Ontario’s former privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian has warned that the government cannot be trusted with cellphone tracking amid the pandemic. The warning came after it was revealed last week that a federal agency has been using cellphone data to track the movements of Canadians since the beginning of the pandemic.
“It concerns me enormously that this would enable the government to collect more and more information,” Ann Cavoukian told The Epoch Times.
“I do not want to [see] a trend where the government is consistently doing this and starting now. You can’t trust the government.”
Last week, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) confirmed it has been using cellphone data to analyze movements for the purposes of pandemic policies. The agency plans to continue with the data analysis until 2026, expanding it to other health issues.
“In March 2020, [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau said that tracking cell phone users was not being considered. Well, they did it, PHAC’s been doing it, and they want to do it even more,” Cavoukian said.
“[Officials] say ‘as soon as the emergency is over, we’re going to return to privacy.’ They don’t. The privacy invasive measures that are introduced during emergencies, pandemics, etc., often continue well after the emergency is over,” she added.
According to the former privacy commissioner, who served from 1997 to 2014, PHAC kept the data collection a secret because “they know people do not want their mobile devices tracked.”
Cavoukian was particularly concerned with the PHAC partnering with other unknown data providers, like the Communications Research Center (CRC).
“In partnership with CRC, PHAC has been producing report summaries to look at how movement trends of the Canadian population have changed over the course of the pandemic, including identifying new patterns to help direct public health messaging, planning and policy development,” PHAC said in a statement to The Epoch Times.
The agency insisted that it did not “receive or collect any individual mobility data” and that it has not stored or acquired individual level data.
On December 16, the PHAC posted a Research for Proposal for a contractor that could “provide it with a steady flow de-identified cell phone data,” reported The Epoch Times.
In a statement, the agency said it “requires access to cell-tower/operator location data that is secure, processed, and timely in addition to being adequately vetted for security, legal, privacy and transparency considerations to assist in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
According to Cavoukian the language in the RFP “reflects an intention to collect this data and retain it.”
She is concerned that the de-identification of data could be done so poorly that it could easily be re-identified.
“At the very least, the Privacy Commissioner’s Office should be all over this, and saying we need to examine exactly what measures you introduced to do this and how you’re going to protect privacy and de-identify data such that it cannot be re-identified,” she said.
“Examine this from end to end. Look under the hood.”
CLIMATE change and coronavirus lockdown policies have diametrically opposite approaches to valuing life in the present and the future, yet they are both enthusiastically endorsed by state bureaucracies around the world, not least in the United Kingdom. Have they something in common in spite of their apparent differences?
Vaccines to protect against Covid-19 have not apparently excused the Prime Minister from his perceived obligation to put most of the population under what is little better than house arrest at the appearance of any variant of the present virus, and it seems inevitable that the British government, acting as a Committee of Public Safety, will immediately resort to this policy in the case of future pandemics. Many of us are struggling to understand how this extraordinarily oppressive state of affairs has come about, and so quickly, and with so little real resistance. Comparison with another risk management policy, climate change mitigation, sheds a little, not very reassuring, light on the matter. Superficially different in character, these two contrasted policies share a common answer to the ever-relevant question, Cui bono? But let us start with the differences.
Climate change policy applies little or no discount to the interests of the infinite future, and so as a consequence gives the interests of the present little or no weight. Those currently alive are asked to make unlimited sacrifices to save an infinitely distant future generation.
Lockdown policy applies a zero discount to a small selection of present interests and thus attempts to prevent death, with only scant regard for the long-term societal damage incurred. The interests of the future are heavily discounted and thus sacrificed to preserve a subsection of the present whose interests are ostensibly given overwhelming privilege.
Neither of these policies is consistent with the way that human beings in actual behavioural fact value their own lives and the lives of others in the present and in the future. This is puzzling since it is not particularly difficult to determine what human beings are maximising through their varied behaviour.
Banal though it may seem, we have no evidence that humans are anything more than straightforward reproductive organisms that value their own lives insofar as they gather resources and secure their reproduction. They do not maximise their individual longevity or their individual hedonic experience, both of which are proxies and not ultimate ends. The only final goal that we can infer from evident human behaviour is the securing of reproduction, bearing in mind that this is achieved through the extended family as well as immediate offspring. This behavioural purpose is so far from transcendent that it will seem to many hardly worthy of the name, but observation has so far indicated no other human goal.
Of course, human behaviour is characterised by balanced self-sacrifice in the interests of offspring, but climate and lockdown policies require unbalanced sacrifices of a kind that men and women do not as a matter of behavioural record spontaneously offer. The policies run against the psychological grain.
Consider the details. The coronavirus lockdown is intended to save human life. But the virus does not, apparently, threaten the young, only the very old who are post-reproductive and in most cases contributing little or perhaps nothing to the wellbeing of their nevertheless much-loved children and grandchildren.
The sacrifice is predominantly required of the young and the active who are still gathering resources to produce and rear families. But lockdowns do indeed harm the life’s work of the old by putting their continued personal existence before the interests of their offspring and extended families, a preference that the old themselves would never express.
Thus, coronavirus lockdown policy frustrates the bedrock of altruism underlying the family, and also burdens the old, against their will, with a terrible responsibility.
Climate policy tends in a different direction. The interests of the infinite future are put before those of everyone or nearly everyone at present living. Great sacrifices must be made in the short run to reduce emissions and protect populations as yet unborn. This is, once again, a decision that actual men and women would never spontaneously make, for if the interests of the present are not sufficiently well served there can be no future generations. Climate preachers urge their congregations to ‘think of the kids’ and not themselves, but the advice is both absurd and redundant. Parents care for their families but must first care for themselves. The pelican certainly tears its breast to feed its young, but it does not start by cutting its own throat.
The rhetoric of climate policy describes present generations as selfish hedonic maximisers who must be compelled to relegate their own experiential hunger to protect the interests of future generations. But, as we have seen, this is false and needless; living generations are already engaged in a balancing of interests to produce and secure the existence of future individuals, far into the future, and they need no pressure from climate policy to think in this selfless way. Indeed, extreme climate policy, and at present we have no other for Net Zero comes in only one flavour, is harmful to the interests of future generations as well as those living because it frustrates precisely those current interests that must be satisfied if there is to be a future generation of human beings.
Both lockdown and climate policies, therefore, suffer from an ostensibly uncompromising and absolutist morality which demands that equal value is put on all human lives regardless of their position in the reproductive trajectory. As a matter of real-world fact, this runs counter to the interests of all parties involved, and, unsurprisingly, is not how men and women behave in practice. Parents must satisfy enough of their own requirements to reproduce and care for their families, but they will not absolutely sacrifice the interests of their descendants to preserve their own lives. The pelican, we have noted, will not cut its own throat, yet, mythically speaking, it most certainly does tear its own breast curtailing its hedonic satisfactions and shortening its life in order to rear its young.
Nonetheless, and contrary to observation, lockdown policy must presume that mature human beings would wish to preserve their individual lives at the cost of sacrificing the future of their offspring, which in fact they do not and would never do.
Climate policy, on the other hand, claims that the living will not willingly sacrifice themselves for a future generation, which as a matter of routine fact they do, though in a necessarily pragmatic way which is incompatible with the extreme action required by the currently predominant low-carbon policies.
Climate mitigation and lockdown policies are not only inconsistent with human wishes and actual behaviour, but they are clearly inconsistent with one another; lockdown policy insisting on the absolute value of some present lives, and climate policy insisting on the absolute value of all future lives. In addition, climate policy suffers from an internal flaw: it threatens future lives by leaving the present unable to raise a viable generation with a secure societal future.
These policies are obviously errors, but are they pure errors, random walks in possibility space that have strayed quite accidentally from the path of practicality? One has to allow that this is a possibility; delusions and mistakes do occur even in minds of the finest quality, and it is possible that both these faulty policies arise from a very widely distributed popular misconception or from an honest administrative error.
But a population-wide delusion does not seem likely. Humans are extremely good at perceiving and acting on their own interest, and they rarely go down the wrong path for long. To err is certainly human; but so is learning from error. A population-wide mistake that endures for long periods has never been observed. Some peoples have been said to try every other available course before doing the right thing, but the joke has its laugh because they do eventually find their way back to the path. Populations may indeed be destroyed by the weight of circumstances, but not by their errors; they do the best they can in the most miserable and constrained of conditions. One thinks of the desperate jeopardy of the Melians.
Pure errors, then, are quickly corrected, but climate policy, at least, has been with us in its present form for some 20 years, and in spite of manifest failures and vast costs appears to be insusceptible to criticism, even when extremely well aimed. It is therefore unlikely to be a pure population-wide error. Some other force accounts for its survival. We cannot be certain if this is also true of lockdown policies, since these are not even two years old, but they are already showing signs of extreme resilience in the face of informed opposition and public resistance. Lockdown may not be a pure populational error either. Perhaps this very ill wind blows good to someone.
If these policies are not pseudoxia epidemica, perhaps they are administrative errors, arising from a deeply rooted governmental misconception? That is not unlikely; civil servants are people and people make mistakes; but unlike people outside the chalk circle of the state apparatus, civil servants are very slow to learn from their mistakes because they are insulated from the consequences of failure. But if this were the case for climate and lockdown policies one might expect them both to possess or to flow from similar logical structures, a departmental or cross-departmental ‘view’ on societal emergencies for example. But as been argued above this does not appear to be true. Indeed, these policies approach discounting in diametrically opposing and contradictory ways, one privileging the present and the other privileging the future. They possess different logical foundations.
It would appear, then, that these policies are not based on pure errors. In which case they must be impure, and instead serve some more or less concealed interest. But whose interest? The ultimate beneficiaries are hardly likely to raise their hands when asked, and they may not even be aware of their involvement. As a little candid introspection will begin to dimly perceive, we all hold some of our vested self-interest in blind and frequently offshore trusts.
But the situation is not hopeless. We can confidently identify the way harm is distributed, and in doing so we will arrive at a common feature in the policies that points us in the direction of those who probably benefit.
Both lockdown and climate policies are to the disadvantage of people who are vigorous, active and present. In the case of lockdown policies, they directly harm anyone not old. Furthermore, they even harm the interests of the old indirectly by compromising the future wellbeing of their offspring and extended families. Climate policies harm anyone alive, with benefits being imagined for the abstract, absent, unborn.
In other words, both policies appear to harm people living, while pretending to act on behalf of a weak and voiceless population, the very old and the as yet unborn.
Thus, at a gross level these policies appear to be universally harmful. But a moment’s reflection will show that the net effect is different. Both sets of policies frustrate the free wishes of a population that seeks to secure its own reproduction through balanced self-sacrifice, and the frustration of such firmly held wishes requires coercive regulation and enforcement, activities that can be delivered only with the sanction of state violence and through the offices of secure and securely remunerated positions within the state and its associated clients. The ultimate net beneficiaries of both lockdown policies and climate policies are state employees and state contractors.
Government policies with contradictory approaches to present and future can occur simultaneously because their ultimate end, the reason that they are preferred over other policies, is to provide plausible justification for coercive intrusion into the lives of the vigorous population. The policies efficiently disarm criticism by claiming to act on behalf of parties that are practically unable to disown and reject the ‘help’ offered to them; the old because they are infirm, and the unborn because they are absent. Because these parties lie at opposite ends of the life-cycle, in the process of justification those responsible for state policy have been compelled to adopt two incompatible discounting models in their rhetoric. The future is seen in different ways because the beating of different dogs calls for different varieties of stick.
But it is the hand wielding those sticks that interests us. The historical record provides ample evidence, quite apart from our own recent experience, to suggest that the administrative opportunities of large societies will create a clerisy which comes to have strong interests that can be in deep and considerable conflict with the wishes of the population it claims to serve. This divergence is on occasion betrayed by the character of the altruism, the public interest, called for by policies such as the public health measures addressing the coronavirus or the emissions reduction strategy employed to mitigate climate change.
This suggests a political litmus test. If any public interest policy is inconsistent with the balanced self-sacrifice of parents, then it is almost certainly exploiting the population to serve the administration and its clients. History suggests that this will not be a stable situation. All normative discounting models, such as those employed explicitly by Lord Stern in his notorious climate review, and implicitly in the current lockdown policies, should be firmly rejected as politically dangerous. Naturalistic models derived from the observed behaviour of the population are to be preferred on all occasions.
And better still, let us dispense with discounting models altogether except as academic descriptive and predictive tools. A free society can confidently rely on the spontaneous judgment of men and women correctly to value the future and the present, themselves and each other, as their intuitions direct them in the expression of familial love and friendship. The outcome will be qualified self-sacrifice and a prosperous society with as long a future as fate permits.
As we come to the end of the second year in Covidia, I reflect on just how much the instigators of the entire scam have managed to reshape reality in an amazingly short timeframe, such that what was considered normal 12 months ago is now considered abnormal, and what was considered abnormal 12 months ago is now seen as normal.
For instance, had one predicted 12 months ago that after “vaccinating” the elderly and those considered vulnerable, which was the “route back to freedom”, the Johnson Regime and countless others around the world would:
Proceed to push the injection onto all adults
Move on to getting it into children
Make thousands jobless who do not wish to partake in the experiment
Begin the introduction of Vaccine Passports
Announce that the allegedly 95% effective products wane so quickly they’ll need to be taken every few months
Start talking about the possibility of mandatory jabs
Reintroduce the restrictions that these injections were supposed to do away with
… why such a person would have been called a Conspiracy Nut. Yet a year later the same person is called a Conspiracy Nut for opposing these very things they got called a Conspiracy Nut for predicting, but which are now reality.
There is something horribly ironic, and also deeply chilling about this. For it shows not only how easily manipulated so many people are, but also just how easy it has been for the Covidian Regimes to reshape reality such that millions have come to accept as normal the very things they would have dismissed just months earlier as the product of deranged minds.
The last two years has felt like people are living in parallel universes, so much so that it’s almost tempting to wonder whether Zuckerberg’s hideous Metaverse is already a thing, with millions having unwittingly entered it in early 2020 without noticing.
In the Metaverse, SARS-CoV-2 is a new Black Death that kills indiscriminately no matter what age. In the real world, it is a virus that has a 99.9% Survivability Rate, and there are effective early treatments available to the 0.1% for whom it might potentially be lethal.
In the Metaverse, Lockdowns of healthy people are how we’ve always dealt with outbreaks of transmissible illnesses. In the real world, other than a hastily ended five-day trial in Mexico during the 2009 Swine Flu outbreak, the quarantining of the healthy has never been done before the Chinese Communist Party implemented it in early 2020, to be copied all over the world by Governments ignoring their own long existing pandemic preparedness plans.
In the Metaverse, masks are about loving your neighbour because wearing them stops you passing on the virus you don’t have to others. In the real world, masks do not and cannot stop viral transmission, and thus they are a not a health aid, but a political and psychological tool of subjugation and dehumanisation, designed to humiliate and perpetuate fear.
In the Metaverse, a public health crisis caused by a virus has zero medical advice given out to people, but just a relentless barrage of talk about cases, hospitalisations and deaths, with all knowledge of effective early treatments ruthlessly suppressed. In the real world, a public health crisis caused by a virus would see Governments, health officials, and doctors recommending cheap and effective ways of boosting one’s immune system, such as Vitamin C and D, Zinc, Quercetin, sunshine and plenty of exercise and fresh air.
In the Metaverse, people who aren’t ill can spread the illness they don’t have, and so must take a test which cannot diagnose illness and which gives huge numbers of false positives, after which they must stay in their house for a prolonged period to stop the virus they don’t have from spreading. In the real world, if you’re well, you go about your daily life; if you have what are called “symptoms”, you stay home and rest.
In the Metaverse, the injection of billions of lipid nanoparticles containing mRNA, which has never been injected into people before, which tricks the cells into allowing it to enter, which then causes billions of cytotoxins to be produced in cells throughout every organ, and for which the manufacturers have indemnity but no proper safety data, is hailed as a saviour. In the real world, this is the most dangerous, reckless medical experiment ever performed on masses of people without their knowledge of what they are being given, and the long-term consequences could be unimaginably disastrous, as Professor Sucharit Bhakdi explains in this horrifying warning.
In the Metaverse, a product which doesn’t prevent infection, doesn’t provide immunity, and which requires top-ups every three months, is a vaccine, even if it needs the dictionary definition of what a vaccine is to be changed to accommodate it. In the real world, the Groucho Marx rule about ducks applies — if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Thus if it doesn’t stop infection, doesn’t provide immunity, and wanes after 10 weeks, then it probably isn’t a vaccine.
In the Metaverse, willfully going along with abnormal, illegitimate and authoritarian rules & behaviours is the way back to normality and freedom. In the real world, willfully going along with abnormal, illegitimate and authoritarian rules & behaviours is about conditioning us to accept abnormality, the end of a law based society, and the long term loss of freedom.
In the Metaverse, bringing in Vaccine Passports for nightclubs and other large venues is about keeping people safe, and of course won’t be extended to other venues. In the real world, Vaccine Passports are a Trojan Horse, firstly to be extended into other venues of much smaller size (as has been the case in many European countries), but ultimately to facilitate the creation of a Digital ID Social Credit Hellhole where your every move and transaction can be tracked, you have credits not money, and freedom as we knew it is a thing of the past.
In the Metaverse, people who refuse to submit to the mass medical experiment only have themselves to blame if they find themselves excluded by law from entering certain venues, doing certain jobs, buying certain goods, and even being able to avail themselves of the basic necessities of life. In the real world, this unscientific, unholy, sinister apartheid system shows that we are edging eerily close to repeating the ugliness and depravity of certain 20th century regimes that we smugly told ourselves we were not capable of repeating, due to our apparent goodness.
It is baffling that people can view what’s going on so differently, but I would point out that all the views in the real world are derived from facts, data, reason, logic and historical examples, whereas all the views in the Metaverse are taken from Government and media propaganda.
One of the exasperating things in dealing with this is that whilst there are an endless potential number of lies that can be told, there is only one truth. And what the Government and media are very skillful at doing is layering lies upon lies upon lies, such that whilst the critical thinkers and data analysts are busy trying to debunk lie number one, lies number two, three, four and following are already being laid on that foundation so that by the time the original lie has been shown to be false, things have moved on and hardly anyone can remember, let alone care about the original claim.
However, the good news is that this is also the Achilles Heel of the Globalist’s narrative. Firstly, the more lies that are told, the harder it is to sustain the story because it can only be kept going by more lies, each of which tends to become increasingly blatant and absurd, such that even those who have been slumbering for two years begin to stir. For instance, if you try to assure the huge numbers of people that have had adverse events from the injection, or who know others that have suffered, that they must get the next one and it’s perfectly safe, clearly you are going to have your work cut out as stark reality highlights the lie in what is being told.
But the other part of this Achilles Heel is this: The Truth will win because The Truth must win. It is The Truth. It cannot not win. Attempting to suppress it is like trying to hold a cork under water. It will always be wanting to get to the surface, and as soon as you tire of holding it and release your grip, that’s what it will do. And so although these lies will continue, and although they will appear to prevail for some time to come, there is coming a time when they will be defeated because The Truth, not lies, is the ultimate reality:
“Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.” (Proverbs 12:19)
As we look forward to 2022, although we do not know the details of what is to come, because it is very clear that the goal of the Covidian Regimes is to get everybody injected with their mRNA witches’ brew over and over again by carrot or by stick, by hook or by crook, we can be absolutely sure there will be many more lies, many more difficulties, and much more wickedness. Yet we can also be equally sure that these lies will ultimately be defeated, because he who is The Truth (John 14:6) is guaranteed the victory (Revelation 17:14), and he will suffer their lies only so far, until such time as he destroys their unholy, totalitarian, anti-human agenda. There will be a Reckoning. Just make sure that you are on the right side when it comes.
‘There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.’ George Orwell: 1984
COVID has shattered our lives and our faith in a great many things. Social psychologist Roy Baumeister warns in Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty that ‘Evil usually enters the world unrecognised by the people who open the door and let it in.’
Regardless of their original motives, it must be plain to our leaders by now that the impact of their actions is evil. Governments the world over have contrived to weaken the independence and strength of individual minds by forcing people to live in a perpetual state of propaganda-induced fear by the imposition of illiberal and capricious rules.
Do not be deceived by the fake normality around you – this is war. A putsch so outrageous, so duplicitous and of such a scale that it surpasses anything attempted before. There is no lie too small, and no betrayal too large, that has not been used to further the elite vision of the ‘New Normal’.
Let’s remember before Covid, a time when we were being warned of the catastrophic dangers of leaving the EU and the MSM was characterising Brexit as a collective suicidal act committed by xenophobic proles given too much licence, harking back to a lost age of empire.
Elites were badly shaken, and people naïve to believe that their democratic decision would go unpunished. We had exhibited wrong-thinking, economic illiteracy and, importantly, set a dangerous precedent. Our future, as a sovereign nation, was consequently crushed, and we find ourselves in thrall to globalist powers.
Before history is erased, we should set down some truths. On Monday, March 9, 2020 the World Health Organisation reported that cases of a ‘novel’ virus [patents applied for the previous year] had topped one hundred thousand worldwide. The virus origin was unclear, most likely manufactured, a bioweapon, but certainly not to be named Wuhan, for that would be racist.
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the WHO, was reticent about classifying the outbreak as a global pandemic, saying: ‘This is a respiratory pathogen that is capable of community transmission, but which can be contained with the right measures.’
The ‘right measures’ which were adopted almost universally are the oppression and lockdowns beloved by the Communist government of China. The separation of people into the compliant and the non-compliant – the ‘good collectivist’ from the bad. The globalist elite saw a pandemic as their opportunity for the Great Reset.
SARS‐CoV‐2 is the virus identified as causing Covid-19. Last year the US Centers for Disease Control estimated its mortality rate at 0.25 to 3 per cent of those who became ill with it. The true Covid mortality rate is disputed, due in no small measure to the ubiquitous use of ‘scientifically meaningless’ PCR tests, an unprecedented conflation of ‘case’ numbers with actual illnesses, and changes in how causes of death are attributed.
Post-mortems were restricted and most deaths certified as Covid – even if, as in care homes, there had been no examination or formal diagnosis by a doctor and residents had multiple co-morbidities.
Matt Hancock ditched the UK’s well-established pandemic plans to shelter and protect the vulnerable and permit the healthy to continue their lives. The government then abdicated public health decisions to a group of unelected ‘experts’ misnamed Sage; the majority of its members have ties to Big Pharma.
The collective brain that is Sage promoted only one solution: vaccines. Quickly repurposed with taxpayer funds, given emergency authorisation and indemnity from liability for harm; the gene therapies sold to patsies everywhere. Clinicians proposing alternatives found themselves denigrated then silenced, and the use of cheap, proven interventions such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine blocked: the consequence, thousands of avoidable deaths.
Sage is a tyrant: infallible, like Anthony Fauci. Both have the hubris to declare they are ‘the science.’ High-handed and broaching no dissent, it seeks, asMax Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook did, power over the masses, to ‘Kiss ’em one day and kick ’em the next.’ But, as Kipling said, ‘Power without responsibility [is] the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.’
‘Our National Health Service’ was an early casualty – repurposed into a machine unresponsive to anything but Covid and the mass distribution of gene therapies as vaccines. These, especially the mRNA formulae, do not meet any previous definition of a vaccine, and offer little protection or immunity from the virus. They look increasingly like ‘elaborately engineered toxins’.
Resultant harms are widespread and known to be under-reported. Those who complied, out of fear or a false sense of communitarianism, now find themselves officially unvaccinated and ‘eligible’ for new regular boosters: betrayed ad infinitum for base profit.
Do not be afraid, our masters tell us, this is not coercion, but any who do not comply will be separated out and denied their freedom. ‘Democratic’ states are stigmatising healthy people as unclean and wicked, dangerous to the safety of us all; detention camps are already built.
World leaders’ actions are ‘not about restricting people’s rights’; there is no assault on liberty but only necessary action ‘for the Common Good’ – the collective benefit – the calling card of totalitarian rule.
We have become a diminished little nation, fearful and cowed, mesmerised by Newspeak and content to believe that government cares for our wellbeing. It does not, nor does Big Pharma, the ‘Guardians’ of the World Economic Forum, or billionaires flying around in private jets warning that we must all prepare for the next global emergency.
Re-educated, we now understand that freedom is whatever the Covidocracy says it is. Democracy is a good thing, provided you vote for the right people. Health is what a PCR test shows, experimental gene therapies are vaccines; vaccines do not prevent you from getting a disease or passing it on; consent is doing what you are told; bodily integrity applies only to abortion; all flu is Covid, but not all Covid is flu; and the National Health Service is nothing of the kind.
Science is whatever Gates and Schwab are investing in (hint – common cold and smallpox vaccines, synthetic ‘meat’ and biometric nano chips). A man is a woman if he says so, and 2+2 does indeed, make 5.
JERUSALEM – Israeli occupation authorities demolished 69 homes belonging to Palestinians in the East Jerusalem town of Silwan, and issued 172 other home demolition orders during the year 2021.
Fakhri Abu Diab, the member of the Defense of Silwan Land Committee, said the Israeli municipality of West Jerusalem, and its Planning and Building Committee, delivered during the year 2021, 172 demolition orders against Palestinian homes in Silwan, noting that 150 other homes are threatened with demolition under the Israeli Kaminitz Law; which means that the occupation municipality can demolish it at any moment.
He said that the occupation demolished 69 houses in the town of Silwan in 2021, and displaced 342 Jerusalemites; 66% of whom are children and minors. The occupation during the year 2021 filed indictments against 90 houses and fined their owners 4,370,000 Shekels under the pretext of the so-called illegal construction, he added.
The number of demolition orders against homes and structures in Silwan has reached 7800 orders since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, he added.
The implementation of the demolition and eviction orders will leave 10,000 Jerusalemites threatened with displacement and ethnic cleansing.
He noted that settlers and Israel’s ‘Nature Authority’ confiscated 2015 dunums of land during the year 2021.
Israeli Occupation Forces stood by as settlers opened fire on Palestinian homes in the occupied East Al-Quds neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah.
According to a Wafa News Agency correspondent, the soldiers also detained a 13-year-old Palestinian boy from the flashpoint neighbourhood.
More than five hundred Palestinians living in twenty eight houses in the neighbourhood are facing threats of forced expulsion at the hands of settlement associations, backed by the Israeli government and its judiciary system, which recently issued a decision to displace seven families.
Jewish settler groups claim the homes were built on land owned by Jews before 1948, claims which official Jordanian and UN documents refute.
The United Nations Special Coordinator for the peace process in the Middle East, Tor Wennesland, last week, called on Israel “to cease the advancement of all settlement activities immediately,” describing the move as a “flagrant violation of UN resolutions.”
Referring to the evictions carried out against Palestinian families in the Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan neighbourhoods of occupied East Jerusalem, at a UN Security Council briefing, Wennesland called on the occupation authorities “to end the displacement and eviction of Palestinians, while enabling them to build legally and address their development need.”
The UN official also expressed his “continued concern” over the “deteriorating security situation in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
Extremist Israeli settlers’ violence against Palestinians and their property is routine in the West Bank and is rarely prosecuted by the Israeli authorities.
They often coordinate their raids and assaults against the Palestinians with Israeli Occupation Forces, who provide them with cover and protection.
The coming cold of winter is being paired with “green-inspired” energy policies that have created higher energy prices and fuel shortages.
Historically, winters have been big killers. But centuries of innovation made us more resilient to the cold as we fully utilized the naturally available fossil fuels to generate heat and electricity. However, today these modern advantages are being sacrificed at the altar of climate change in exchange for the purported magic of wind, solar and batteries.
Though the pandemic-led economic recovery has contributed to a surge in energy demand, the real reason for shortages and price hikes is the anti-fossil fuel policies of political leaders.
In the U.S., motorists have faced rising gas prices as President Joe Biden has suffered dropping approval ratings in polls. The president first blamed OPEC for the price hike and then pleaded to the same OPEC to increase production. International oil prices are inelastic, meaning they closely follow the rise and fall of demand. It should be no surprise that fuel costs rose as a result of Biden’s restraint on all things fossil.
As soon as Biden became president, he cancelled the Keystone pipeline, which would have delivered high quality oil from friendly Canadian neighbors. The president also brought in regulations that made drilling for oil more difficult, rendering the U.S. more dependent on Middle East producers.
As a stop-gap measure Biden has asked U.S. companies to produce more oil and for strategic reserves to be used. Nonetheless, the effects of his policies will be felt in the coming months and years. Americans may have to deal with energy insecurity for the next three years as Biden is determined to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.
In addition, there is a looming crisis in the power sector across the globe, courtesy the obsession with so-called renewables — also known as unreliables. Many places — like Colorado, Texas, Germany, and the U.K — are staring at the possibility of power blackouts. The situation is predominantly driven by an overreliance on renewable energy sources, which are intermittent year-round and cannot supply on-demand base load during peak hours.
In the modern world, blackouts result in extensive disruption to life as almost all sectors are power-dependent. An increased interest in electric vehicles could aggravate the problem with a higher demand for electricity.
In developing nations, energy disruption has the potential for more dire, life-and-death circumstances for millions of poor people in Africa, Asia, and South America. Both India and China faced a severe coal shortage in 2021, which was partly the result of diverting a lot of public funds, time, and energy to creating wind and solar resources. The countries’ large-scale renewable installations could not provide on-demand electricity. Seventeen provinces in China experienced severe blackouts, forcing the closure of factories and offices, which resulted in unemployment among the poorest.
These episodes of energy shortages in Asia could serve as a sobering warning to other countries. The future of energy security will be dependent on the policies adopted, and it doesn’t look very good at this point.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.
Last month, yet another letter had to be sent to the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and the New York State Education Department (NYSED) calling out their failure to provide any proof to dispute extremely important and revealing data reflecting that unvaccinated children have far better health outcomes than vaccinated children.
Soon after that letter was sent, a new Acting Commissioner of NYSDOH was appointed and so a letter was also sent to Dr. Mary Bassett, welcoming her to her new role and asking that she provide proof disputing these findings.
As explained to Dr. Bassett through the historical correspondence detailing the issue, on May 21, 2021, the attorneys that regularly represent ICAN sent a demand letter on behalf of a group comprising all the families of unvaccinated children in four contiguous school districts in New York. The demand explained that there is an abundance of evidence to support that unvaccinated children have better health outcomes than vaccinated children and shared the following results for the children in the four school districts:
Although not shocking to ICAN, these results should elicit a reaction from and a response by public health authorities and an education department which mandates vaccines. Instead, NYSED chose to completely ignore these findings and sent an inadequate, half-page response almost a full month later.
On August 11, 2021, a response letter was sent to NYSDOH pointing out the glaring omission from the NYSDOH’s response of even a shred of evidence to support that the growing rate and list of chronic diseases and disabilities affecting children are not caused by vaccination. NYSDOH was therefore warned that, absent receipt of this proof, the attorneys have been directed to commence an action challenging the school immunization requirements for kindergarten through the twelfth grade. Still no proof has been provided by the NYSDOH.
One must continue to wonder whether there is any data that could be submitted to these public health agencies that will change their unwavering belief in and allegiance to vaccines. And aren’t they troubled by the fact that they cannot produce any evidence to support their claims? Let’s see if the new Acting Commissioner provides any better response than her predecessor.
According to President Biden, “a winter of death” awaits anyone who rejects the experimental COVID jab which, by the way, has been consistently shown to do far more harm than good.
A December 16, 2021, White House statement reads: “For the unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death. For themselves, their family and the hospital they’ll soon overwhelm.” That exact sentence was reiterated the next day by COVID-19 response coordinator Jeff Zients during a virtual press conference.
Backlash Over Biden’s Callousness
As reported by MSN’s Claire Goforth,1 the “prediction” didn’t go over well with the public. “Most people hate it. They feel it’s callous and cruel,” Goforth said, quoting a number of Twitter responses, including one from John D. Davidson:
“If you wanted to make half the country hate the administration and resist its edicts and advice, it would be hard to come up with a better strategy than this.”
A Twitter user by the name Martyr Made noted, “The aggressive Us/Them language in this White House message is insane.”2 Olivia Nuzzi, a Washington, D.C., reporter for New York Magazine tweeted, “Who is this for? Unvaccinated Americans are not going to be persuaded by messaging like this.”3
White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain defended Biden saying “we have a duty to warn people what they are facing if unvaccinated.”4 But from my perspective, the rub is that they continue to pretend that lies are truth and truth is lies. Everything is upside-down, and many are rejecting this “winter of woe” message for the simple fact that they know the opposite is true.
If we are to go by actual science and data, the warning Biden issued should have gone out to the vaccinated, because everything points to the double and triple jabbed being at increased risk for infection, especially with the Omicron variant.
One reason for this is because the COVID jab reprograms your innate and adaptive immune systems, causing immune depletion.5 Data also show that the more heavily “vaccinated” a population is, the higher the case rate gets.6 And even this fails to account for the massive increase risk of dying from the jab or becoming permanently disabled, as many jabbed millions have already suffered.
Former WHO Adviser Tells Vaccinated to Quarantine Over Winter
Back in August 2021, the U.K. Column interviewed professor Christian Perronne, a French infectious disease expert, long-time vaccine policy chief and former vice president of the World Health Organization’s European Advisory Group, who issued the opposite — and likely far more accurate — warning:7
“Vaccinated people are at risk of the new variants … It’s been proven in different countries, so vaccinated people should be put in quarantine and should be isolated from society. Unvaccinated people are not dangerous; vaccinated people are dangerous to others.
It’s proven in Israel now. I’m in contact with many physicians in Israel. They’re having big problems now; severe cases in hospitals are among vaccinated people. And in the UK also, you had a larger vaccination program and also there are problems.”
Not surprisingly, despite impeccable credentials, Peronne has been censored and shunned for his contrarian views on COVID countermeasures, the COVID gene transfer shots in particular. During his interview, he didn’t mince words, referring to the European COVID-19 policy as “completely stupid.”
Are Prison Camps for the Unjabbed Next?
As predicted, we are rapidly approaching a time when the unvaccinated might be imprisoned for no other reason than their refusal of an experimental gene transfer injection. In early January 2021, a New York bill (A416) was introduced that would give the governor and his or her delegates the power to remove and/or indefinitely detain anyone suspected of being a threat to public health.
Detainees would be kept in a “medical facility or other appropriate facility” — in other words, a medical prison camp — for a maximum of 60 days, although a court could extend the detention in 90-day increments, indefinitely. As reported by Reason :8
“The bill’s language is noticeably vague in defining the parameters around disease type, leaving the government wide latitude in conducting its risk analysis … The legislation was originally introduced during the 2015-16 session in response to the Ebola virus … Though [SARS-CoV-2] is a serious virus, it is also no Ebola, which carries an average case fatality rate of 50%, with some outbreaks reaching as high as 90% …
[T]he vagueness of its approach gives the state a great deal of discretion in locking people up who might have some sort of unnamed illness, as well as people who merely interacted with someone who might have that illness.”
The bill comes up for a vote in the New York Senate and Assembly sometime in the next legislative session, which begins January 5, 2022.9 In addition to indefinite detention for poorly specified reasons, the bill would “require an individual who has been exposed to or infected by a contagious disease to complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination.”
In other words, this bill legalizes the forced vaccination of anyone who is detained under the mere suspicion of being infected with something or having been in close proximity to someone suspected of being infected. As reported by Rights and Freedoms :10
“There is no explicit reference to what types of contagious diseases qualify a person to be removed from public life, detained in a facility, and forced into medical treatment and vaccination. Anyone can technically be held in isolation until they are deemed non-contagious, which would also raise questions over whether those carrying HIV/AIDS could be released back into society.
The bill has received an overwhelmingly negative response on the NY Senate website.11 Commenters have stated that, ‘this is disturbing and sets up a terrible precedent for future law. The governor can basically detain whoever [he/she] likes on the basis of scanty evidence.
This is un-American. It reminiscent of the Soviet Union locking up political opponents on the basis that they were ‘mentally unstable.’ We CANNOT allow this in our state.’ ‘This is a violation of fundamental human rights. The government should be working for the people, not locking them up without cause.’”
Australia Among the First to Test Medical Imprisonment Model
If you think being tossed into a prison camp without cause or recourse is impossible — after all, this is the United States of America, the land of the free, home of the brave — think again. Australia, another shining star of democracy, has backslidden into totalitarianism at a speed that has everyone’s head spinning.
The Australian government has gone full speed ahead, building a massive COVID quarantine camp, complete with barbed wire fences, guards and video surveillance. Once you’re in, you can’t just waltz out whenever you want to. In the video above, Hayley Hodgson describes what it was like to be detained and transferred to a COVID internment camp, even though she wasn’t sick.
Video surveillance placed her with a friend who had tested positive. They ran her license plate to retrieve her address and showed up at her house, telling her she had to quarantine. Even if you test negative, you still have to spend 14 days in a quarantine camp if you’ve been in close contact with someone who has tested positive. If you refuse, you’re fined $5,000 and forcibly taken there by police anyway.
“You feel like you’re in prison … It’s inhumane what they’re doing,” she says. “You are so small. They just overpower you. You’re literally nothing. It’s like, ‘You do what we say, or … we’ll lock you up for longer.’”
If someone can threaten to extend your stay in this “health hotel,” just what kind of medicine are we dealing with? Clearly, this is a prison model, not a health care model. When have you ever been in a hospital and the nurse tells you, “If you don’t eat your pudding, we’re keeping you here another three months”?
Life in the Biosecurity State
Based on Hodgson’s description of the camp, you don’t get much in terms of medical attention. One shudders to think what would happen to someone who actually had a severe case of COVID in there. Will hazmat suit-equipped police drop you at your room and then you don’t see them again unless you’re caught breaking some rule?
Food is delivered and dropped outside your door once a day. Each room has a 2×2 meter deck where you can go, but if you step outside your room or designated outdoor area without a mask, you’re fined $5,000. She was also told that additional infractions would result in her stay being extended past the 14 days — even though she wasn’t sick and there was no reason to keep her there in the first place.
“You’re literally treated like a prisoner in there,” she says. If you’re triple jabbed and think that means you’ll never see the inside of one of these prisons, think again. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve been double or triple jabbed.
If you’re found to have been in close contact with someone who tests positive, in you go. And there’s no legal process you can turn to for help if you disagree with the decree to quarantine. During her stay, three teenagers — all of whom had tested negative — managed to escape the camp. The manhunt that ensued is further evidence that we’re dealing with a prison model and nothing else.
US Has Hundreds of Ready-Made Prison Camps
While Australia is building its second camp, the U.S. already has 800 FEMA camps ready for action. As reported by AMG News :12
“FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations … The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby.
The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.”
The article goes on to list the many executive orders that can work together to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, effectively allowing government to seize control over all aspects of life, from food production and transportation to communications and health care functions.
There’s even an executive order that allows the government to mobilize civilians into “work brigades” to carry out whatever functions are deemed necessary, and one that allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate entire communities. To find the FEMA camp nearest you, check out the state listings in the AMG News article.13 Most states have three or more.
Interpret the Media Narrative — They Want Civil War
If you’ve been paying attention over the past couple of years, you may have noticed that you can almost always predict what the next phase of the narrative is going to be. They “advertise” or pave the way for the evolving narrative by putting out articles slanted in a given direction.
Based on recent headlines, I suspect “the powers that be” are hoping to incite a civil war. “CIA Advisor: US Is ‘Closer to Civil War’ Than Thought Possible,” the Daily Mail claims.14 “We’re Edging Closer to Civil War,” an opinion columnist at The New York Times declares.15 “US Closer to Civil War Than Most Would Like to Believe, New Book Says,” announces The Guardian.16
According to Dr. Barbara Walter, a political science professor who serves on the Political Instability Task Force, the U.S. meets several criteria that historically have served as indicators that an “open insurgency” may be imminent. In her book, “How Civil Wars Start,” she writes:17
“No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war. If you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely. And what you would find is that the United States … has entered very dangerous territory.”
Government Has Designated the Enemy, and It’s Us
The problem here is that while authoritarian politicians keep paying lip service to “democracy,” their own actions are anything but. Just who is undermining democracy? If you believe the news and CIA advisers, it’s the people who want the Constitution to stand and be adhered to that are the enemies of democracy. Never mind the mental gymnastics required to get to that conclusion.
It’s not hard to predict a scenario in which authoritarian leaders, acting on a falsely constructed narrative that a civil war is imminent, might start rounding up “dissidents.” And that’s in addition to the already existing, thinly veiled threat of tossing the unvaccinated into indefinite detention.
I agree with Walter’s assessment that we’re in dangerous territory, but not for the same reasons as she suggests. I would also argue that just about every country is a powder keg ready to blow, and for the same reason — people are being tyrannized by their governments and by unelected health authorities that claim powers they do not legally have.
Take England, for example. Entrepreneur and COVID blogger Steve Kirsch was recently notified that an anti-COVID restrictions campaign member had been detained for 28 days under the Mental Health Act for not wearing a mask to a dentist appointment.18 Normally, it’s quite difficult to get a person sectioned under the Mental Health Act, but not anymore.
Refusing to wear a mask apparently qualifies as an acute mental health disorder warranting a month-long stay in a psych ward.
The man, Charlie Cunningham, is reportedly being held at Littlemore Mental Hospital in Oxford, “where he’s being deprived of sleep under the pretext of being suicidal,” according to the woman who contacted Kirsch. She added, “He’s now going to be detained over Christmas and New Year — [he’s] very upset as he feels he’s been kidnapped and being held against his will …”
While all the articles mentioned earlier that warn of civil war blame the decline in democracy on the Trump administration, the Trump administration can hardly be blamed for the civil rights abuses and power grabs that are occurring today. It’s time to judge each tree by its fruit. That said, knowing that a civil war would serve the totalitarian takeover agenda, it would be wise to make sure our resistance remains a peaceful one.
San Diego, CA — Forgoing any legal democratic processes, multiple school districts in California began mandating the COVID-19 vaccination for children earlier this year. Set to go into effect in January, any child, 16 and older, who did not get the jab, was banned from campus in all San Diego public schools.
This authoritarian move caused a mass of backlash and thousands of children and parents refused to comply. The refusal to get vaccinated set the stage for a showdown that was to unfold on January 24 when the children would be kicked out of school for non compliance.
There will be no showdown, however, as a San Diego judge struck down the mandate this week, accurately pointing out that a school district has no authority to mandate medical procedures for children.
CBS 7 reports that Superior Court Judge John S. Meyer granted a writ of mandate for a lawsuit filed by the group “Let Them Choose,” which sought to keep the school district‘s COVID-19 vaccine mandate from going into effect by arguing it did not comply with state law.
Meyer noted in the ruling that the school district‘s COVID-19 vaccine mandate cannot move forward because it conflicts with state law, which says any decision to mandate vaccines must be made at the state level and must also include a “personal belief exemption” if the mandate is not imposed by the state Legislature.
San Diego Unified’s policy did not contain this exemption.
“SDUSD‘s Roadmap appears to be necessary and rational, and the district’s desire to protect its students from COVID-19 is commendable. Unfortunately, the field of school vaccine mandates has been fully occupied by the State, and the Roadmap directly conflicts with state law,” the judge wrote in a tentative ruling.
Naturally, the school district disagreed and claimed they have the right to dictate what children can and can’t be injected with. For now, however, their objection is meaningless and the children and parents who did not want to take the vaccination, will no longer be forced to do so.
“I am overjoyed. We knew that our legal argument was strong, and we brought this case on behalf of thousands of concerned parents and students and to hear the judge say no student should be coerced into getting this vaccine was just a wonderful thing to hear,” said Sharon McKeeman, founder of the group behind Let Them Choose.
As TFTP reported earlier this month, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) — which is the second largest school district in the country — made a similar move and mandated shots for all children aged 12 and older.
NBC4 spoke to an attorney who is following these cases, Jennifer Kennedy, who explained that school districts do not have the authority to mandate medical procedures. Just like the San Diego school district did not have the authority to mandate the jabs, the LAUSD did not have it either.
“These grotesque contests and displays of treatment and candy and gifts and favors, raffles and cash prizes inducing the kids to the vaccination…. Here is the problem, kids in California cannot consent to vaccination.”
She added, “The LAUSD does not have the power to add a vaccine to the California school schedule,” she said. “You couldn’t do it if you were a po-dunk school district and you can’t do it if you’re LAUSD, the second largest district in the nation. You don’t have that legal authority.”
Several parents of students filed lawsuits against the LAUSD over the mandate and thousands of children remained unvaccinated in LAUSD. This line in the sand forced the school district to postpone their mandate last week after a whopping 28,000 children refused the jab.
It is only through resistance that the change we seek will come. As history shows us, one cannot comply their way out of tyranny.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) allegedly backed secret experiments into schizophrenia on 311 Danish children, many adopted or from orphanages, during the early 1960s, according to a newly released documentary.
Danish Radio’s documentary ‘The Search for Myself’ accuses the US spy agency of supporting the experiments at the Municipal Hospital in Cophenhagen. The studies were reportedly investigating the link between schizophrenia and heredity or the environment.
Per Wennick, who claims to have been a participant in the experiments as a child, alleged that he was placed in a chair, with electrodes strapped to him and forced to listen to loud, shrill noises. The aim of the test was supposedly to find out if a child had psychopathic traits.
“It was very uncomfortable. And it’s not just my story, it’s the story of many children,” Wennick said, describing his experience.
I think this is a violation of my rights as a citizen in this society. I find it so strange that some people should know more about me than I myself have been aware of.
The project was co-financed by a US health service, receiving support from the Human Ecology Fund, which is operated on behalf of the CIA, according to Wennick and the National Archives.
While the children were not told what the experiments were for, during or after the research, a dissertation was published in 1977 by Danish psychiatrist Find Schulsinger detailing the study.
The Danish Welfare Museum’s Jacob Knage Rasmussen said that this is the first documented time where children under care were used for research purposes in the country.
“I do not know of similar attempts, neither in Denmark nor in Scandinavia. It is appalling information that contradicts the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which after World War II was to set some ethical restrictions for experiments on humans” Rasmussen stated.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”
George Orwell, 1984
The “Covid pandemic” narrative is insane. That is long-established at this point, we don’t really need to go into how or why here. Read our back catalogue.
The rules are meaningless and arbitrary, the messaging contradictory, the very premise nonsensical.
Every day some new insanity is launched out into the world, and while many of us roll our eyes, raise our voices, or just laugh… many more accept it, believe it, allow it to continue.
Whether or not you believe the test means anything, they notionally do. In the reality they try to sell us every day, testing positive means you are carrying a dangerous disease.
So they are requesting people allegedly carrying a “deadly virus” work, rather than letting perfectly healthy unvaccinated people simply have their jobs back.
This is insanity.
But could anything more perfectly illustrate the priorities of those running the game?
We already know it’s not about a virus, it’s not about protecting the health service and it’s not about saving lives. Every day the people running the “pandemic” admit as much by their actions, and even their words.
Rather, it seems to be about enforcing rules that make little to no sense, requiring conformity at the price of reason, drawing arbitrary lines in the sand and demanding people respect them, making people believe “facts” that are provably untrue.
But why? Why is the story of Covid irrational and contradictory? Why are we told on the one hand to be afraid, and on the other that there is nothing to be afraid of?
Why is the “pandemic” so completely insane?
You could argue that it’s simple happenstance. The by-product of a multi-focused evolving narrative, a story being told by a thousand authors all at once, each concerned with covering their own little patch of agenda. A car with multiple drivers fighting over a single steering wheel.
There’s probably some truth to that.
But it’s also true that control, true control, can only be achieved with a lie.
In clinical psychology one of the diagnostic signs of the psychopath is that they tell elaborate lies, compulsively. Many times they will tell a lie even if the truth would be more beneficial.
Nobody knows why they do this, but I have a theory, and it applies to the swarming groups of little rat minds running the sewers of power as much as it does any individual monstrosity.
If you want to control people, you need to lie to them, that’s the only way to guarantee you have power.
If you are standing in the road, and I yell “look out, there’s a car a coming”, and you move just as a car whips past, I will never know if you moved because I said so, or because there actually was a car.
If my interest is in making sure you don’t get hurt, this would not matter to me either way.
But, what if my only true aim is the gratification of watching you do what I say, simply because I said it?
… well, then I need to scream out a warning of a car that does not exist, and watch you dodge an imaginary threat. Or, indeed, tell you there is no car, and watch you get run over.
Only by doing this can I see my words mean more to you than perceivable reality, and only then do I know I’m truly in control.
You can never control people with the truth, because the truth has an existence outside yourself that cannot be altered or directed. It may be the truth itself that controls people, not you.
You can never force people to obey rules that make sense, because they may be obeying reason, not your force.
True power lies in making people afraid of something that does not exist, and making them abandon reason in the name of protecting themselves from the invented threat.
To guarantee you have control, you must make people see things that are not there, make people live in a reality you build around them, and force people to follow arbitrary, contradictory rules that change day by day.
To truly test their loyalty, their hypnosis, you could even tell them there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore, but they need to follow the rules anyway.
Maybe that’s the point. Maybe the story isn’t supposed to be believable. Maybe the rules aren’t meant to make sense, they are meant to be obeyed.
Maybe the more contradictory & illogical the regulations become, the more your compliance is valued.
Maybe if you can force a person to abandon their judgment in favour of your own, you have total control over their reality.
We started with an Orwell quote, so let’s end with one too:
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
Isn’t that what we’re seeing now? What we’ve been seeing since the beginning?
People being mind broken into being afraid of something they are told isn’t frightening, following rules they are told are not necessary, taking “medicine” they are told does not work.
Maybe forcing people to believe your lies, even as you admit you are lying, is the purest expression of power.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 