further revealed that it has emerged that the province of Alberta has a cooperation agreement with the globalist foundation WEF, something she wanted to end right away.

“They signed a kind of partnership with the World Economic Forum in the middle of the pandemic; we have to deal with it. Why on earth do we have anything to do with the World Economic Forum? It must end,” the new Premier declared firmly.

She was immediately harshly attacked by mainstream media in Canada, who accused her of espousing “extreme right-wing conspiracy theories”, while mainstream media abroad tried to black out her statements.

Many Canadians were surprised to learn that the globalist organization WEF had a direct contract with one of their provincial governments. They were even more surprised when they heard what the agreement was. It did not concern consultation regarding economic issues or even “Agenda 2030 and the global goals for sustainable development”, where the WEF works closely with the UN – or as many critics believe rather dictates to the UN.

Instead, it turned out that early in the alleged 2020 Corona pandemic, the WEF stepped in as health consultants to effectively dictate the pandemic measures taken by the Canadian province of Alberta’s health authority, Alberta Health Services (AHS). Danielle Smith has been a strong critic of this authority and how it, like the previous provincial government, handled the pandemic.

On October 21, ten days after taking office as prime minister and three days before the sensational announcement, Smith commented during the “Question Period with Premier Danielle Smith” on the Western Standard media website that the health authority AHS would be held accountable for both the cooperation with the WEF and the “health councils” which they had given to the provincial government over the last two years. Canada stood out during the pandemic as one of the countries that had the most repressive restrictions and lockdowns in the world. Not least, vaccine-free citizens were grossly discriminated against.

“I think Alberta Health Services is the source of many of the problems we’ve had,” explained Smith, who also described the cooperation with the WEF as “useless”.

Many Albertans were well aware that the health authority AHS was driving the very unpopular restrictions and regulations, as were many other health authorities around the world, but they did not know that the globalist organization WEF was the one pulling the strings. It came as a shock to many and some questioned how the WEF could contribute medical expertise.

Some pundits also cited the example of globalist billionaire Bill Gates, who has been portrayed by the establishment and its media as a pandemic expert in general and a vaccine expert in particular, despite his lack of a relevant education, and where his only direct link is that he has earned multi-billion sums from investing in vaccines in particular.

Globalist puppets

However, there are those who believe that the secret agreement is part of something bigger that is happening beyond public knowledge. One of these is George Gammon, an economist and analyst who made a name for himself by explaining complex economic and political events in an accurate and easy-to-understand manner.

He commented on the news that the WEF had a consulting engagement – ​​on health issues – with the Canadian province of Alberta in a November 5 interview with Daniela Cambone. He did not express the same surprise as many others, but stated that the heads of state and ministers who are in power today have the WEF and its head Schwab to thank for it, that is to say, they are indebted and possibly even dependent on them.

They devote large amounts of their countries’ tax dollars to covert programs that involve the WEF in such a way that the globalist organization can directly influence the country’s policies on issues important to them in order to drive their globalist agenda forward.

Economist Gammon further explained that the arrangement not only brought global power but also revenue to the WEF, which is on paper a Swiss non-profit foundation, and thus also to Schwab personally. These not infrequently very large amounts can then be used to train new leaders in the elite Young Global Leaders (YGL) school, and so on.

For the WEF it is a win-win situation, while for the taxpayers in Canada and other countries it is a double loss, where they lose both their tax money and, in the case of the Corona response, freedoms. Gammon concluded by pointing out that it is probably a common scheme in several countries and described it as pure fraud.

“This is the scam that is going on right now and it is something that most people are not aware of,” said Gammon about the WEF-Alberta agreement

‘Hostile politics’

On November 10, Premier Smith tweeted: “It is time to put people’s needs before politics. I have asked Prime Minister @justintrudeau to consider the financial hardships facing so many Canadian families right now.”

The Prime Minister’s tweet referred to a letter she had sent to Justin Trudeau the day before. In it, she stated that the number one problem for Albertans and all Canadians was the rapidly rising cost of living. Smith wrote that “with runaway inflation, many Canadians are struggling to feed their families, pay their rent and utility bills, and afford to get to work.”

She asked Trudeau to change course: “The long-term solution to this cost-of-living crisis involves the federal government changing course to actively promote and deliver more affordable, reliable and responsibly produced energy and food. Current federal energy and agricultural policies have the opposite effect”.

Critics believe that these nefarious policies are also dictated by the WEF.

Smith further wrote that her province of Alberta has already taken steps to deal with rising costs, including pausing the fuel tax and subsidizing electricity and natural gas. She urged Trudeau to do the same and completely eliminate the federal carbon tax, which Trudeau instead wants to raise further. Smith further wrote that “the answer to reducing emissions is not more taxes on consumers or limiting economic growth in our food and energy sectors”.

Later, she sent out another tweet reiterating the main points of the two-page letter: “The carbon tax is hurting Canadians. Families and businesses need a reprieve from high utility bills, prohibitively expensive food and rising gas prices. It is time to end the carbon tax.”

The next day, on November 11, she called the Trudeau administration hostile in a new tweet: “Today our [provincial] government took a step forward to stand up and defend Alberta’s interests against hostile federal government legislation and policies.”

Alberta’s Deputy Premier, Kaycee Madu, has also been highly critical of Ottawa’s “tyrannical” pandemic restrictions and also thanked the Freedom Convoy participants for their efforts to protest them. In a tweet on September 20, he wrote that the pandemic measures were “never about science but about political control and power”.

He saluted all the Canadians who at the beginning of the year stood up against the oppression of the WEF-schooled Trudeau in the name of public health: “Thank you to all those citizens of the Freedom Convoy who had the courage to mobilize against this tyrannical policy. They endured much hatred, abuse, suffering and slander for all of us. I thank them.”

There are many Canadians and people around the world who share his opinion of the brave who dared to stand up for freedom; despite having their bank accounts frozen, being threatened with having their vehicles impounded and ultimately in several cases enduring the brutality of the Trudeau regime.

The globalists and their handy politicians and journalists can now be expected to come down very hard on Smith and Madu, who have taken the side of their constituents and challenged the WEF and Trudeau – something very unusual in modern politics.

November 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Economics | , , , , , | Leave a comment

DANGER: “ANTI-VACCINE” THOUGHTS ARE A MENTAL ILLNESS REQUIRING “TREATMENT”

Amazing Polly | November 24, 2022

Building blocks are being put into place so that political dissidents can be drugged or locked up much like the Soviets did with Sluggish Schizophrenia.
Can you support my work with a financial gift? If so click here, thank you! https://amazingpolly.net/contact-support.php

References:
-CPSO Guidelines on vaccine ‘hesitancy’: https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Your-Practice/Physician-Advisory-Services/COVID-19-FAQs-for-Physicians
-Canadian Psychiatric Association Seminar on New Delusions: https://archive.ph/Eg1rV
-Euthanasia Article from Associated Press, Aug 2022: https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867
-VIDEO: Are Leaders Being Threatened by the Medical Mafia?: https://www.bitchute.com/video/8QClDbzxpt22/
-Study Claiming anti-vaccine info is causing blood clots, heart attacks, etc in the vaccinated: Covid 19 vaccines and the misinterpretation of perceived side effects clarity on the safety of vaccines. | Biomedicine (Taipei);12(3): 1-4, 2022. | MEDLINE (bvsalud.org)

November 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Four Myths about Pandemic Preparedness

By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | November 24, 2022

We are assured by the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the G20, and their friends that pandemics pose an existential threat to our survival and well-being. Pandemics are becoming more common, and if we don’t move urgently we will have ourselves to blame for more mass death of the ‘next pandemic.’

The proof of this is the catastrophic harm done to the world by COVID-19, a repeat of which can only be prevented by transferring unprecedented funds and decision-making power to the care of public health institutions and their corporate partners. They have the resources, experience, knowledge and technical know-how to keep us safe.

This is a no-brainer, all of it, and only a fool who desires mass death would oppose it. But there are still people who claim that the link between the public health establishment and large corporations appears to be the only part of this narrative that withstands scrutiny.

If true, this would imply that we are being systematically deceived by our leaders, the health establishment, and most of our media; a ludicrous allegation in a free and democratic society. Only a fascist or otherwise totalitarian regime could run such a broad and inclusive deception, and only people with truly bad intent could nurture it.

So let’s hope such ‘appearances’ are deceptive. To believe that the premise behind our leaders’ Pandemic Preparedness and Response agenda is knowingly based on a set of complete fabrications would be a conspiracy theory too far. It would be too uncomfortable to accept that we are being deliberately misled by people we elected and the health establishment we trust; that the assurances of inclusivity, equity and tolerance are mere facades hiding fascists. We should examine the key claims supporting the pandemic agenda carefully and hope to find them credible.

Myth #1: Pandemics are becoming more common

In its 2019 pandemic influenza guidelines, the WHO listed 3 pandemics in the century between the 1918-20 Spanish flu and COVID-19. The Spanish flu killed mainly through secondary bacterial infections at a time before modern antibiotics. Today we would expect most of these people, many relatively young and fit, to survive.

The WHO subsequently recorded pandemic flu outbreaks in 1957-58 (‘Asian flu’) and 1968-69 (‘Hong Kong flu’). The Swine flu outbreak that occurred in 2009 was classed by WHO as a ‘pandemic’ but caused just 125,000 to 250,000 deaths. This is far less than a normal flu year and so hardly deserving of the pandemic label. Then we had COVID-19. That’s it for a whole century; one outbreak the WHO classifies as a pandemic per generation. Rare, or at least highly unusual, events.

Myth #2: Pandemics are a major cause of death

The Black Death, the Bubonic Plague that swept Europe in the 1300s, killed perhaps a third of the entire population. Repeat outbreaks over the following centuries caused similar harm, as had plagues known from Greek and Roman times. Even the Spanish flu did not compare with these. Life changed prior to antibiotics – including nutrition, accommodation, ventilation and sanitation – and these mass-mortality events subsided.

Since the Spanish flu we have developed an array of antibiotics that remain extremely effective against community-acquired pneumonia. Fit young people still die from influenza through secondary bacterial infection, but this is rare.

The WHO tells us there were 1.1 million deaths from the 1957-58 ‘Asian flu,’ and a million from the 1968-69 Hong Kong flu. In context, seasonal influenza kills between 250,000 and 650,000 people every year. As the global population was 3 to 3.5 billion when these two pandemics occurred, they classify as bad flu years killing about 1 in 700 mostly elderly people, with little influence on total deaths. They were treated as such, with the Woodstock Festival proceeding without super-spreader panic (regarding the virus, at least…).

COVID-19 has a higher associated mortality, but at an old average age equivalent to that of all-cause mortality, and is nearly always associated with comorbidities. Much mortality also occurred in the presence of the withdrawal of normal supportive care such as close nursing and physiotherapy, and intubation practices may have played a role.

Of the 6.5 million that the WHO records as dying from COVID-19, we don’t know how many would have died anyway from cancer, heart disease or the complications of diabetes mellitus and just happening to have a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. We don’t know because most authorities decided not to check, but recorded such deaths as being due to COVID-19. The WHO records about 15 million excess deaths throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, but this includes lockdown deaths (malnutrition, rising infectious disease, neonatal death etc).

If we take the 6.5 million toll as likely, we can understand its context by comparing it with tuberculosis, a globally endemic respiratory disease that few worry about in their day-to-day lives. Tuberculosis kills about 1.5 million people every year, which is almost half the annual COVID-19 toll in 2020 and 2021. Tuberculosis kills far younger on average than COVID, removing more potential life-years with each death.

So based on normal metrics for disease burden, we could say they are roughly equivalent – COVID-19 has had an impact on life expectancy overall fairly similar to TB – worse in older populations in Western countries, far less in low-income countries. Even in the US COVID-19 was associated with less (and older) deaths in 2020-21 than normally occur from cancer and cardiovascular disease.

COVID-19 has not therefore been an existential threat to the life of many people. The infection mortality rate globally is probably around 0.15%, higher in the elderly, much lower in healthy young adults and children. It is not unreasonable to think that if standard medical knowledge had been followed, such as physiotherapy and mobility for frail elderly people and micronutrient supplementation for those at risk, the mortality rate may have been even lower.

Whatever one’s views on COVID-19 death definitions and management, it is unavoidable that death is rare in healthy younger people. Over the past century all pandemic deaths have been very low. Averaging less than 100,000 people per year inclusive of COVID-19, they are a small fraction of that caused by seasonal flu.

Myth #3: Diversion of resource to pandemic preparedness makes public health sense

The G20 has just agreed with the World Bank to allocate $10.5 billion annually to its pandemic prevention and response Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF). There is, in their view, about $50 billion needed in total per year. This is the annual, holding budget for pandemic preparedness. As an example of their preferred response when an outbreak occurs, Yale University modelers estimate that to vaccinate people in low and middle income countries with just 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine would cost about $35 billion. Adding one booster would total $61 billion. Over $7 billion has thus far been committed to COVAX, the WHO’s Covid vaccine financing facility, vaccinating most who are already immune to the virus.

To put these sums in context, the annual budget of the WHO is normally below $4 billion. The entire world spends about $3 billion annually on malaria – a disease that kills well over half a million young children each year. The largest financing facility for tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, the Global Fund, spends less than $4 billion per year on these three diseases combined. Other and larger preventable killers of children, – such as pneumonia and diarrhea, receive still less attention.

Malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and diseases of malnutrition are all increasing, while economies globally – the main long-term determinant of life expectancy in lower-income countries – decline. Taxpayers are being asked, by institutions that themselves will benefit, to spend vast resources on this problem rather than on diseases that kill more and younger people. The people pushing this agenda do not appear to be dedicated to reducing annual mortality or improving overall health. Alternatively, they either cannot manage data or have a window on the future that they are keeping to themselves.

Myth #4: COVID-19 caused massive harm to health and the global economy

The age-skewing of COVID mortality has been unmistakable since early 2020, when data from China demonstrated almost no mortality in healthy young to middle-aged adults and children. This has not changed. Those contributing to economic activity, working in factories, farms and transport, were never at great risk.

The economic and personal harm arising from the restrictions on these people, unemployment, destruction of small businesses and supply-line disruption, was a choice made against orthodox policy of the WHO and public health in general. The prolonged school closures, locking in generational poverty and inequality on both a sub-national and international level, was a choice to perhaps buy months for the elderly.

The 2019 WHO pandemic guidelines advised against lockdowns due to the inevitability that they would increase poverty, and poverty drives illness and reduces life expectancy. The WHO noted this disproportionately harms poorer people. This is not complicated – even those at the center of the lockdown and future digital ID agenda such as the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) acknowledge this reality. If the aim of poverty-promoting measures had been to reduce elderly death, the evidence for success is poor.

There seems little reasonable doubt that growing malnutrition and long-term poverty, rising endemic infectious disease, and the impacts of education loss, increased child marriage and increased inequality will far outweigh any possible mortality reduction achieved. UNICEF’s estimation of a quarter-million child deaths from lockdowns in South Asia in 2020 provides a window into the enormity of the harm lockdowns wrought. It was the novel public health response that caused the massive harm associated with this historically mild pandemic, not the virus.

Facing truth

It seems unavoidable that those advocating for the current pandemic and preparedness agenda are intentionally misleading the public in order to achieve their aims. This explains why, in the background documents of the WHO, the World Bank, G20 and others, detailed cost-benefit analyses are avoided. The same absence of this basic requirement characterized the introduction of Covid lockdowns.

Cost-benefit analyses are essential for any large-scale intervention, and their absence reflects either incompetence or malfeasance. Prior to 2019, the resource diversion being contemplated for pandemic preparedness would have been unthinkable without such analysis. We can therefore reasonably assume that their continued absence is based on fear or certainty that their outcomes would scupper the program.

A lot of people who should know better are going along with this deceit. Their motives can be surmised elsewhere. Many may feel they need a good salary, and the resultant dead and impoverished will be far enough away to be considered abstract. The media, owned by the same investment houses who own the Pharma and software companies sponsoring public health, are mostly silent. It is hardly a conspiracy to believe that investment houses such as BlackRock and Vanguard work to maximize return for their investors, using their various assets to do so.

A few decades of our elected leaders trooping off for closed-door sessions at Davos, together with a steady concentration of wealth with the individuals they were meeting, could not really have landed us anywhere else.

We knew this 20 years ago, when the media still warned of the harm that increasing inequality would bring. When individuals and corporations richer than medium-sized countries control major international health organizations such as Gavi and CEPI, the real question is why so many people struggle to acknowledge that conflicts of interest define international health policy.

The subversion of health for profit runs contrary to the entire ethos of the post-World War Two anti-fascist, anti-colonialist movement. When people across politics can acknowledge this reality, they can put aside the false divisions that this corruption has sown.

We are being deceived for a reason. Whatever that is, going along with a deception is a poor choice. Denial of truth never leads to a good place. When public health policy is based on a demonstrably false narrative, it is the role of public health workers, and the public, to oppose it.

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is the former Program Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The Lancet reports on Human Rights failures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Is the tide turning? Think again.

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | November 24, 2022

When I first read the title of an article in The Lancet last week, I thought, this might be interesting, some acknowledgement about how bad lockdowns and mandates were. The title ‘Human rights and the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective and prospective analysis’ made me read on.

Maybe, I shouldn’t have been so naïve and maybe I should have looked at who the authors were first but I read on anyway.

I was still hopeful during the summary.

When the history of the COVID-19 pandemic is written, the failure of many states to live up to their human rights obligations should be a central narrative.

Which states will they talk about? The UK? America? I’d put money on Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Since then, COVID-19’s effects have been profoundly unequal, both nationally and globally. These inequalities have emphatically highlighted how far countries are from meeting the supreme human rights command of non-discrimination, from achieving the highest attainable standard of health that is equally the right of all people everywhere, and from taking the human rights obligation of international assistance and cooperation seriously.

Rubbing my hands together, I scrolled on, expecting to see scathing criticism of citizens being locked at home and how Covid mandates were completely unjust.

We propose embedding human rights and equity within a transformed global health architecture as the necessary response to COVID-19’s rights violations. This means vastly more funding from high-income countries to support low-income and middle-income countries in rights-based recoveries, plus implementing measures to ensure equitable distribution of COVID-19 medical technologies.

We also emphasise structured approaches to funding and equitable distribution going forward, which includes embedding human rights into a new pandemic treaty. Above all, new legal instruments and mechanisms, from a right to health treaty to a fund for civil society right to health advocacy, are required so that the narratives of future health emergencies—and people’s daily lives—are ones of equality and human rights.

Oh, here we go – high-income countries imposing their views on low-income countries. Distribution of mRNA vaccines and a new pandemic treaty.

Deflated, I finally checked the authors. The lead author works for the WHO and many of the other authors championed vaccine passports.

Realising this isn’t going to be the article I thought it was going to be, I skipped to the conclusion.

Equity demands treating health as a global public good and creating new legal instruments grounded in rights and equity. A reimagined, strengthened global health architecture, with human rights as its foundation, would be a fitting monument to the tens of millions who have died and suffered grievously—and would better prepare the world to address climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and other global threats. Furthermore, it would enable a swift, effective response the next time a novel or emerging infection threatens the globe—honouring the dignity of each of us.

I’ve seen that language before. “Equity demands”, “global public good”, “grounded in rights and equity”, “human rights as its foundation”. And whilst it all sounds lovely, it never ends well and the only human rights that are respected are those belonging to the humans that agree with what is being proposed.

You don’t want a pandemic treaty, forced vaccinations and mandates? Think of the tens of millions who have died and suffered grievously, you monster. Think of climate change, you devil in disguise. This is being done to honour the dignity of each of us. Well, not your dignity, you don’t agree with us, you stay locked in the quarantine camp thinking about the lovely dignity you could have if you did agree with us.

It was a struggle but I forced myself to read the rest of the article.

A failure to safeguard the public’s health

Many authoritarian regimes and populist leaders, however, have disregarded science, and have imposed harsh restrictions on human freedoms

One again, my hopes were raised. Maybe there is a small section on lockdowns etc. I saw the letters U.S.A. Maybe it will discuss how it is ridiculous that unvaccinated people still can’t travel there. Nope, it criticised the USA for opposing risk-mitigation measures such as business closures and mask or vaccine mandates.

It continued to get worse.

Public health officials have not always followed the science. The Public Health Agency of Sweden chose to allow a large portion of the country’s population to become infected, aiming to achieve herd immunity through eschewing basic scientific guidance of physical distancing and mask-wearing. This course was so fundamentally unsuccessful in protecting people’s health that it was beyond the discretion permissible under the right to health. By the end of 2020, Sweden’s mortality rate was ten times that of its neighbours, four-times higher than Denmark’s, and higher than in most European countries.

A pandemic of inequality

I agree with much of this section to a large extent, impacts of COVID-19 does disproportionately affect people with little money due to a plethora of risk factors. But so does any disease. And by locking people up, making them unhealthier and poorer, you only exacerbate this inequality.

But carry on with the virtual signalling and keep blaming it on systemic racism. Or Covid racism, I’m not quite sure. Either way, by not investigating why certain races disproportionately filled critical care units meant that more ethnic minorities carried on dying. Congratulations, by trying not to be racist, you actually ended up being racist.

Inequities harm rights to health, education, food, and an adequate standard of living

Service disruptions were responsible for an estimated 47,000 additional malaria deaths in 2020 compared with 2019, and 100,000 additional tuberculosis deaths. 121 (93%) of 130 countries reported mental health service disruptions, as depression and anxiety levels greatly increased. By 2022, more than 200 million additional people faced acute hunger compared with in 2019, while COVID-19 forced nearly 80 million people into extreme poverty.

One word – Lockdowns.

The COVID-19 excuse: abrogating freedoms

Governments exercised vast emergency health powers, including business closures, cordon sanitaire, and full lockdowns, which are warranted only if supported by science, and are necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory.

So lockdowns are warranted if supported by science. Still no acknowledgement of the terrible harms they have caused.

authoritarian leaders have used the pandemic as an excuse to violate human rights, including suppressing information, punishing whistleblowers, arresting and detaining opponents and citizen journalists, and undermining democratic rights

I recognise all of those things having happened in many Western countries but are they mentioned? Of course not. China, Tanzania, Egypt, Russia, Pakistan, Madagascar, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Cayman Islands, Burundi, India, Hungary, Malaysia, Zambia, El Salvador, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Ethiopia and Uganda all get a mention but nothing about the US, UK, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.

France and Greece get a brief mention. Maybe they haven’t been sending enough funding to the WHO recently.

Building back better with justice: a human rights response to COVID-19

And there we have it. Now we know exactly where this article has come from!

Global health with justice embedded into legislation and institution

A new rights-based national and global governance for the right to health would respond to the daily health emergency of health inequities that COVID-19 revealed and reinforced. Future governance, and the mechanisms that underpin it, must ensure equitable and effective responses to health emergencies by embedding the right to health, accountability, participation, and equity in global and national policies and international responses.

A new right-based global governance. Where have we heard that before? Nothing to see here. It all sounds completely reasonable and not sinister or dystopian at all.

These people don’t have a clue. That don’t recognise the harms they have caused and they wouldn’t recognise a human right if it jabbed them in the arm.

But they are calling the shots and they want global governance based around the greater good. Not enough countries did as they were told during this pandemic, so next time they want a structure in place that means your democratically elected leaders can’t decide if lockdowns are appropriate or not, the whole world will be locking down together.

Don’t get in the way of the greater good because if you do, you aren’t good and that means we can lock you up. Nobody likes not-good people and everyone will cheer your incarceration because it will keep them safe.

If these recommendations are allowed to go ahead, not only is it dangerous but also stupid. Never again will we know if a certain measure was the correct one to take or if a vaccine or treatment has a particular side effect because everybody in every country will have to do the same thing.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

Biden endorses G20 Declaration to censor “disinformation”

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 24, 2022

During the summit held in Bali, Indonesia, the G20 Leaders signed a declaration endorsing the censorship of “disinformation.” The Biden administration endorsed the declaration by publishing it on the White House website.

The G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration mainly focused on climate change, including Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs). However, the leaders have linked SDGs with online censorship.

Section 24 of the declaration says there is a need to censor online disinformation.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the transformation of the digital ecosystem and digital economy,” the section began. “We recognize the importance of digital transformation in reaching the SDGs.”

It adds that for there to be “trust in the digital economy,” they should “create an enabling, inclusive, open, fair and non-discriminatory digital economy that fosters the application of new technologies, allows businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive, and protects and empowers consumers.”

The G20 leaders believe there is a need to censor “false” information for digital infrastructure to thrive: “We acknowledge the importance to counter disinformation campaigns, cyber threats, online abuse, and ensuring security in connectivity infrastructure.”

The White House endorsing a declaration that calls for more censorship is not surprising considering it is the subject of the lawsuit filed by Missouri’s and Louisiana’s Attorneys General alleging collusion between the government and social media companies to censor viewpoints surrounding Covid and more.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Why is the UN Commissioner For Human Rights Trying to Suppress Free Speech on Twitter?

BY DR DAVID MCGROGAN | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 22, 2022

While there has been a great deal of hullabaloo concerning Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, one would probably not have expected senior officials at the United Nations to find it necessary to have their say on the matter. Yet on November 5th Volker Türk, the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, did indeed weigh-in, sending an open letter to Mr. Musk to express his “concern and apprehension” about Twitter’s role in the “digital public square”. He urged Musk to make sure human rights would be “central to the management of Twitter”, and to “address harms” associated with the platform, and also took the time for a bit of finger-wagging at Twitter’s new CEO for sacking Twitter’s human rights team (no, I had no idea it had one either).

The letter was almost certainly only sent so that Türk, who assumed office in mid-October and is a comparative unknown (some UN insiders were apparently hoping for Michelle Obama or Angela Merkel), can get a bit of recognition. But it is instructive nonetheless in giving stark expression to the awkward position which human rights advocates have found themselves adopting when it comes to one of the most salient issues of the day – the regulation of speech online and particularly the subjects of disinformation and misinformation.

This happens in the course of two short paragraphs. Starting off, Türk is keen to emphasise the importance of protecting free speech. Twitter, he notes, is being pressed by governments to take down content or use upload filters, and he urges it in clear terms to “stand up for the rights to privacy and free expression to the full [sic] extent possible under relevant laws”. So, on the one hand, he adopts a strong position against censorship, implying that speech should only be restricted online where it would cross the border into illegality.

Yet on the other hand, in the very next breath, he declares that “free speech is not a free pass” and that the “viral spread of harmful disinformation…results in real world harms”. Therefore, in his view, Twitter must take responsibility to “avoid amplifying content” that results in harms to people’s rights – whether or not, by implication, it is technically legal. Hence, for example, scepticism about the efficacy of vaccines, legally expressed, ought nonetheless to be supressed given the impact it might have on the right to health.

This can only be described as cakeism. For Türk, it is apparently desirable both to protect freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible under the law, and yet also to restrict lawful speech where it might result in ‘harms’. It is easy to see the appeal in the abstract of the idea that these positions can be reconciled, and Türk indeed concludes his letter by suggesting that “our shared human rights offer a unifying way forward”. But it is difficult to see from its content how this could be so. Does Türk believe that freedom of speech should be protected insofar as it is possible to do so? Or does he believe lawful speech should be suppressed to prevent harm? He can believe in one, but he surely cannot coherently believe in both.

The wider point is that human rights advocates like Türk have rather lost faith in their own model. For decades, it has been orthodox human rights doctrine that all human rights are, in UN-speak, “indivisible and interdependent”. The rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, non-discrimination, health, food, housing, education, and so on, all support one another and, indeed, cannot properly be enjoyed without the others. It is therefore not only possible to secure (say) freedom of expression and the right to health – they actually bolster each other.

The rationale for this can be readily understood: if freedom of expression is secure, then people will have access to the full range of information and opinion available on any given topic, and therefore policymakers, healthcare providers, doctors and patients will be able to make better health-related decisions than they would otherwise. There is therefore a direct link between securing freedom of speech and the right to health. (And conversely, of course, securing the right to health means increasing opportunities for people to express themselves freely – one will find it much easier to actively participate in public discourse if one is in good health than not.) What is true in this example is true across the round, and the orthodox position in the UN human rights system has long been that these mutually-supportive linkages can be found throughout the human rights corpus.

This is not, however, the position that Türk adopts in his letter. To reiterate, for the new High Commissioner, freedom of expression and the right to health are not in fact “indivisible and interdependent”, but incommensurate. If people are able to express themselves freely, they will circulate dangerous disinformation about vaccines, and harm will result. Freedom of expression does not reinforce the right to health; it undermines it.

Türk is no loose cannon. As short as his letter to Musk is, it essentially summarises the position adopted in a recent report to the UN General Assembly by the Secretary-General himself. This report manages somehow to express a robust defence of the “right to hold opinions without interference” and an insistence that “free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues… is essential”, while at the same time advocating for state intervention to prevent the spread of inaccurate information concerning “public health, electoral processes or national security” and the demonetisation of legal-but-harmful content. The same schizophrenic attitude is adopted as in Türk’s letter, but the message is clear enough: while it is necessary to pay lip service to the importance of freedom of expression, the system as a whole now disavows the “indivisible and interdependent” doctrine, and instead sees freedom of expression as being potentially antagonistic to other rights.

What are we to make of this? The clue is in the types of harmful inaccurate information that both Türk and the Secretary-General identify as particularly dangerous and hence warranting state suppression – i.e., those implicating public health, electoral processes and national security. It is no accident that these subjects map pretty closely to the issues that are of greatest concern to the global bien pensant class in which these figures are so firmly entrenched – Covid vaccines, ‘election denialism’, and Russian disinformation. And it is not really a great surprise that when the chips are down and the consensus within that class is that oppositional views on those topics represent a genuine threat, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary-General suddenly find that freedom of expression is not so “indivisible and interdependent” with respect to other rights at all. Indeed, it is to be sacrificed where those particular concerns are raised. Human beings, as we know, can be remarkably flexible on points of principle when peer pressure is applied – even, it turns out, senior human rights lawyers and UN Secretary-Generals.

More broadly, if one were being especially cynical, one might say that this is further evidence supporting the long-term criticism of the international human rights system – that it is essentially a forum for pharisaical expressions of right-on opinions which vary in accordance with whatever the ‘current thing’ is. This would not be entirely fair – the UN human rights organs do very important work – but it is sometimes easy to see how this view proliferates. Türk’s letter is suggestive not so much of a commitment to the letter of human rights law, but rather only to the contemporary concerns of a particular elite constituency. This in turn indicates that the UN human rights apparatus as a whole is geared more toward addressing the anxieties of that constituency than it is towards standing up for human rights across the board. Is it any wonder, then, that ordinary people generally take a sceptical view about human rights in the round?

Dr. David McGrogan is Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Colorado gay club shooting is being used to shut down debate on child sexualization

Blaming ‘Libs of TikTok’ for a deranged murderer’s actions is shameless politicization

By Robert Bridge | RT | November 23, 2022

Almost as repugnant as the deadly attacks that are occurring with alarming frequency in the United States is the speed with which certain individuals rush to politicize them. The Club Q massacre in Colorado Springs, which left five dead and 18 injured, was certainly no exception.

The Democrats’ reaction kicked off with predictable calls for gun control. In this particular tragedy, however, the killer, 22-year-old Andersen Lee Aldrich, should never have been allowed to buy a gun in the first place. Moreover, he should have been high on the FBI’s ‘person of interest’ radar.

A year-and-a-half before Aldrich went on his deadly shooting spree, this troubled young man (who, according to court documents, has now started to identify as non-binary and use the pronouns them/they) threatened his family with a homemade bomb, forcing neighbors to evacuate while police talked him into surrendering. Yet, despite this, the district attorney of Colorado, Michael J. Allen, not only refused to press charges, but did not impose Colorado’s red-flag laws, which would have prevented Aldrich from purchasing a firearm. Had the Democratic-run state of Colorado enforced its own laws, five people might still be alive today.

Perhaps sensing the weakness of their anti-gun position, the Democrats rushed to politicize the tragedy by blaming conservative figures for instigating the violence.

Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chastised her Republican colleague Representative Lauren Boebert in the wake of the tragedy for “elevating anti LGBT+ hate rhetoric and anti-trans lies,” while MSNBC reporter Brandy Zadrozny took aim at a popular Twitter account for merely pointing out what is becoming increasingly clear to many Americans.

“Online… this Libs of TikTok account, which feeds larger media like Fox News stories, what has happened is the demonization of LGBTQ people, calling them ‘groomers’ and ‘pedophiles,’” remarked Zadrozny. “This type of thing, whether it’s motive or not, what we know is that it’s just another reason why LGBTQ people are scared.”

Yet the goal of voices like Libs of TikTok, which uses actual progressive sources, is not “the demonization of LGBTQ people,” as Zadrozny argues, but rather to shine a spotlight on an issue that many millions of people view as a serious problem. A recent poll showed that 57% of Americans support a ban on teaching young children about sexual orientation and transgender issues in public schools.

Meanwhile, it does not require much digging to see that the sexualization of children is really happening. Consider a recent advertising campaign by the famous fashion house, Balenciaga.

The photo shoot features a very young girl holding a teddy bear that is dressed up in a bondage outfit. Another picture in the series displays a Balenciaga bag on top of a sheaf of documents, one of which appears to reference the 2002 US Supreme Court case “Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition,” which struck down some provisions in an anti-child pornography law. The paper wasn’t featured prominently, but it’s hard to imagine it ended up there by accident.

Although the left would like people to ignore it, it stands to reason that these highly suggestive images could inspire acts of violence against children, albeit of a different kind from those witnessed at the Colorado Springs gay club. The only way to address these very real threats to children is to speak openly about them.

Youth today are being exposed to a slew of complex ideas and actions – from questioning their ‘true’ gender, to watching drag queens perform at the local gay club. Having been subjected to such radical concepts at the most impressionable age, an increasing number of young people eventually make the fateful decision to have a sex-change operation.

It is only natural that millions of Americans will want to make their opinions heard on these topics that could have life-long consequences for their children. They should be able to do so without facing accusations of being accomplices to murders carried out by deranged individuals. But as far as the left is concerned, anyone who speaks out against the sexualization of children will be responsible for getting more people killed, just like we saw at Club Q.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The Road to Fascism: For a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State

A New Book by Simon Elmer

OffGuardian | November 24, 2022

With the lifting of the thousands of regulations by which our lives were ruled for two long years there has been an understandable desire to believe that the coronavirus ‘crisis’ is over and we will return to something like an albeit new normal.

But as new crises have sprung up to take its place — war in the Ukraine, the so-called ‘cost of living crisis’ and the return of the environmental crisis — it’s increasingly difficult not to look back on ‘lockdown’ as the first campaign in a war that has not been declared by any government but is no less real for that.

The willingness of our governments to use the forces of the state against their own populations on the justification of protecting us from ourselves signals a new level of authoritarianism — and something like the return of fascism — to the governmental, juridical and cultural forms of the formerly neoliberal democracies of the West, and one of the aims of this book is to examine the validity of this thesis.

Its purpose in doing so, however, is not to contribute to an academic debate about the meaning of the term ‘fascism’, but rather to interrogate how and why the general and widespread moral collapse in the West over the past two-and-a-half years has been effected with such rapidity and ease, and to examine to what ends that collapse is being used.

The more deliberate is the immiseration of the populations of Western democracies, the clearer it becomes that the war started by COVID-19 is not between nation states but a civil war waged against our institutions of democratic governance and the division of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary.

Insofar as these institutions and this division are being dismantled and replaced by the rule of international technocracies that, under the cloak of the ‘pandemic’, have assumed increasing power over our lives since March 2020, this war represents a revolution in Western capitalism from the neoliberalism under which we have lived for the past forty years.

Where it is heading with ever greater speed and finality, and which The Road to Fascism sets out to demonstrate, is the new totalitarianism of the Global Biosecurity State.

Simon Elmer is the founder of Architects for Social Housing (ASH), you can follow them on twitter. The Road to Fascism was published by ASH on 28 September, and is available in hardback, paperback and e-book. Click on the link for purchase options, the contents page and preface. Excerpts have been published in The Daily Sceptic and The Exposé; and you can hear Simon discussing his book in an interview on The Delingpod.

November 24, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Flemish government called on to cancel WEF membership

Free West Media | November 23, 2022

In 2022, the Flemish government will pay €175 763.87 in membership fees to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and 27 000 Swiss francs (about €27 300) as participation fees to the annual meeting of the WEF in Davos. This is according to Flemish minister-president Jan Jambon’s response to a parliamentary question by Flemish MP Sam van Rooy.

“The Flemish Government thus legitimises and subsidises a global lobbying organisation that clearly pursues a well-defined ideological agenda, namely that of globalism,” van Rooy responded.

German economist Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. The WEF claims to be a forum for exchanging ideas and networking, but at the very least the perception has arisen that a lot of government decisions are linked to the ideological goals of the WEF and stem from agreements made within the WEF.

All in all, this international lobbying organisation openly pursues a globalist future agenda involving numerous governments. This agenda seems to have recently crystallised into the so-called The Great Reset, whose goal is “a more secure, equal and stable world” by “acting jointly and rapidly to renew all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions,” according to Klaus Schwab of the WEF.

As citizens in a democratic constitutional state are entitled to transparency on the policies pursued, van Rooy asked Flemish minister-president Jambon questions about the Flemish government’s ties and cooperation with the WEF.

Regular WEF contacts

In his reply, Jambon stated that the Flemish government “has no structural contacts with the WEF outside the participation in the WEF meeting in Davos”, but that there are “regular contacts at the level of the Flemish government”. According to the prime minister, these contacts also aim to follow up on the various activities and projects that take place annually, including outside the Davos meeting.

Until 2020, the Flemish government paid an annual membership fee of €55 000 to the WEF. Since 2022, however, Flanders has been “promoted” to “associate partner” of the WEF, requiring a membership fee of no less than €175 763.87 per year. This contribution has already been paid for 2022 and the same invoice is expected for 2023.

About the “associate partnership”, Jambon stated the following: “The associate partnership offers the advantage that Flanders can participate in more activities throughout the year and, in addition, projects are being worked on within a thematic platform ‘Shaping the Future of Trade and Investment’. Those activities and projects provide additional visibility and an opportunity to learn and contribute policy-wise.” The entanglement of the Flemish government with the WEF is thus increasing.

The prime minister maintained that the WEF would have added value for Flanders because that organisation would allow him to speak at short notice with decision-makers from international companies that are important for Flanders. “The WEF provides the framework that facilitates these talks,” Jambon said, further calling WEF membership “a policy instrument of the Flemish Government” as well “to realise objectives from the Coalition Agreement”. Jambon also announced his intention to further strengthen cooperation with the WEF in the coming period.

WEF’s alleged mission

According to Jambon, the “mission of the World Economic Forum is to improve the state of the world”, but that mission appears to be politically correct and woke, said the party in a statement. The WEF has an ideological agenda of inclusion, diversity, open borders and climate and CO2 hysteria. While Jambon has claimed that “the WEF is not asking us to pursue a specific agenda”, he admitted that his “participation in the Davos meeting may result in policy initiatives”.

It therefore seems very much as if the Flemish government is following the WEF’s globalist objective as much as possible in exchange for access to the WEF network of multinationals, banks, journalists and NGOs.

Van Rooy said that Jambon’s answers were conspicuously vague and this had raised additional questions. He therefore called on the Flemish government to cancel the Flemish paying WEF membership: “Exchanging ideas and attracting investments are of course laudable ambitions in themselves, but this should not be done in the context and under the auspices of the WEF, a lobbying group that pursues a globalist agenda and thus can by no means be considered a neutral forum for this,” van Rooy said.

November 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics | , | Leave a comment

U.S. Lawyers Claim Ivermectin was never prohibited for treating COVID-19. FDA merely recommended not using it.

No legal prohibition authorized or justified hospitals to withhold the drug from dying patients. Let the lawsuits begin.

FDA tweet against using ivermectin. Not a prohibition, merely a recommendation.
By Dr. McCullough & John Leake · Courageous Discourse · November 22, 2022

The Epoch Times recently reported an astonishing statement by a U.S. government lawyer in a federal court in Texas, where the FDA is being sued by Dr. Paul Marik of Virginia, Dr. Mary Bowden of Texas, and Dr. Robert Apter of Arizona. The three plaintiffs claim the FDA illegally prohibited them from prescribing the drug to their patients. At a November 1 hearing, U.S. lawyer Isaac Belfer argued for the defendant:

The cited statements were not directives. They were not mandatory. They were recommendations. They said what parties should do. They said, for example, why you should not take ivermectin to treat COVID-19. They did not say you may not do it, you must not do it. They did not say it’s prohibited or it’s unlawful. They also did not say that doctors may not prescribe ivermectin.”

If Belfer’s assertion is true, it raises a very urgent question: On what legal grounds did hospitals all over the United States refuse to administer ivermectin to severely ill COVID-19 patients, even when patients and their family members begged for the drug to be administered?

If ivermectin was not prohibited by the FDA or any other U.S. medical authority for treating COVID-19, why did Dr. Paul Marik’s hospital prohibit him from administering the drug to his dying patients? Why was Dr. Mary Bowden reported to the Texas Medical Board for disciplinary action when she prescribed it? Why did many pharmacists fear losing their licenses if they filled ivermectin prescriptions for treating COVID-19?

In our book, The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex, Dr. McCullough and I document numerous instances of hospitals flatly refusing to grant the wishes of dying patients and their family members for ivermectin.

All these patients asked for was to be allowed to try the drug (FDA-approved for River Blindness, Elephantiasis, and Scabies) for COVID-19. The patients and their kin gladly indemnified the hospitals and arranged to have their independent primary care doctors deliver and administer the drug. Nevertheless:

  • Hospital administrators absolutely refused to grant this wish.
  • Hospital attorneys fought tooth and nail against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, doing everything in their power to challenge patient lawsuits and appeal court orders to administer the drug.
  • Even when hospital doctors acknowledged that the patients were dying, they insisted it was better to let the disease take its natural course rather than allow patients to try ivermectin.
  • Even when patients’ families succeeded in getting a court orders to administer the drug, many hospitals still refused, even at the risk of being held in contempt of court.

Several readers have told us that our chapters covering this shameful scandal— Chapters 38: Begging for the Wonder Drug and Chapter 40: Graduating into Eternity—are horrifying beyond belief.

Now we hear U.S. government lawyers arguing in court that the FDA never prohibited using ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, but merely recommended not using it. This indicates that hospitals had no legal grounds for denying sick patients a drug that could have helped them. How is withholding medicine from a sick man any different from withholding a life ring from a man who has fallen overboard in high seas?

For families who watched their loved ones slip away after being denied the right to try ivermectin, U.S. attorney Isaac Belfer’s statement may be interpreted as declaring open season for lawsuits against hospital administrators and doctors.

November 22, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Abnormal: A Review

BY GREG COOK | CATHOLIC EXCHANGE | NOVEMBER 16, 2022

How do we move ahead in a post-pandemic era? And what are the lessons to be learned from our challenging recent history? Catholic psychiatrist and bioethicist Aaron Kheriaty has thought a great deal about these questions and his answers are found in his just-released book The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State (Regnery Publishing, 2022). The result is a brilliant mix of scientific observations, personal experiences, philosophical reflections, prudent policy prescriptions, and even a few speculative hints about dystopian possibilities of the near future.

Kheriaty, who lost his previous job as clinical psychiatrist and teacher at UC-Irvine in a dispute over mandated vaccines and natural immunity, begins the book in an unexpected time and place: 1947 Nuremberg. He does this to provide historical context for threats to freedom in our time. He briefly surveys the eugenics movement and its appropriation by the Nazi regime. Germany’s medical professionals were well-trained and as good as any in the world, but they lost their way. “Instead of seeing the sick as individuals in need of compassionate medical care, German doctors became willing agents of a sociopolitical program driven by a cold utilitarian ethos,” writes Kheriaty (xvii). After the war the revulsion at the perversion of medicine led to the Nuremberg Code, which emphasized informed consent as a cornerstone of ethical medical treatment.

That code and other ethical agreements remained as part of the medical-bioethical landscape… until 2020. Kheriaty asserts that “[d]uring the covid pandemic, the public health and medical establishment once again abandoned the principle of free and informed consent to advance a supposed greater good” (xxi). Having laid the groundwork for his argument and narrative, he sums up by issuing this frightening declaration: “The unholy alliance of (1) public health, (2) digital technologies of surveillance and control, and (3) the police powers of the state—what I call the Biomedical Security State—has arrived” (xxii). While this probably seems like a heavy meal to digest, the reader can be assured that Kheriaty writes clearly and is grounded in scientific medicine and a solid ethical worldview. His story, while alarming, is neither conspiracy theory nor exercise in despair.

After the Nuremberg prologue, Dr. Kheriaty continues with four long chapters and an epilogue: “Locked Up: The Biomedical Security State”; “Locked Down & Locked Out: A New Societal Paradigm”; “Locked In: The Coming Technocratic Dystopia”; “Reclaiming Freedom: Human Flourishing in a More Rooted Future”; and, “Seattle, 2030.” Sprinkled throughout what could be a gloomy read, we encounter stories of solidarity and resilience. The author makes sure to show us that human interaction cannot — must not — be stymied by government interference in our lives and the functioning of society. “Consider the human goods we sacrificed to preserve bare biological life at all costs: friendships, holidays with family, work, visiting the sick and dying, worshipping God, and burying the dead” (14). But to resist or even question, we must know as much of a situation’s history as possible. Kheriaty lays out the pieces of the puzzle: states of emergency, agency capture of regulators by the regulated, loosening bonds of social cohesion, and the religion of scientism.

Scientism is distinct from science and scientific inquiry, Kheriaty points out. “The characteristic feature of science is warranted uncertainty, which leads to intellectual humility. The characteristic feature of scientism is unwarranted certainty, which leads to intellectual hubris” (54). In other words, scientism upholds so-called science as the only proper form of knowledge and rejects any questioning or skepticism. It is prone to misuse as a political tool and typically accompanies a materialistic worldview. That heavy-handed framework clashes with how science and medicine have long operated through trial and error, experimentation, imaginative solutions, and, most of all, respect for individual humans as made in the image and likeness of God.

Kheriaty’s own story makes for a fascinating sub-plot. As a doctor, ethicist, and teacher he was closely involved with figuring out how to respond to covid and help patients. As the lockdowns unfolded he encountered staggering amounts of fear, worry, and depression. His grasp of bioethics and knowledge of history led him to speak out against new methods of trying to control spread of the covid virus, especially when they superseded societal freedom and individual liberty. “Freedom of movement, of association, of domicile in one’s country of origin, and access to public spaces and public events—these quickly went from basic rights to special privileges conferred by governments as rewards for good behavior” (68). His medical training also led him to critique the development and imposition of a new and mostly untested vaccine. In his own case, he fought against a mandatory vaccination because of a prior covid infection. His argument at the time did not prevent him from being fired. He also touches on the devastating impact of restrictions on work and supply chains.

Indeed, that is one of the constant themes of this book: technology and safety should never eclipse the humanity of our lives. For instance, “[t]here is clearly no such thing as a medication—or a vaccine—that’s always good for everyone in every circumstance all the time” (137). Technology and cultural immersion endanger our sense of ourselves and nudge us to trade autonomy and dignity for convenience. “Today, routine biometric verification for things from mobile phones to lunch lines gets young people used to the idea that their bodies are tools used in transactions” (155). Connected to abuse of genetic and biometric data is the ominous specter of transhumanism, which Kheriaty characterizes as “clearly a religion—a particular type of neo-Gnostic religion” (167). To all these dehumanizing trends the author counsels resistance, but emphatically “nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience” (184).

The book’s final chapter lays out policy proposals for steering clear of dystopia. I found this chapter to be only somewhat persuasive. Kheriaty’s suggestions are certainly prudent and logical; however, they mostly deal with changing the political and medical climate. But bureaucracy and institutional entropy are like the invasive Japanese Knotweed in my back yard, which is to say impossible to eradicate. On other points Kheriaty is spot-on. “The first and most necessary step is to overcome our fear,” he writes (191). And [t]he enemy is not pain or illness. The enemy is fear. The enemy is hatred or indifference toward our fellow human beings” (192). Fear of death was manifest during the pandemic. As Catholics, we are taught to not fear death, but rather to spend our lives preparing for it and to live in a state of grace. During a pandemic or even “normal” times we can bear witness to Christ by living with courage and fighting fear. We can also resist mask mandates that dehumanize us and separate us from others, covering up our God-created uniqueness. Of importance to religious believers, we can engage with our faith authorities to make sure no one is abandoned again because “too many religious leaders and clergy unfortunately showed themselves during the pandemic to be willing chaplains to the new technocracy” (204).

Readers should not skip the epilogue, in which Kheriaty (a native of the Pacific Northwest) posits a dystopian Seattle in 2030. In this uncomfortable scenario, we are asked to consider what life might be like if current trends in pharmaceuticals and their marketing are joined with further developments in social control to create a two-tiered society reminiscent of many well-known alternative futures in literature and movies. Thankfully, Dr. Kheriaty lightens a somber story with some wry humor.

While The New Abnormal is not an explicitly Catholic book, Aaron Kheriaty founds it in Catholic principles of justice, humanity, clear philosophical first principles, subsidiarity, solidarity, and important spiritual goods. He brings in examples from classical and contemporary philosophy, C.S. Lewis, and George Orwell. The prose is clear but some of the concepts can be a little heady at times. This is a valuable piece of work from a man with unique qualifications. His is a prophetic voice calling us to understand and take action while never forgetting the God Who made us.

Greg Cook is a writer living in New York’s North Country with his wife. He graduated from Plattsburgh State College and The Evergreen State College. He is the author of two self-published books of poetry, Against the Alchemists and A Verse Companion to Romano Guardini’s ‘Sacred Signs’.

November 22, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Should Individualism be Medicated Away to be Replaced by “Welfarism?”

By Igor Chudov | November 21, 2022

Medical ethics is a large field of study. The Covid pandemic certainly brought many medical ethics issues to the forefront and produced rather amazing “ethicist” gems, such as this:

Be aware that “bioethics” has moved on to proposals that might seem crazy to you but are considered seriously and published in Bill Gates-funded publications and scientific journals. Important studies on this subject are conducted under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.

Forcibly giving people collectivism-promoting “Morality Pills” (archive link) is a popular suggestion among bioethicists. It was published in Bill Gates-funded The Conversation and is discussed widely in scientific literature. (The Conversation received 7 million dollars from Bill Gates but pretends to be an independent journalism publication)

What are these morality pills? You might think that morality, to them, means being a good husband or wife, an honest businessperson, fulfilling promises, and so on. Why not enhance that? What’s the problem?

The problem is that this is NOT how they define morality! To them, morality is a collectivist mindset, lack of critical thinking, and compliance. The article explains that some people lack “moral qualities” and refuse to wear masks or take Covid vaccines, or even deny climate change:

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

They propose giving people pills to enhance “morality” and explain the climate change angle relevance:

But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.

The proposed solution to give people morality pills is more than idle thinking. Several candidate psychoactive substances are identified and considered seriously: psilocybin and oxytocin, for example.

You Would not Take Morality Pills? Administer them Secretly!

The obvious objection to all this morality pill talk is that skeptics would not take them! I would not take such a pill to enhance my collectivist mindset. At the risk of being presumptuous, I would say that you, my dear subscriber, would refuse them also. Right?

The ethicists have a solution: administer collectivist morality pills by force or surreptitiously.

As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

Serious articles discuss how to do it:

A covert psychoactive substance administration to the masses must not be discussed publicly before its implementation, right? So the ethicists desire to bypass any democratic process or prior public discussion and scrutiny. These ethicists refuse to see an ethical problem with that!

World Economic Forum Sponsored Research into “Collectivist Bioenhancement”

Some of you, my dear readers, might think this is so batshit crazy that it is simply useless musings of fringe philosophers, not worth discussing.

Quite to the contrary, the famous and influential organization called the World Economic Forum sponsors such bioenhancement research.

Linda Fried, mentioned above, is the aunt of Sam Bankman-Fried. Sam stole billions of dollars from crypto-investors (in my opinion) and used that money to become the second largest Democratic party donor. So, Linda Fried is not exactly a nobody languishing in obscurity. By the way, a friend of this blog El Gato wrote a great post discussing Sam — check it out.

Linda explains in her article that her goal is “collective welfarism,” and she is part of the group convened by the World Economic Forum:

A stronger ethical approach, though, would be to abide by the principle, termed ‘collective easy rescue’, whereby small individual losses are justified in the name of collective well-being. Mass vaccination is a well-documented example of collective easy rescue.

Human “enhancement” to force mass vaccination? Sounds familiar?

Self Absorbed Do-Gooders

Those “medical ethicists,” “world changers,” and “disinformation fighters” are so self-absorbed and self-righteous that they think their way of thinking is the only right way. They consider any deviation from their mindset to be antisocial, divisive, and subversive.

To them, freedom is dangerous. Truth is misinformation. Pursuing personal happiness and liberty instead of welfarism is selfish and immoral and needs to be dealt with through covert bioenhancement pills. Their opponents need to be silenced as “disinformation agents” or influenced via secretly applied substances to enhance compliance and lower critical thinking.

This is NOT a Conspiracy Theory!

My post, discussing outlandish agenda developed under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, may sound like the perfect conspiracy theory. If someone approached me and told me that the WEF is sponsoring “bioenhancement research,” whose goal is to develop substances to impose “collective welfarism” and achieve compliance with mass vaccination, I would not take that person seriously!

Such is the problem with describing many WEF proposals. Some of their ideas are so crazy that they are difficult to accept as genuine when retold. Official papers, proposals, peer-reviewed studies, and agenda articles describe plans that are extremely strange to the uninitiated — and yet are pursued seriously. Other authors, such as Tessa Lena, also mentioned how difficult it is to describe these tendencies.

I have explained my difficulties with describing crazy but real proposals by world-leading unelected organizations such as the WEF.

I Do Not Spread Conspiracy Theories – I Report on Actual News

Their proposals, when understood properly, are highly disturbing and seem unreal — except that they are very serious.

WEF Uses CODED LANGUAGE to Communicate Unthinkable Plans

The difficulty with their plans is that regular people cannot believe they are real. That happens for a good reason: nobody would expect such insanity to be seriously promulgated by important men and women. Even I have difficulty reconciling the plain text and the simple meaning of their anti-human theories with my idea of what our leaders should act like.

And yet, here we are — the welfarist pills are promulgated under the auspices of the WEF by no one but Linda Fried, the aunt of the second-largest Democrat donor and crypto thief (in my opinion) Sam Bankman-Fried.

In the future, you may need to be careful with your drinking water or the compulsory mystery “health enhancement pill” you must take for an unexplained reason!

Would you take such a welfarism bioenhancement pill?

November 22, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »