It sprung up just as new bans for the unvaccinated (55% of the population) were to go into effect
Anti-Empire : Did pan-Turks, Islamists, and Soros try to jump on the train? They would be stupid not to. But social unrest doesn’t start because Joe Kazakh wants more CIA black sites, but because his bread costs twice as much, he will have to lockdown his shop for the fourth time in two years, and he’s having to get experimental mRNA or lose the ability to feed his family. That he has been ruled by the same authoritarian and corrupt guy and network of clans since 1989 doesn’t help things either. The Russian alternative media outlet RIA Katyusha has more.
Machine-translated from Russian.
Last Kazakh warning to Putin: vaccination and greed of elites as the cause of the revolution in Kazakhstan
Another republic of the former USSR and Russia’s strategic ally, Kazakhstan, found itself embroiled in the classic color revolution. And although it is obvious that the conductors of current events are located in Paris, London and Washington and their goal is to weaken China and implement the old Masonic idea of a “united Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok”, the local authorities, which cared exclusively about their own pockets and following the covid instructions of the globalists, hoping to come to terms with the devil. That is, she was doing the same thing as the Russian “elite”.
Gas prices shouted about by the Russian state media have become nothing more than a pretext for massive protests. The “technocrats” in power in Kazakhstan (hello to “ours” Mishustin and Kiriyenko) brought the people to seething anger with a drop in living standards and mandatory vaccination with QR codes, and also missed the preparation of protests by Soros structures.
This — namely, the stupidity and inability to discern the threat even to one’s own skin — is one of the main differences between technocrats and traditional rulers, of which Alexander Lukashenko can serve as an example. But Lukashenko sat there because he had someone to rely on. Putin and his comrades have no one to rely on – the people and the army with the Church will not defend the servants of the globalists. Therefore, the Russian elite need to study the Kazakh experience very deeply if, of course, they do not want to step on the neighbor’s rake.
Apparently, Russia is on the verge of losing one of its main allies, without which it will lose its influence throughout Central Asia. Power is slipping away from the hands of local technocrats and the former head of the country Nazarbayev in real time, and it is time for President Tokayev to sit next to Yanukovych and start writing the second volume of the book: “How to lose everything and understand nothing.”
Formally, the protests began on January 2 in the west of the country in the city of Zhanaozen, Mangistau region, after the price for a liter of liquefied gas rose to 120 tenge ($ 0.27) from January 1. The protesters demanded to lower the gas price to 60 tenge ($ 0.13), but they were simply not noticed by either the authorities or the media, and therefore calmly spread to the rest of the country. Moreover, the country’s leadership was fully confident that everything would “dissolve by itself,” and TV experts cited the Europeans as an example, where, they say, they walked around and went home. But these experts did not take into account the most relevant things – there is no Soros in Europe, USAID (recognized as undesirable in Russia), which openly work with both government officials and civic activists, and the NED fund, which openly and since mid-December have been waiting for a riot and supported the movement.”
But that’s not the point. The main thing is that the authorities of Kazakhstan, just like the authorities of the Russian Federation, refused to see people’s protests against compulsory vaccination, vaccination of children and pregnant women and QR codes. They were unable to resolve issues with wild food prices, shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel, drought and deaths of livestock, but, like their Russian colleagues, they followed all the instructions of the WHO and the IMF, leading people to the point that any pretext would become the spark that Lenin talked about more than a hundred years ago. As a result, technocrats began to react only when the Kazakh revolt turned from a pure economy into politics, and militants and protesters began to seize administrative buildings and television channels. But the protesters seized the president’s residence in Alma-Ata. The total number of victims in Kazakhstan has already exceeded 700 people, of which 150 are policemen and soldiers. So far, there is no confirmed data on the deceased.
Now President Tokayev has already agreed to everything, even having fired Nazarbayev [and the PM and the cabinet], but the time has passed and no one wants to talk to him anymore. The only thing that can still save his skin is the introduction of martial law and the brutal suppression of the protest. However, he is unable to do this, for he is too tied to the West, which already considers the “buns” from the emergence of a “new Ukraine” under the belly of Russia and China. It is pointless to list everything that is happening there now – events are developing at such a speed that any information by the time of publication will be outdated. It is much more important for us to understand the reasons, because much of what is happening there is too similar to what is happening in Russia.
Let’s start with the main factors that drove people to the streets. The main one is the fall in the standard of living of the population (which is officially not there) and the rise in prices (hello to Rosstat named after the Ministry of Economy of the Russian Federation together with the Central Bank and who else is counting inflation for us). Last year, according to official data, prices for goods in Kazakhstan soared by 8.9%, which is higher than in Russia. The prices for food products rose most noticeably in Kazakhstan: plus 11.3% for the year in October 2021. In July-August of this year, there was a growth in prices for vegetables of long-term storage (potatoes, carrots, beets), which was not typical for the summer months and a record in recent years, against the background of a shortage of their supply by the end of the off-season. Amid depletion of domestic stocks before the arrival of the new harvest, the monthly price increase for these products in June showed record values in recent years, which led to a sharp jump in the annual inflation rate (immediately by 30.6% over the same period a year earlier). In October 2021, the annual growth in consumer prices for vegetables was 25.5%. Meat rose 10.3%, sunflower oil 56.2% year on year and sugar 32.1% year on year.
Also in October, the country faced a diesel shortage. The situation influenced not only the increase in the cost of diesel fuel, but also gave rise to problems for transport companies, KTZ, and also created risks to ensure the stable operation of utilities and road services. Diesel fuel was sold at many gas stations in the country only with coupons during these weeks, some of them did not have it at all. According to official data, the growth in gasoline prices was (+ 15.6% per year), diesel (+ 24.4% per year), or by a quarter. The shortage of fuel was added to the shortage of electricity. In a number of regions, in order to save electricity during peak hours, its supply was suspended. In addition, in the west of Kazakhstan in the summer of 2021, there was an intense heat and lack of rainfall, which led to a large-scale drought. Farmers have suffered huge losses in the Mangistau region and the Aral region of the Kyzylorda region, livestock deaths were recorded everywhere. The network spread eerie footage of emaciated animals, which the owners were forced to feed with cardboard paper. Despite the difficult situation, the Ministry of Agriculture was in no hurry to provide prompt assistance to farmers.
Objectively speaking, the price of autogas in Kazakhstan is several times lower than in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine – even after the increase. But if it was only a question of gas, then there would be no protests. As the inhabitants of the Russian north of the country write, the worst thing in this situation is that the technocrats did not have any positive plan to improve the situation of people, but they had plans to drag people through lockdowns and stab them to death.
In Russia, the state media are trying to keep silent about this, but one of the main reasons for the current protests is not the economy, but new restrictions that were planned to be introduced there from January 5. Due to the rapid spread of the omicron strain, unvaccinated citizens were disallowed from crowded places: banks, post offices, baths, fitness rooms, public service centers, not to mention shopping and entertainment centers.
This is after lockdowns and vaccinations in the worst European and Australian traditions. The news of a new lockdown was the second reason for the riot. For understanding – Kazakhstan has become the toughest country in terms of vaccinations, QRs and restrictions in the ex-USSR, constantly testing its people for strength. Aizhan Esmagambetova, Chairperson of the Committee for Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan, stated that since the beginning of the year, workers in labor collectives who refuse compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 will be fined: Administrative responsibility is provided for both individuals – 5 monthly calculation indices, and for legal entities”, – Yesmagambetova said at a briefing, answering the question of what sanctions are provided for refusing vaccination and undergoing PCR testing for coronavirus. She noted that the employer in case of non-fulfillment of the requirements can also be involved to administrative responsibility. The current lockdown, after all the restrictions and vaccinations, would have become the 4th for Kazakhstan since the beginning of 2021, although a number of them were not in the entire country. It makes no sense to say how many small businesses were closed because of this, and people were left without a livelihood. And no one will say, because they were not counted.
But in the summer, the local WHO branch, the “interdepartmental commission on the non-proliferation of COVID-19,” recommended the chief state sanitary doctor of Kazakhstan to prohibit more than 20 people from working in the service sector, in industrial enterprises and in labor collectives with an experimental potion.
Since November 15 of last year, schools and medical institutions in Kazakhstan began vaccination against the coronavirus with the Pfizer drug for adolescents, pregnant and lactating women. Since November 22, vaccination has begun in the city of Aktobe [0.5 million people], and only eight breastfeeding women and four adolescents have been vaccinated. In October 2021, the chief sanitary doctor of Kazakhstan, Yerlan Kiyasov, approved the guidelines for vaccination of adolescents with Pfizer. “We are now seeing that everything seems to be going well. We did not see any obvious problems. Babies, pregnant women and lactating women are easily tolerated, ” said the head of their Ministry of Health.
In general, the Kazakh authorities did everything they could to get as many people as possible to hate them and take part in the protests. At the same time, as in Russia, total hatred and distrust of the regime was masked with deliberate lies from the court sociologists, who, like ours, sang the mantras about “Everything is calm in Baghdad.”
Of course, the agents of the United States and Britain, favored by the Kazakh authorities, could not help but take advantage of this. We sweep aside the Turkish trail, because both the current government and the rebels are completely pro-Turan and they win in any case. But for the United States and Britain, destabilization in Kazakhstan is just a gift for the New Year. Create a “new Ukraine” with such a border with Russia and China, start pogroms against the Russians and drive out Chinese business, support the Uighurs not only with words.
With all this, the Kazakh elite helped the sorrows as best they could — just like the Kiriyenko’s department helped and helps organizations-inagents to receive presidential grants, supported all sorts of Morgensterns, etc.
However, in Russia, fortunately, in addition to Kiriyenko, there is a “power tower” that thinned out this residency at least a little – and in Kazakhstan, for a minute, the Soros Foundation, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy NED and etc. In the last 15 years, the total number of NGOs in the republic has grown significantly. If in 2003 there were about two thousand of them, now there are 22 thousand. About 200 non-governmental organizations in Kazakhstan receive foreign funding, 70% of which comes from the United States. These data were presented in his report at the Civil Forum in Astana by Minister of Social Development Darkhan Kaletayev. “Today, 53 international organizations, 30 foreign government organizations, 77 foreign NGOs and foundations operate in Kazakhstan,” – he noted. Moreover, since 2019, on the one hand, actively working with the elites, especially the regional ones, on the other, they openly worked against Nazarbayev and Atayev, promoting Russophobia (for example, blaming Russia for sugar prices) and campaigning for a “path to Europe.” The Strategic Culture Foundation wrote about this in 2019 in its large article “The United States Increases Pressure on Kazakhstan “. Who was not among the NGOs? Of course, the representatives of Russia. Thus, our country did not react in any way to the arrest of one of the few supporters of Russia – Ermek Taychibekov. She not only did not oppose his arrest, but did not even grant him citizenship last year. Moreover, it was revealingly done while talking about “the friendship of our countries.” However, now the main question is what Moscow will do in the event of the start of ethnic cleansing of Russians in the north of the country. And this scenario, given the activation of nationalists, is far from being so fantastic.
Of course, it was not without the fugitive oligarchs. Thus, Mukhtar Ablyazov, accused of corruption and living in Europe, does not even try to deny that he actively supports the riots, dreaming that Kazakhstan would be like Ukraine and Armenia.
In addition to these reasons, one can find a hundred more ethnic and regional problems, such as the competition between the junior and senior Zhus, the strengthening of nationalists under the leadership of the Turks, the betrayal of the elite under the control of London, and so on and so forth. Coups generally include the sum of all factors, most of which we can see in our country, starting with the coronavirus according to the WHO guidelines and the destruction of the economy according to the IMF patterns and ending with the complacency of the authorities through their own experts and the growing discontent of the “fugitive oligarchs” who continue to hold their agents in the governing bodies of the Russian Federation. And in place of the relevant departments, it would be nice to study the Kazakh experience. But the main conclusion is obvious: the bestial attitude towards their people and the betrayal of national interests for a carrot from the globalists will in any case sideline the authorities themselves, no matter how much they count on agreements with the Rothschilds and other “owners of money.” Do not negotiate with the devil, expel him – this is how the Russian civilization acted during the heyday of its history.
Source: RIA Katyusha (Russian alternative media)
Hat tip to Edward Slavsquat.
January 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, Kazakhstan, Russia |
Leave a comment
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.
January 9, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Economics, Environmentalism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights, NSA |
Leave a comment
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 comprehend it, 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.
January 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Public Health Officer Matt Willis and Deputy Public Health Officer Dr. Lisa Santora speak out on requirements to get boosted. The evidence doesn’t matter and no questions will be tolerated.
Here is synopsis of Marin [county in California] Health meeting from 2 nights ago (from a parent).
Basically, the public health officers do whatever the hell they want, they refuse to answer questions from the audience, and none of this is based on solid science, and nobody can stop them. Welcome to 2022. Coming to your town soon (if not already).
Matt Willis presented charts and graphs. One was very interesting but I couldn’t take a picture in time. The majority infected are vaccinated. I believe the number 504. I believe a thousand in attendance from a source who tried to get in.
Lots of us put in questions but he answered none of them.
After that one chart showing the vaccinated getting infected more the next charts showed how Omicron has gone up and that kind of stuff.
Then Lisa Santora came on and gave the real bad news regarding the quarantine of unvaccinated students and staff and the modified quarantine of vaccinated and boosted. So per Willis you have to be boosted to be considered able to be on modified quarantine and parents have to be boosted to see their kids do sports or perform indoors. And a lot of infected have been boosted too but the efficacy of the vaccine was never called into question.
Our questions were how do you justify continuing quarantine and support for boosting if it doesn’t prevent transmission. If vaccinated and boosted spread the virus equally why are we quarantining unvaccinated or vaccinated without a booster? They never answered our questions.
Lisa Santora was super creepy and said “we expect that all students and staff are vaccinated and get their boosters”
So they prepared us for more variants with possibilities of more boosters. This pandemic keeps them relevant and in power and torturing the rest of us. Vaxxing testing masking again and again. Those are my words.
Willis said the vaccines will be mandatory in July 2022. My understanding is this will be mandated at the school year after the FDA approves the vaccines for kids so how can they even know??
When a kindergartner recently was registering the parent was told vaccines will be mandatory in July 2022. And the trials have not even been done.
CDC and FDA are being sued to release their safety data which they wanted to release in 75 years!! [ Editor’s Note: The FDA was recently ordered to speed up the timetable by 100X at 55,000 pages per month instead of 500 pages per month. ]
January 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
Masking is not normal and should not be normalised
In the week when the requirement (or is it only a ‘recommendation’?) to mask children in the classroom was reinstated, it is worthwhile to consider the likely reasons underpinning the decision to return to a restriction that is both ineffective and harmful. Undoubtedly, there has again been pressure from the education unions for pupils to cover their faces, motivated either by a baseless belief that such a measure will reduce the risk of teachers contracting the virus, or perhaps a desire to further damage Government credibility by causing more disruption in our schools. Whatever their reason, at this juncture it is timely to revisit the range of circumstantial evidence that supports what HART believes to be the most plausible reason for compelling the healthy to wear face coverings: to increase compliance with future COVID-19 restrictions and the vaccination rollout.
Prior to June 2020, public health experts did not endorse masking healthy people in the community as a means of reducing viral transmission. In March 2020, Dr Jenny Harris (England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer) was unequivocal when she stated, ‘For the average member of the public, masks are really not a good idea’ and that ‘People can put themselves at more risk than less’. North of the border, Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) was equally emphatic when – in April 2020 – he said, ‘The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work’. Strikingly, in December 2020 – several months after mask mandates had been imposed in the UK – the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a document titled, Mask use in the context of COVID-19 that formed the conclusion that, ‘There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community’. Many contemporary public figures spread a similar message.
So what changed in 2020 that flipped the public health experts into a pro-mask narrative?
One thing is clear: it was not in response to the advent of robust scientific evidence showing that face coverings significantly reduce viral transmission. On the contrary, a review of 14 controlled studies, published in May 2020, concluded that masks did not significantly lessen the spread of influenza in the community, protecting neither the wearer nor others. Although it is not possible to draw an unequivocal conclusion about the reason for the volte-face, several factors are consistent with masks being deployed primarily to enhance compliance with the Government’s COVID-19 interventions.
Deborah Cohen, a medically-qualified correspondent working for the BBC Newsnight programme, stated (in July 2020) that various sources had informed her that the WHO had recommended masks in response to political lobbying, and when she put this possibility directly to the WHO they did not deny it. Also, in her book, A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth interviewed Gavin Morgan – an educational psychologist and member of the SPI-B (the behavioural science subgroup of SAGE) – who told her that his antipathy to masks had been nullified by some colleagues in the group who believed they were useful in promoting a sense of ‘solidarity’, strengthening people’s feelings of cohesion in the collective fight against the virus.
Further support for the compliance explanation derives from an examination of the activities of the Government’s behavioural scientists who, throughout the pandemic, have recommended the use of covert psychological ‘nudges’ as a means of promoting people’s acceptance of COVID-19 restrictions and the subsequent vaccine rollout. Masking healthy people (adults and children) significantly enhances two fundamental ‘nudges’ used within this campaign. First, the exploitation of fear to promote compliance with Government diktats has been well documented. Masking people in community settings, as well as being one of the restrictions fuelled by fear, is also a powerful way of perpetuating fear. Acting as a crude reminder that danger is – purportedly – all around, face coverings will also prevent disconfirmation of anxious beliefs, preventing the wearer from concluding that our communities are now safe enough to re-engage with in a normal way. A self-reinforcing restriction; something that would strongly appeal to our ethically-compromised behavioural scientists.
Second, the awareness of ‘norms’ – the prevalent views and behaviour of our fellow citizens – can exert pressure on us all to conform, and this widely-deployed ‘nudge’ is also greatly strengthened by mask wearing. Normative pressure (otherwise known as peer pressure or scapegoating) is less effective in changing the behaviour of the deviant minority if there is no visible indicator of pro-social compliance rooted in communities. A face covering, or lack of one, enables instant recognition of the rule followers and rule breakers, thereby escalating the pressure to comply.
These observations as a whole are consistent with the premise that masking healthy people is primarily a compliance device. Clearly, widespread wearing of face coverings in community settings is an effective way of keeping the British public on board with any future restrictions the state decides to impose in pursuit of its agenda. Would the Government have so easily capitulated to union pressure to re-mask children in the classroom if this was not so?
January 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
“Where’s the vaccine mandate they promised us?” whines Daniel Brössler, reporter for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, disappointed because yesterday’s Corona summit of German minister presidents returned nothing but some adjustments to quarantine and sharpened testing rules. The double vaccinated will now have to submit negative tests if they want to eat at restaurants. Markus Söder, lockdown- and vaccine mandate-loving minister president of Bavaria, criticised even these milquetoast restrictions, with some bluster about how he’d already taken a hard line against bars and discos. This is after leading German Corona astrologer, Christian Drosten, used his state media podcast to suggest that Germany should start tolerating some of degree of SARS-2 transmission, and that breakthrough infections among the vaccinated should be considered normal. Such statements, which almost surely reflect sentiments within the coalition government, destroy most of the rationale for ongoing restrictions and vaccine mandates.
Meanwhile, in Austria, the thrice-vaccinated chancellor Karl Nehammer has tested positive for Corona. The news comes as Austria announces they will delay implementing their vaccine mandate by two months. It will now take effect in April, if at all. Gerald Gartlehner, an epidemiologist and sometime governmental adviser, suggested that mandates (or at least their enforcement) might have to be re-evaluated in light of Omicron and the widespread immunity the new variant will elicit across the Austrian population. There is every reason to think that Austria will be past the peak of the Omicron wave in April, and that a majority of Austrians will have SARS-2 antibodies by then.
In the United States, former Biden advisers have published a series of editorials in the Journal of the American Medical Association, arguing that it is time to normalise containment and begin managing SARS-2 as one of various seasonal respiratory infections.
It is obvious that we are at a turning point, even if everyone has yet to realise it – even if France is sharpening vaccine requirements, even if Italy has imposed vaccine mandates for everyone over 50, and even if Canada is for the moment determined to remain a prison state. This is the first time since the Floyd riots in America, that major political leaders and public health authorities have said that preventing Corona can no longer be the highest goal of western society.
It is a commonplace observation, but a true one: Since the vaccines began to fail in August, the vaccinators have been progressing through the proverbial five stages of grief. They spent a lot of time in denial, before becoming very angry and punitive. Then they began bargaining, hoping that SARS-2 would go away after four doses, or after five, with just the right dosing intervals, with a return to double masking, with child vaccinations. Now they appear to be drifting finally into depression and acceptance. They have realised, not a second too soon, that there is nothing to be done [outside of improving personal health and early treatment protocols].
Omicron is a highly contagious variant with immune escape features. The vaccinators can vaccinate all they want, but their vaccines will not stop the waves of infection to come. A lot of the hyperbolic rhetoric about Corona was put about in the hopes that most everyone wouldn’t be infected. They thought they could terrify people for a few years, vaccinate them, and harvest their gratitude for saving them from the worst respiratory virus since SARS. Now, though, it’s clear that everyone will have personal experience with Corona infection, whether or not they are vaccinated. This will destroy popular faith measures, it will erode their confidence in the vaccines, and it will do away with their fear of the virus. Maybe a few people somewhere will still support containment, after two years of heavy restrictions, mandated vaccinations, and infection, but I doubt there will be very many of them. It’s the beginning of the end.
January 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Austria, Canada, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, France, Germany, Human rights, Italy, United States |
Leave a comment
The unit provides no transparency
The UK Government’s “disinformation” unit is “working,” the Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said, after she was challenged by the Labour party who said the shadowy unit shut down last year.
In the UK, both the Conservative and Labour governments support more online censorship.
“It’s not the case, it’s not true; it is there, it is working,” Nadine Dorries said in response to a question this week.
“That work takes place daily, and daily we work to remove content online that is harmful and particularly when it comes to Covid-19, daily we have contact with the online providers.”
Ministers in the UK government created a “disinformation unit” to fight the spread of “false” information about COVID-19. The government felt that people were getting misleading information about the virus on social media.
The disinformation unit included civil servants in Whitehall. They were to work with communication experts and collaborate with social media companies.
At the time, then-Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said: “Defending the country from misinformation and digital interference is a top priority. As part of our ongoing work to tackle these threats we have brought together expert teams to make sure we can respond effectively should these threats be identified in relation to the spread of Covid-19.
“This work includes regular engagement with the social media companies, which are well placed to monitor interference and limit the spread of disinformation, and will make sure we are on the front foot to act if required.”
The team was supposed to focus on disinformation, which refers to the deliberate spreading of false information for personal gain or “trolling.”
The misleading information the government was concerned about included recommendations of cures that are ineffective or potentially “dangerous” and “false claims” about the origin of the coronavirus.
Social media companies had already begun flagging Covid-related misinformation and directing users to what they deemed reliable sources.
January 8, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
I know the liberal judges still seem to have no idea that the vaccines don’t end infection or transmission, but they aren’t the majority.
Here’s the current lead of the New York Times article about today’s Supreme Court hearings on the mandates. It shows the conservative justices – importantly, including Chief Justice John Roberts – have serious questions about the most important mandate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rule that covers workers at big companies:
The OSHA mandate is clearly at the greatest risk, as it is the biggest reach both legally and medically. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate on health-care workers at least fits with what CMS does, and trying to protect patients from communicable disease is a worthy goal. (Too bad the Covid vaccines don’t stop infection or transmission.)
I suspect the OSHA mandate goes. What happens to health-care workers may depend on whether Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh know the science well enough to understand how useless the vaccines have become. If not, they might just decide to split the difference and allow the CMS mandate to move forward. That would be a (seemingly) reasonable decision, and Roberts likes to seem reasonable…
January 7, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
A LOT has been said about the psychological effects of Covid on the public. Worryingly, the management of an unpredictably mutating virus which is always one step ahead is fraying the composure of our leaders too.
In the last couple of weeks, Presidents Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron have lashed out at fellow citizens who defy government orders to be vaccinated because they doubt ‘the science’ is truly settled in favour of a jab which has not been subjected to the full range of tests for side-effects later in life.
Exasperated by resistance to their Covid dictates, the American and French leaders appear to be losing their minds and their manners in the battle between the risks of vaccination and the risk of becoming serious ill with the virus.
Biden, alarmed by the refusal of one third of Americans to be vaccinated while Omicron is on the loose – though it causes mainly flu-like symptoms – warned them at Christmas that they faced a ‘winter of death’. Not one person in the US is yet known to have died from the latest Covid variant.
‘We are looking at a winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated, for themselves and their families and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm,’ quoth the ancient prophet of doom at a White House briefing whose message was that the unjabbed are not just selfish, they endanger the lives of everyone else.
Biden fingered them officially as ‘bad persons’, an unwelcome term in America where being a good person is vital to many. Not unnaturally, his presentation was badly received, reinforcing as it did the political polarisation between Democrats and Republicans, whom the former accuse of being the main vaccination hold-outs.
People, including essential workers, are being fired across America for defying Biden’s vaccination mandates.
Macron went further this week in a newspaper interview, threatening to ‘emmerder les non-vaccinés jusqu’au bout’. A polite translation of this is that he intends to go after them hard until they give in.
Emmerder – literally, to smear with sh*t – is a commonly used expression and is offensive or not according to context. Macron deliberately used it at its rudest and got the reaction he hoped for.
A session of parliament to discuss the government’s introduction of an updated vaccination passport restricting the freedom of movement of the unvaccinated was suspended in uproar when members heard the explosion of Macron’s little bomb.
He changed the focus of the argument from the virus to his brutal language. It’s likely to be a talking point for his opponents during his campaign for re-election this spring.
The fashion for politicians insulting the people they rely on to elect them was set by President Obama referring to ‘bitter clingers’ and Hillary Clinton describing some Midwestern voters as ‘deplorables’. (Those bad persons again.)
Biden and Macron forgot that these remarks were never forgiven by their targets and in Clinton’s case helped her to lose the race for the presidency.
Boris Johnson has at least grasped that, after two years of unprecedented exposure to the arbitrary powers of government, it is politically counter-productive to strain people’s patience with constant loosening and re-tightening of a Covid regime unknown in free countries outside wartime.
What is shocking about Biden, Macron, Obama and Clinton is the openness of their contempt for the people they govern as if being in public office conferred on them a wisdom that separated them from the common voters rather than the duty to lead with their consent.
There is nothing in our democratic system, adversarial as it is, that entitles politicians to treat us angrily. How many people, hearing the Biden and Macron anathemas, rushed out with arms bared to the needle?
I was vaccinated promptly myself because the odds pushed me that way. But I understand the motives of those who see obligatory vaccination – along with a sustained media campaign to vilify them – as a step too far by an overbearing state.
The certitudes of government’s own scientific advisers are offset by the determination of so many health professionals – including my own GP – to refuse the vaccines. What right do political leaders, themselves scientifically uneducated, have to threaten doctors and nurses who have daily experience of how medical treatments work and which can be trusted?
‘My body my choice’, the battle cry that worked so well for supporters of abortion, is suddenly off the table when the principle doesn’t suit politicians.
Biden and Macron weren’t showing leadership. What they expressed was frustration that, with all their power, they cannot force obedience on free-thinking citizens and anger that they will be blamed for the consequences. Macron especially forgot that the way we speak to each other in public matters. If you abuse people, they remember.
January 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | COVID-19 Vaccine, Emmanuel Macron, Hillary Clinton, Human rights, Joe Biden, Obama |
Leave a comment
The Government on Wednesday published the evidence informing its recent controversial decision to recommend all secondary school pupils wear face masks in classrooms.
The new document from the Department for Education (DfE) explains that the decision “has been taken on the recommendation of UKHSA and is based on a range of evidence”. It says the Government has “balanced education and public health considerations, including the benefits in managing infection and transmission, against any educational and wider health and wellbeing impacts from the recommended use of face coverings”.
While conceding that the “direct COVID-19 health risks to children and young people are very low” – and rejecting SAGE’s advice to recommend masks in primary school classrooms (yes, really) – it claims that “the balance of risks for secondary classrooms has changed at this point in time, in accordance with the evolving evidence and the phase of the pandemic”.
The document summarises its evidence as follows:
Face coverings can be effective in contributing to reducing transmission of COVID-19 in public and community settings. This is informed by a range of research, including randomised control trials, contact tracing studies, and observational studies – assessed most recently by UKHSA, described in a review conducted in November 2021. The review’s conclusions were broadly in line with those of a previous Public Health England review; however, the addition of randomised control trials and substantially more individual-level observational studies increases the strength of the conclusions and strengthens the evidence for the effectiveness of face coverings in reducing the spread of COVID-19 in the community, through source control, wearer protection, and universal masking.
In fact, though, the UKHSA review from November 2021 found no high quality studies (except, it claims, the ONS study, which really isn’t high quality). Of the two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have been done and which were cited by the UKHSA, the one from Denmark found no statistically significant reduction in COVID-19 incidence from surgical masks (the study didn’t look at cloth masks) while the Bangladesh mask study found no benefit from cloth masks and the reported benefit from surgical masks was just 11%, with a 95% confidence interval that included zero. The UKHSA review also considered 23 observational studies, which it said had “mixed” results and many of which were of low quality and small.
This does not seem a strong basis to claim a large effect for mask wearing. A recent more comprehensive review (which included earlier evidence for other flu-like viruses) by Ian Liu, Vinay Prasad and Jonathan Darrow for the Cato Institute, entitled “Evidence for Community Cloth Face Masking to Limit the Spread of SARS‐CoV‑2: A Critical Review“, concluded that: “More than a century after the 1918 influenza pandemic, examination of the efficacy of masks has produced a large volume of mostly low- to moderate-quality evidence that has largely failed to demonstrate their value in most settings.”
That is a better summary of the evidence than the DfE managed.
Needless to say, the DfE gives the propaganda value of masking a nod: “It can be a visible outward signal of safety behaviour and a reminder of COVID-19 risks.”
Notably, there is no mention in this document of the potential harms of wearing a mask for an extended period, such as the impact on breathing, the heart, or the skin. Contamination gets a brief mention, though it’s quickly dismissed:
Face masks and coverings will become highly contaminated with upper respiratory tract and skin micro-organisms. Disposal of single-use face coverings could theoretically pose a risk of transmission for inappropriately discarded face coverings, but it is very likely that the reduction in transmission risk due to reduced droplet and aerosol emissions from wearing a face covering significantly outweighs any potential for enhanced risk of transmission through inadvertent contact with a contaminated face covering. This is likely to hold regardless of duration that the face covering is used.
The reference provided for these claims is a SAGE document from September 2020, “Duration of Wearing of Face Coverings.” This is an interesting document, but it can scarcely be said to support the claims the DfE is making. On harms from masks, for example, it says:
Neither surgical masks nor face coverings are designed for use for extended periods. Wearing a face covering for an extended period can maintain a higher moisture level around the face which can be uncomfortable for some people and may increase the likelihood of skin complaints. Masks will become highly contaminated with upper respiratory tract and skin micro-organisms. A review of the downsides of face masks and face coverings (by Bakhit et al) found 20 studies reporting irritation and discomfort from using masks. Participants in studies with surgical or cloth masks reported difficulty breathing (12%-34%), facial irritation and discomfort (11-35%). More serious symptoms of headache, acne, rashes were associated with use of N95 and goggles. A study among healthcare workers (by Han et al) associates acne with extended duration of wearing. …
In a clinical study of extended wearing (by Chughtai et al), 124/148 participants reported at least one problem associated with mask use including pressure on face, breathing difficulty, discomfort, trouble communicating with the patient and headache. …
Measurements of heart rate during activity (by Li et al) showed significantly lower rates with a surgical mask compared to N95. In a study (by Fikenzer et al) of healthy young male volunteers surgical masks and FFP2/N95 respirators, both had a significantly marked negative impact on pulmonary capacity (FEV, PEV and PEF) while wearing the mask (with a spirometry mask) during exercise.
The DfE document omits to mention any of these issues. It does, however, include some recognition of the negative impact on education. It mentions a survey conducted by the Department in March 2021 that found “80% of pupils reported that wearing a face covering made it difficult to communicate, and more than half felt wearing one made learning more difficult (55%)”. It also mentions a DfE survey from April 2021 that found “almost all secondary leaders and teachers (94%) thought that wearing face coverings has made communication between teachers and students more difficult, with 59% saying it has made it a lot more difficult”. It adds:
Research into the effect of mask wearing on communication has found that concealing a speaker’s lips led to lower performance, lower confidence scores, and increased perceived effort on the part of the listener. Moreover, meta-cognitive monitoring was worse when listening in these conditions compared with listening to an unmasked talker. A survey of impacts on communication with mask wearing in adults reported that face coverings negatively impact hearing, understanding, engagement, and feelings of connection with the speaker. People with hearing loss were impacted more than those without hearing loss. The inability to see facial expressions and to read lips have a major impact on speech understanding for those with hearing impairments. The worse the hearing, the greater the impact of the mask.
What about the evidence for the claims the document does make – that it is “very likely” that the transmission reduction from wearing a mask “significantly outweighs any potential for enhanced risk of transmission through inadvertent contact with a contaminated face covering” and that “this is likely to hold regardless of duration that the face covering is used”. This is what the cited SAGE document says:
There is a lack of good evidence relating to the wearing of face coverings, with very little data relating to duration of wearing. In particular we suggest that the following aspects would benefit from further research:
• Effectiveness of face coverings as a source control after longer duration wearing, including analysis of the influence of moisture on the performance of different types of face coverings.
• Analysis of the potential risk of transmission due to contaminated face coverings (during and after removal).
• Assessment of the prevalence of skin complaints associated with face coverings, including an understanding of the factors that contribute and potential mitigation.
• Analysis of user acceptability of face coverings for long duration use in different settings.
In other words, there was no good evidence on the things the DfE is claiming are “likely” or “very likely”, or on much else really.
The DfE also carried out its own analysis of the impact of masks in schools.
DfE has also undertaken initial observational analysis based on data reported by 123 secondary schools that implemented face coverings during a 2-3-week period in the autumn term 2021, compared to a sample of similar schools that did not. The preliminary findings demonstrate a potential positive effect in reducing pupil absence due to COVID-19.
What did it find? It found that COVID-19 absences fell by 0.6% more (absolute reduction) in secondary schools that used face masks compared to similar schools that did not over a 2-3-week period, which amounts to an 11% relative reduction.
In a weighted sample of secondary schools that did not use face masks, the average COVID-19 absence rate fell by 1.7 percentage points from 5.3% on October 1st 2021 to 3.6% in the third week of October. This is equivalent to a 32% decrease.
In secondary schools that did use face coverings (either face coverings only or a combination of face masks and additional communications e.g. providing more communications to parents but not introducing any further measures such as increased testing), the average COVID-19 absence rate fell by 2.3 percentage points from 5.3% on October 1st 2021 to 3.0% in the third week of October. This is equivalent to a 43% decrease.
At surface level, this suggests that COVID-19 absence fell by 0.6 percentage points more (an 11% relative difference) in secondary schools that used face masks compared to similar schools that did not over a 2-3-week period.
However, the study had numerous limitations, which made the finding a “non-statistical and unknown clinical significant” reduction, i.e., it may just be chance.
There is a level of statistical uncertainty around the result. The analysis is non-peer reviewed and with the current sample size, shows a non-statistical and unknown clinical significant reduction in infection in a short follow up period, including that a ‘false positive’ (i.e. finding that face coverings saw reduced absence when the finding is actually by chance) would emerge around 15% of the time; a 5% threshold is widely used to declare statistical significance in academic literature.
Therefore, further work should be done to extend the analysis in terms of scope: for example, looking at different statistical methodologies, capturing different and longer treatment time periods and controlling for a wider number of school and local area variables to ensure this is a consistent finding.
The statistical uncertainty around the result was such that the 95% confidence interval for the effect size included zero (note in the below the upper CI is positive).
What’s more, the control group of 1,192 schools that didn’t use masks were very different to the 123 treatment schools which did, so that the above findings only emerged after significant weighting was added to the control group schools using a process the document calls “entropy balancing”.
Exploration of the data showed that the control and treatment group had differing characteristics, so weights for the control group schools were calculated using entropy balancing.
Prior to this weighting, the non-mask schools actually had lower average absence rates throughout the study period – though the treatment schools reduced more from their higher starting point.
Prior to weighting, the mean absence rate of the control group increases across the treatment period, whereas the mean absence rate of the treatment group decreases. However, the absence rates in the control group remain lower overall than those in the treatment group.
All-in-all, not exactly robust, compelling evidence of the benefits of masking, particularly given all the well-documented harms, which the document itself either sets out or cites other documents which do.
The document at one point hints at what I suspect is the real reason masks were brought back into classrooms: “In a Unison survey of support staff, 71% said face coverings in secondary school classrooms are an important safety measure.” Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis wrote in the Times this week that: “Face masks have been a central demand of teaching unions.” Sounds vey much like politics rather than science to me. (See this recent Daily Sceptic article by Ben Irvine on the role the teaching unions played in forcing the Government to lockdown in March 2020.)
When are we going to stop harming our young people with pointless interventions to deal with a virus that poses no threat to them and let them live normal lives again?
Stop Press: Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine Carl Heneghan tells Julia Hartley-Brewer he is unimpressed by the Government’s “evidence” for masking in classrooms.
January 6, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
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.