Nhân Chủ-Chủ Quyền Cá Nhân Con Người-Thượng Đế, Nhà Nước là Ảo Thể- Chúng Ta là Thực Thể- Không có Thượng Đế, Không có Nhà Nước, Chỉ có Chúng Ta, Tôi và Quí Vị phải Quyết Định Phương Cách Tự Trách Nhiệm Trao Đổi để Sống Chung Tự Do, Bình Đẳng với Nhau Mà Thôi!
As we all know by now, the entire corona crisis was and is an excuse for The Great Reset. And, as anyone who has followed the financial prognostication space for the past decade knows, “the great reset” has been used nearly interchangeably with “the global currency reset” to describe the collapse of the old dollar-centric Bretton Woods system and the rise of a new international monetary order.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the post-corona Great Reset being hyped by the World Economic Forum and their globalist fellow travelers is itself predicated on a global currency reset. But this global currency reset has a distinctly 21st-century technocratic flavour.
The form that this currency reset is taking reveals itself in the latest headlines from the world of central banking:
Yes, to the surprise of absolutely no one, the central banksters are
using “The Great Reset” as a smokescreen to smuggle through one of their
most cherished fantasies: the cashless society. Soon, central banks
will be issuing national digital currencies and tracking every single
transaction in the economy in real time.
And if you were able to read that last paragraph without feeling a
chill run down your spine, then you need to get up to speed on what the
cashless society entails and why it must be resisted with every last
fiber of our being.
First, the specifics.
The “digital dollar” that the US Senate banking committee is holding hearings about is the same digital dollar proposal that I talked about in my podcast on The Greatest Depression this past March. As you’ll recall, the Digital Dollar Project is being promoted by the World Economic Forum (surprise, surprise) and sold to the public via the old Cold War trick of “the Russkies Chinese are doing it, so we have to, too!”
Specifically, as the globalist crony insiders explained in their Wall Street Journal op ed on the idea last year:
“We propose a digital dollar—a government-sanctioned
blockchain protocol, created and maintained by an independent
nongovernmental group but administered by banks and other trusted
payment organizations. Cash brought into the system would be exchanged
for digital U.S. dollars on a blockchain, with the cash lodged in
special escrow accounts maintained by the Federal Reserve.”
In other words, the fine folks over at the Fed would be the invisible
counter-party watching lovingly over the digital money system. What
could possibly go wrong?
The digital dollar being proposed is a type of “Central Bank Digital
Currency” (CBDC), which the Bank for International Settlements (aka the
central bank of central banks) was writing about back in 2017. In fact, the idea goes back even further, to a proposed Fed-run central bank cryptocurrency called Fedcoin (I kid you not).
As I explained last year, the point of these “central bank digital currencies” is to take advantage of The Bitcoin Psyop
by presenting the cashless society as the cool, hip new spin on that
bitcoin/crypto thing all the cool kids are talking about. Of course,
this “Fedcoin” concept utterly subverts the very core impetus for
bitcoin and cryptocurrency right off the bat, a point highlighted and
underlined in the original “Fedcoin” proposal: “It (Fedcoin)
reintroduces one central point of control to the monetary system by
granting a central bank the ability to set the supply of tokens on a
Fedcoin blockchain.”
In other words: “Hey guys, you know that idea for making central
banks obsolete by taking the money creation power completely out of
their hands and bypassing all intermediaries in the banking system?
Well, this is exactly like that, except we’re going to put all the power
over this system in the hands of the central bank.”
Sadly, few in the public will even be able to see the blatant contradiction.
And, given that this is now being portrayed as some sort of monetary arms race with those dastardly Chinese and their proposed digital yuan, you can bet that a good portion of the public will embrace this new currency with open arms.
As researcher Steven Guinness has been meticulously documenting
at his blog over the last several months, this introduction of central
bank digital currencies in England and elsewhere is being fast-tracked
by the Bank for International Settlements on the back of the World
Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” agenda and is slated to be ready by 2025. The current scamdemic pandemonium only further helps to prepare the public to get ready to trade in their filthy, virus-laden cash for healthy virtual Fedcoins.
But still, this may just seem like a technological upgrade to our
payment systems. People increasingly pay with cards or payment apps
anyway, so what difference does it make if we eliminate cash altogether?
I have done a lot of work on the cashless society over the years, but
it’s one of those concepts that is so large and so difficult to
envision in its entirety that it’s worth revisiting here. To get a sense
of how the cashless society is not about payment convenience but about
control over every aspect of your lives, watch this short video that the
ACLU put out a decade and a half ago:
This video wasn’t even meant to warn about the cashless society. The
hapless victim of this pizza transaction ends up being forced to pay in
cash because his credit card is maxed out. But the rest of the video is
the vision of the cashless society in a nutshell. In the cashless
society, your entire payment history and all of the information that is
tied into that history will be plainly visible to those who have access
to it. And if the government issues a decree about what you are or are
not able to purchase, that decree will be enforced at the point of sale.
At that point, freedom will only be found in the counter-economy.
If you want to get a handle on what such a future will look like, imagine the following scenario:
You are out for a walk late at night. You come to a red light, but
there is no one around. You hesitate a moment, double-check that there
is really no one in sight and then dash across the intersection. In the
two seconds it takes you to cross the road, a large LED screen above the
street lights up with your picture and your name. Two seconds after
that you feel a buzz in your pocket. Taking out your phone you find a
message from your bank informing you that you have been fined for
jaywalking and that your social credit score has been reduced.
The next day, you’re at the airport, preparing to board a flight to
visit your family on the other side of the country. When you go to check
in you receive a message that your social credit score is too low and
you will not be allowed to board the plane. Enraged, you curse the
airline, the government’s social credit system, its jaywalking laws, and
even the government itself.
Unbeknownst to you, someone has recorded your outburst and uploads it
to social media, where you are quickly identified. The police come to
your home the next day and take you downtown where you are shackled in a
chair and made to recant your statements about the government.
Sound like something out of a dystopian sci-fi novel? Well, it’s not.
It’s just a mundane portrayal of everyday life in current day China.
Facial recognition deployed to monitor the streets and automatically issue fines for jaywalking and other minor infractions? Check.
Social credit scores tied in to your ability to board public transportation or access government services? Check.
Police hauling people in for angrily ranting about the government and shackling them until they recant? Check.
The cashless society is about so much more than just how we pay for
things at the store. Tied into a system of persistent technological
surveillance, it represents the ultimate control over our lives. Can
there be any doubt as to why the World Economic Forum and the Bank for
International Settlements are working in concert with the central banks
of the world and organizations like the Bill Gates-co-founded Better Than Cash Alliance to pave the way for this nightmare to become a reality?
As the world grows accustomed to “The New Normal” and the
Predator Class calls for “The Great Reset”, we must ask where humanity
is headed and who is the driving force?
Clearly, 2020 has been unlike any previous year in the last century
or so. The world is currently battling against an infodemic of
propaganda spewing from the corporate media and official health
authorities. Yes, people are sick and dying. However, the statistics
make it clear that COVID-19 simply does not warrant a total lockdown of
the planet and further destruction of the economy.
Regardless, nations around the world are using COVID-19 as an
opportunity to grab more surveillance and police state powers, institute
mask and vaccine mandates, accelerate the push towards a completely
digital world, enact more corporate bailouts, and generally, extreme
control and involvement in citizens lives. The sheer magnitude of the
COVID-19 operation is unparalleled, with the most recent similar event
being the attacks of September 11, 2001. As with the 9/11 attacks, the
predator class is using COVID-19 as the excuse to push plans and agendas
which predate the spread of the novel coronavirus.
Even so, the COVID-19 operation is unlike any other event to take
place in modern history because the results of this event are affecting
people in every single nation on the planet and will continue to for
years to come. Also, unlike 9/11 – which took place over the course of
one morning – the COVID-19 operation is taking place daily for months on
end. The effects of this constant bombardment with fear and panic are
taking a toll on the hearts and minds of free people all around the world. Quite simply, the people are ready for this to end and they will do almost anything to achieve this goal.
It is within this space of fear and uncertainty which the predator
class has now begun to insert themselves, ready to present the
“solution” to our ills.
The Great Reset
As every student of power and deception knows, the easiest way to
achieve victory over your opponent is to guide them to a predetermined
destination which benefits your agenda. If you can do this while
convincing your opponent that they are consciously making their own
choices and the path is for their own good – well, you are all but
guaranteed success. I believe the evidence indicates this is the
strategy we are seeing unfold during the COVID-19 operation.
The predetermined path we are being led down is known as “The Great Reset” and was announced in early June
by the World Economic Forum. Regular readers will remember that on
October 18, 2019, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with
the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the WEF on a high-level
pandemic exercise known as Event 201. Event 201 simulated how the world
would respond to a coronavirus pandemic which swept around the planet.
The simulation imagined 65 million people dying, mass lock downs,
quarantines, censorship of alternative viewpoints under the guise of
fighting “disinformation,” and even floated the idea of arresting people
who question the pandemic narrative.
The launch of The Great Reset was supported by Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum;
England’s Prince Charles; Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the
UN; and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund. The
kick-off was truly an international event with the participation of Ma
Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society
for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of
the People’s Bank of China. The event was also supported by Bernard
Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; and Bradford Smith,
president of Microsoft.
During the launch of The Great Reset, Prince Charles stated that humanity cannot waste time because “we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate.” UN Secretary-General Guterres called for “more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies” that can face pandemics, climate change, and other global challenges.
In an opinion piece published in The Globe and Mail, Klaus Schwab provided more details on the goals of The Great Reset (emphasis added):
“COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There
is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun,
and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But,
while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable. To achieve a better
outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects
of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and
working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China,
must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be
transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.”
Schwab goes on to describe several crises facing humanity, including
rising government debt, unemployment, and increasing social unrest.
Combined with COVID-19, these crises will leave the world less
sustainable, less equal and more fragile. “We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems,”
Schwab writes. He details the 3 main components of TGR agenda,
specifically fairer market outcomes, investments in “equality and
sustainability,” and harnessing the innovations of the Fourth Industrial
Revolution.
When it comes to producing “fairer market outcomes,” Schwab calls for
governments to improve coordination in tax, regulatory, and fiscal
policy. He also calls for upgrading trade agreements and moving towards a
“stakeholder economy.” When he speaks of equality and sustainability,
Schwab means that current and future government stimulus and relief
packages should be used to create a new system that is “more resilient,
equitable and sustainable.” He also calls for more “green” urban
infrastructure and incentivizing industries to improve their
environmental record.
Finally, Schwab calls for utilizing the innovations of “the Fourth Industrial Revolution”
to support public good. The 4IR is another pet project of Schwab which
was first announced in December 2015. To put it simply, the 4IR is the
digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is
omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter and,
hopefully, improve our lives. Sometimes known as “The Internet of
Things,” this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology.
“Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Intelligent robots.
Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic
editing. The evidence of dramatic change is all around us and it’s
happening at exponential speed,” Schwab wrote for the announcement of the 4IR.
Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself
towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track
and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a
digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out
of society via social credit scores.
In fact, much of this call for a Great Reset is already playing out.
For example, Mastercard and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded
GAVI recently announced a partnership with AI-powered “identity
authentication” company, Trust Stamp. As MintPress News reported, “The program, which was first launched
in late 2018, will see Trust Stamp’s digital identity platform
integrated into the GAVI-Mastercard “Wellness Pass,” a digital
vaccination record and identity system that is also linked to Mastercard’s click-to-play system that powered by its AI and machine learning technology called NuData.”
This is why astute readers are skeptical when they hear Schwab say, “the
pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect,
reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable
and more prosperous future.”
Who exactly is Schwab speaking to when he speaks of a more prosperous future? How long has this Great Reset been in the works? The answers to these questions can help us understand the true goals of this agenda.
As researcher Brandon Smith reported, Christine Lagarde, former head of the IMF, discussed a global reset as far back as 2014.“The
reset is often mentioned in the same breath as ideas like “the New
Multilateralism” or “the Multipolar World Order” or “the New World
Order.” All of these phrases mean essentially the same thing,”Smith writes.
Smith correctly notes that the Great Reset is not a response to the pandemic, but rather, “the
global reset as implemented by central banks and the BIS/IMF is the
cause of the collapse. The collapse is a tool, a flamethrower burning a
great hole in the forest to make way for the foundations of the
globalist Ziggurat to be built.”
New Normal, Same World Order
In early July, Schwab and French author Thierry Malleret released a
book outlining the vision of The Great Reset. The book, Covid-19: The
Great Reset, explores what the post-pandemic world might look like. “Will
there be enough collective will to take advantage of this unprecedented
opportunity to reimagine our world, in a bid to make it a better and
more resilient one as it emerges on the other side of this crisis?,” Schwab and Malleret pondered at the release of the book. The two men believe COVID-19 triggered “momentous changes and magnified the fault lines that already beset our economies and societies.”
They also predict that falling oil prices and a freeze in tourism could
lead to a wave of massive anti-government demonstrations.
“One path will take us to a better world: more inclusive, more
equitable and more respectful of Mother Nature. The other will take us
to a world that resembles the one we just left behind – but worse and
constantly dogged by nasty surprises,” the authors argue.
In the book, Schwab expands upon the initial announcement of The
Great Reset. Once again he calls for the 4th Industrial Revolution and
the digitalization of everything, powered by 5G technology. However,
Schwab goes even further in his book, calling for rethinking the “social
contract” society has with governments.
Schwab also calls for a nature based or green economy. In January 2020, the WEF released their report, Nature Risk Rising: Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Business and the Economy, as part of their New Nature Economy series of reports. The report is “the
first of a series of New Nature Economy reports, prepared through the
Nature Action Agenda, a platform that aims to encourage a movement of
businesses, governments, civil society, academics, innovators and youth
to disrupt business-as-usual approaches.”
A second report, The Future of Nature and Business, was released in July. Once again, the WEF states that COVID-19 presents an “opportunity,
to change the way we eat, live, grow, build and power our lives to
achieve a carbon-neutral, ‘nature-positive’ economy and halt
biodiversity loss by 2030. Business as usual is no longer an option.“
In a companion report, the WEF provides some detail on what it means to change the way we eat. “Another
set of policy measures that would stimulate more resource-efficient
food systems entail directing stimulus packages towards R&D to
support the diversification away from diets based on resource intensive
animal proteins, and towards four main categories of alternatives –
aquatic, plant-based, insect-based and laboratory-cultured,” the
report states. This push for alternatives to animal proteins has
coincided with a rise in laboratory created fake meat, including
products funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Interestingly, the companion report also calls for “corporate bailout
packages for the meat sector” which “could accelerate these
developments.” Coincidentally, because of COVID-19, the Trump
administration awarded $15.5 billion
in relief aid for the meat and dairy industry. Once again, the
predictions and declarations of these global institutions appear to play
out in reality as perfect as any scripted TV show.
The calls for a Great Reset greatly mimic previous programs and
initiatives put forward by other globalist organizations, including the
United Nations. Researcher F. William Engdahl provided much-needed
clarity in a recent piece on the announcement of The Great Reset.
Engdahl notes that, “the
declaration by the World Economic Forum to make a Great Reset is to all
indications a thinly-veiled attempt to advance the Agenda 2030
“sustainable” dystopian model, a global “Green New Deal” in the wake of
the covid19 pandemic measures. Their close ties with Gates Foundation
projects, with the WHO, and with the UN suggest we may soon face a far
more sinister world after the covid19 pandemic fades.”
Strategic Intelligence, Strategic Partners, and Event 201
In March, the WEF launched the COVID Action Platform
which is essentially a call for global government in response to
COVID-19. The answer, WEF believes, is to have greater global
cooperation, move away from the nation-state, and tackle the world’s
problems as one international community.
Along with the launch of the Action Platform, the WEF released an impressive graphic
as part of their “Strategic Intelligence” platform, which outlines the
wide ranging ways their plans will effect and shape the world of the
21st century and beyond. From the media’s role in the pandemic to
finding a vaccine, the graphic attempts to provide details on this
centrally planned future being promoted by the WEF. I encourage all
readers to spend an evening going down the rabbit hole that is the COVID
Action Platform for a better understanding of where we are headed.
With the launch of The Great Reset, the WEF also launched a Strategic Intelligence graphic
detailing how their plans will unfold. The Great Reset graphic details
how everything from drones, blockchain, the future of energy, LGBTI
inclusion, and 3D printing will play a role in the New Normal. Once
again, I encourage readers to take a dive into this graphic to gain
clarity on what the WEF and their partners have planned for the coming
decade.
The WEF promotes itself as the “International Organization for
Public-Private Cooperation.” They partner with a variety of private
companies, philanthropic outlets, and governments to achieve their
goals. Researcher Steven Guinness recently outlined how the WEF partners
with various institutions to accomplish their stated aims and how the
Strategic Intelligence platform is “co-curated with leading topic experts from academia, think tanks, and international organizations.”
“‘Co-curators‘ are perhaps the most important aspect to consider
here, given that they have the ability to ‘share their expertise with
the Forum’s extensive network of members, partners and constituents, as
well as a growing public audience,’”Guinness writes.“It
is safe to assume then that when co-curators speak, members and
partners of the World Economic Forum listen. This in part is how the
WEF’s agenda takes shape.”
As Guinness notes, the co-curators of the Strategic Intelligence road
map of the globalist vision include Harvard university, the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Imperial College London, Oxford
University, Yale and the European Council on Foreign Relations. Several
of these institutions continue to play an influential role in shaping
the narrative around COVID-19.
The WEF’s highest level of partnership is known as Strategic Partners.
There are only 100 international companies listed as Strategic
Partners. Each partner receives an invitation if they have “alignment
with forum values.” These partners “shape the future through extensive
contribution to developing and implementing Forum projects and
championing public-private dialogue.”
The WEF’s Strategic Partners include Johnson & Johnson, and the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is also a long time “Agenda Contributor”
for the WEF. As mentioned above, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
partnered with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the WEF
on the Event 201 pandemic exercise in October 2019. Johnson &
Johnson were also partners in the exercise.
As TLAV’s has previously documented,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation operates in a similar fashion to
the WEF: their publicly stated goals mask a global control agenda. Thus,
it should come as no surprise that Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, is
a former attendee and member of the Steering Committee for the secretive Bilderberg Group.
The WEF itself is akin to a more public Bilderberg Group which brings
together around 3,000 business leaders, international political
leaders, economists, celebrities, and journalists for a five day
conference to discuss global issues. The WEF meets every January in
Davos, Switzerland, to discuss their agenda. The elitism of the WEF has
resulted in Schwab and his cohorts being nicknamed The Davos Class.
In January 2021 the theme of the WEF meeting will be “The Great
Reset.” It’s important that we keep an eye on the WEF and their push for
the Great Reset as we draw closer to election 2020 and a potential Dark Winter.
Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, and their ilk are determined to present
themselves as the saviors of humanity. They are using the COVID-19 panic
as an opportunity to push their agenda while selling it as the cure to
our problems.
This predator class attempts to mask their true intentions with
flowery language designed to lull the waking masses back to sleep. To be
clear, our world is absolutely, without a doubt existing in an
unsustainable paradigm. We do have growing income inequality, police
violence, failing healthcare systems, and insufficient food production
systems. These problems were apparent before COVID-19 and the fragility
of these systems has indeed become more obvious in recent months.
However, these psychopaths would prefer if we allowed them to stay in
the driver’s seat as they careen us into a future of technocratic
control and the end of individual liberty.
While Schwab and Gates would prefer that the people of the world
submit to their vision, we must stand against this push for
centralization of power and technology. The Great Reset is coming, and
perhaps, it should come. We have many issues facing our species that
need to be addressed. However, central planning, surveillance, and loss
of individual liberty is not the answer. The answer is decentralization,
opting out en masse, non-compliance, and non-participation in the
systems which have brought us to this predicament.
We, as free people, must decide what path we intend to take. Will
we stand by and allow the predators to seize control of all resources
and power for the coming generations? Or, will we finally break free
from their violent systems and initiate a Great Reset which benefits the
people, from bottom to top?
The answer depends on you.
Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.
(BERLIN) — Thousands protested Germany’s coronavirus restrictions Saturday in a Berlin demonstration that insisted “the end of the pandemic” has arrived — a declaration that comes just as authorities are voicing increasing concerns about an uptick in new infections.
With few masks in sight, a dense crowd marched through downtown Berlin from the Brandenburg Gate.
Protesters who came from across the country held up homemade signs with slogans like “Corona, false alarm,” “We are being forced to wear a muzzle,” “Natural defense instead of vaccination” and “We are the second wave.”
They chanted, “We’re here and we’re loud, because we are being robbed of our freedom!”
Police used bullhorns to chide participants to adhere to social distancing rules and to wear masks, apparently with little success. They tweeted that they drew up a criminal complaint against the rally’s organizer for failing to enforce hygiene rules, then said shortly afterward that the organizer had ended the march.
Police estimated that about 17,000 people turned out. The demonstrators were kept apart from counterprotesters, some chanting “Nazis out!”
Protests against anti-virus restrictions in Germany have long drawn a variety of attendees, including conspiracy theorists and right-wing populists.
Unlike the U.S., Brazil and Britain, Germany’s government has been praised worldwide for its management of the pandemic. The country’s death toll — just over 9,150 people out of more than 210,670 confirmed virus cases as of Saturday – is five times less than Britain’s, which has a smaller population.
The German government has been easing lockdown measures since late April but social distancing rules remain in place, as does a requirement to wear masks on public transit and in shops.
Officials have been warning against complacency as the number of new COVID-19 cases crept up recently. They pleaded with Germans this week to observe the distancing and mask rules and, amid concern about residents bringing home infections from summer trips abroad, introduced free tests for people entering the country.
Germany’s national disease control center registered 955 new cases Friday, a high figure by recent standards.
“Thousands of #covidiots are celebrating themselves in Berlin as ‘the second wave,’ without distancing, without masks,” tweeted Saskia Esken, a co-leader of the Social Democrats, the junior party in Germany’s governing coalition.
“They are not just endangering our health, they are endangering our success against the pandemic and for the revival of the economy, education and society. Irresponsible!”
It has frequently been observed that terror can rule absolutely only over people who are isolated against each other
and that therefore one of the primary concerns of tyrannical government
is to bring this isolation about. Isolation may be the beginning of
terror; it certainly is its most fertile ground; it always is its
result. This isolation is, as it were, pre-totalitarian; its hallmark is
impotence insofar as power always comes from people acting together, acting in concert; isolated people are powerless by definition.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
Western civilization, led by the US government and media, has embarked upon a campaign of mass psychological terrorism designed to cover for the collapsing economy,
set up a new pretext for Wall Street’s ongoing plunder expedition,
radically escalate the police state, deeply traumatize people into
submission to total social conformity, and radically aggravate the anti-social, anti-human atomization of the people.
The
pretext for this abomination is an epidemic which objectively is
comparable to the seasonal flu and is caused by the same kind of
Coronavirus we’ve endured so long without totalitarian rampages and mass
insanity.
The global evidence is converging on the facts: This flu is somewhat
more contagious than the norm and is especially dangerous for those who
are aged and already in poor health from pre-existing maladies. It is
not especially dangerous for the rest of the population.
The
whole concept of “lockdowns” is exactly upside down, exactly the wrong
way any sane society would respond to this circumstance.
It’s the
vulnerable who should be shielded while nature takes its course among
the general population, who should go about life as usual.
Dominionist-technocratic rigidity can’t prevent an epidemic from cycling
through the population in spite of the delusions of that religion, especially since Western societies began their measures far too late anyway.
So it’s best to let herd immunity develop as fast as it naturally will,
at which time the virus recedes from lack of hosts (and is likely to
mutate in a milder direction along the way). This is the only way to
bring a safer environment for all including the most vulnerable.
The fact that most societies have rejected the sane, scientific route in favor of doomed-to-fail attempts at a forcible violent segregation and sterilization
is proof that governments aren’t concerned with the public health (as
if we didn’t know that already from a thousand policies of poisoning the
environment while gutting the health care system), but are very ardent
to use this crisis they artificially generated in order to radically escalate their police state power toward totalitarian goals. The whole concept of self-isolation and anti-social “distancing” is radically anti-human.
We evolved over millions of years to be social creatures living in
tight-knit groups. Although modern societies ideologically and
socioeconomically work to massify(ER: to steer us toward mass activity such as mass production and consumption instead of activity based on individuality) and atomize people, nevertheless almost all of us still seek close human companionship in our lives. (I
suspect most of the internet police-state-mongers are not only fascists
at heart but are confirmed misanthropic loners who couldn’t care less
about human closeness.) This terror campaign seeks to blast to pieces any remaining human closeness,
which means any remaining humanity as such, the better to isolate
individual atoms for subjection to total domination. Arendt wrote
profoundly on this goal of totalitarian governments, though even she
didn’t envision a state-driven cult of the literal physical repulsion of
every atom from every other atom.
So
far, the people are submitting completely to a terror campaign
dedicated to the total eradication of whatever community was left in the
world, and especially whatever community was starting to be rebuilt.
Some dream of this terror campaign somehow bringing about a magical collective transformation. They don’t explain how that is supposed to happen when everyone’s so terrorized
they’re desperate to detach physically from their own shadows, let
alone physically come together with other people. Any kind of political
or social action, any kind of movement-building, requires close
person-to-person contact.
It seems that for most erstwhile
self-alleged dissidents, the fact that social media is no substitute for
face-to-face organizing and group action, a fact hitherto universally
acknowledged by these dissidents, is another truth suddenly to be
jettisoned and replaced by its complete antithesis.
Thus the
terror campaign is a virus causing those it infects to abdicate all
activism and all prospect for all future activism, for as long as they
remain insane with the fever of this propaganda terror.
Far more profoundly and evoking despair, the terror campaign is a virus causing those it infects to fear and loathe all human contact,
all companionship, all closeness, all things which ever made us human
in the first place. Prior totalitarian regimes sought this lack of
contact and trust through networks of informers. These networks are part of today’s terror campaign as well,
encouraged from above and spontaneously arising from below as a result
of the feeling of terror as well as the exercise of prior petty-evil
intentions on the part of petty-evil individuals.
But today’s
totalitarian potential is far worse than this. Now the regimes aspiring
to total domination have terrorized and brainwashed the vast majority of
people into an automatic physical distrust of all other people. One no longer fears that someone is an informer, but fears the very existence of another human being.
Any
kind of human relations, from personal friendship and romance to
friendly social gatherings and clubs to social and cultural movements
become impossible under such circumstances. This threatens to be the end
of the very concept of shared humanity, to be replaced by an anthill of slave atoms with no consciousness beyond fear and the most animal concern for food and shelter, which already is allowed or denied in the same way experimenters do with lab rats.
And
the more people fear and loathe the literal physical existence of all
other people, the more the situation becomes ripe for every epidemic of
murder, from the spiking rate of domestic violence and killings to
incipient lynch mobs to pogroms to Nazi-style extermination campaigns.
This
is the system’s end goal. It’s the logical end where every trend of
today leads. All of it is trumped up over an epidemic which objectively
is a flu season somewhat rougher than average.
Why do the
people want to surrender and throw away all reality and future prospect
of shared humanity, happiness, freedom, well-being, over so little? Is this really a terminal totalitarian death cult, the globe as one massive Jonestown?
So
far, it seems this is what the majority wants. If they don’t really
want this consummation of universal death in spirit, emotion and body,
they’d better snap out of their terror-induced mental delirium fast,
before it’s too late.
One of the iconic moments from my Who Is Bill Gates? documentary is the clip of Gates at the 2010 Aspen Ideas Festival
discussing a proposal to increase funding for public education by
diverting money from end-of-life care for the elderly and terminally
ill.
Lamenting the skyrocketing tuition rates for college students, Gates
tells the Aspen Institute’s Walter Isaacson, “That’s a trade-off
society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of
willingness to say, you know, ‘Is spending a million dollars on that
last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay
off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?'”
Then, squirming around in his seat and looking over at the audience,
Gates acknowledges that there may be some objection to this line of
thinking: “But that’s called the ‘death panel’ and you’re not supposed
to have that discussion.”
A decade ago, when Gates made those remarks, it would be difficult to
imagine an idea that was more out of touch with general public
sentiment than the idea of “death panels” to free up money to hire more
teachers. It was shocking enough to the general public that even the
socially inept Gates realized that talking about it was verboten.
But what many sitting in the festival audience that day may not have
realized is that the idea of trading health care for the elderly for
public education funds is not Gates’ own novel proposal. In fact, this
“death panel” discussion has been around for a long time, and that
discussion was spearheaded by a relatively obscure—but incredibly
influential—branch of philosophy known as bioethics.
Bioethics, for those not in the know,
concerns itself with the ethical questions raised by advancing
knowledge and technological sophistication in biology, medicine, and the
life sciences. This branch of study often leads to serious academic
debates aboutbizarre, improbable, science fiction-like scenarios, such as the ethics of using memory-enhancing drugs or of erasing memories altogether.
While the musings of bioethicists on the case for killing granny and after-birth abortions and other morally outrageous ideas may still seem a little “out there” to much of the public, conversations about these previously unspeakable topics are going to become much more commonplace as we enter the COVID-1984 biosecurity paradigm.
In fact, they already are. Case in point: In my recent conversation with Canadian journalist Rosemary Frei, she drew attention to a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March of this year. The paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,”
was written by a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses “the need
to ration medical equipment and interventions” during a pandemic
emergency.
Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who
are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce
medical resources from younger patients or from those with more
promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term,
the necessity of setting up a “death panel” to determine who should or
should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.
In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly
discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times.
Instead, the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete
reality. As Frei noted in her own article on how the high death rates at care homes in Ontario were created on purpose, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) simply adopted the recommendations laid out in that New England Journal of Medicine
article, abandoning its usual practice of deliberating on major changes
to policy over a months-long consultation process because “[t]he
current situation, unfortunately, did not allow for such a process.”
Lest there be any question about whether these policies are currently
being put into practice, one needs simply observe the conversation that
is taking place in Texas right now regarding how to deal with the
supposed “surge” in COVID hospitalizations. As The Guardian puts it: “Texas hospital forced to set up ‘death panel’ as Covid-19 cases surge.”
It doesn’t matter that the hospitals are not actually full
in Houston. It doesn’t matter that the concern over the flood of
hospitalizations in Texas is based on statistical trickery and outright
lies. In fact, that’s kind of the point. By scaring the public with
horror stories about hospitals being on the verge of collapse, the
combined weight of the government, the media, and the medical
establishment have managed to do in just a few months what Gates and his
cronies have been unable to do in the past decade: Introduce the verboten “death panel” discussion to the general public.
In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you
discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do:
Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and
values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From
abortion to euthanasia, there isn’t a debate in the medical field that
wasn’t preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the
public for a massive change in mores, morays, values and laws.
The research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, “was important in establishing the field of bioethics.” The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center’s work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.
As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented,
there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of
eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century
to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The
Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded
Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including
abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of
“bioethics.”
As a result, many of the most prominent bioethicists working today come from the Hastings Center stable.
Take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist working today whose name is known to the general public, it’s Hastings Center fellow
Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known
to the public are his arguments in favor of not only abortion but also infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants.”
Or take Ezekiel Emanuel. Another Hastings Center fellow, Emanuel is also a senior fellow at the shady Center for American Progress and a bioethicist who has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. He is also the lead author of that New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was adopted by the CMA.
What few may realize is that Emanuel’s death panel proposal did not
emerge in response to the current COVID-19 “crisis” but has, rather,
been a key part of his advocacy for decades. In his 2008 book, Healthcare, Guaranteed,
Emanuel argued for the creation of a National Health Board to approve
all healthcare payments and procedures in the United States—a board
whose life-and-death decisions would be final, with no possibility for
objection from patients, healthcare providers, government officials or
the taxpayers who funded the system.
But not even a pie-in-the-sky, ivory tower bioethicist like Emanuel
could believe that such a drastic change in American health care could
take place absent some catalyzing event. Taking a page from his brother Rahm, Ezekiel admitted
in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a
depression or some other major civil unrest.” He may as well have added
“plandemic” to that list of excuses for “health-care reform.” With the
birth of the Corona World Order, it looks like Emanuel and his bioethicist brethren are about to finally realize their death panel dream.
At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.
Remember way back three lifetimes ago (a.k.a. the beginning of this year), when I wrote about Russia’s possible regime change?
If you don’t remember (or just need a refresher), Russian President Vladimir Putin kicked off 2020 with some bold moves, using his annual address to the nation’s Federal Assembly
to “propose a number of constitutional amendments for discussion.”
These “amendments” were not just administrative, either, but touched on
some core issues, like forbidding top-level government officials from
having foreign residence or citizenship and, infamously, repealing the
clause limiting the president to two consecutive terms.
And then, even more spectacularly, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and the entire Russian cabinet resigned after the speech (although Putin’s key cabinet officials were reappointed a week later).
As you can imagine, there was much speculation at the time about what
was going on, precisely. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Western pundits’
opinions converged on the idea that this was some sort of ploy by Putin
to basically stay in power for the rest of his life (or at least a good
chunk of it).
You might also recall that I was less sure of that conclusion, going
so far as to state “it seems most likely that Putin will step down as
planned in 2024 and the next president will have less power to shape the
course of Russian politics single-handedly.”
Well, silly me. Looks like I was wrong. Maybe. You see, the Russian
government held a national vote on the proposed constitutional reforms
earlier this month and they passed with 77.8% support.
So what do the reforms state, specifically, and how will they impact the Russian Federation going forward?
Well, let’s look at some of the 206 amendments
that have just been made to the existing Russian constitution, which
represent the fifth set of reforms to the document since it was first
adopted in the post-Soviet tumult of 1993.
Article 79 and Article 125 have been amended to state that
international law and the decisions of international organizations
cannot override the Russian constitution.
Article 125 has been amended to prohibit constitutional challenges
to existing laws until “all of the other domestic judicial remedies have
been exhausted.”
The Russian State Council—established as a presidential advisory
body by decree of Putin in 2000—will take on a greater role, including
determining guidelines for domestic and social policy and setting
economic development priorities.
Changes to Article 67 allow for the creation of federal territories
out of land areas that do not formally belong to any of the country’ s
85 federal subjects.
The amendments create a federal minimum wage of about $170 per month
and guarantee that federal pensions will be adjusted annually to take
account of inflation.
But, unsurprisingly, it is not these kinds of reforms that
are being highlighted in much of the coverage in the unanimously
anti-Russian Western establishment media. Instead, the reforms you are most likely to read about include:
An amendment defining marriage as a “union between a man and a woman,” effectively banning gay marriage.
A constitutional description of Russians as a “state-forming people”
who are endowed with “faith in God” and unspecified “ideals.”
The changes that have received the most attention of all, meanwhile, are the ones pertaining to the term limits on a sitting Russian president.
Before these amendments passed, the president was constitutionally
obligated to step down after serving two consecutive terms in office,
but he was allowed to return after sitting out a term. This, of course,
is exactly what Putin himself did, stepping down in 2008 to sit out the
constitutionally-mandated term before retaking the presidency in 2012.
If the constitution had not been amended, Putin would have had to step
down again in 2024 when his second consecutive term in office ended. But
the latest amendment will “reset the clock” allowing Putin to run for
two more six-year terms before bumping into the constitutional limit in 2036.
If you haven’t seen the headlines yet, you can already imagine them:
“Russian democracy is a farce. Putin wants the same fate for America”
“Vladimir Putin Sheds the Last Pretenses of Legitimacy to Extend His Rule”
“Putin’s Constitutional Tsarism”
Et cetera, et cetera.
To those for whom “democracy” is still a synonym for political legitimacy, it doesn’t matter that the reforms were approved by 77% of the voters. No, as George Will will tell you in the pages of The Washington Post, the referendum was “preposterous.” Just take his word for it.
And now, as if on cue, Russia’s eastern hinterland of Khabarovsk is
currently being “rocked” by protests, the Old Grey Presstitute herself tells us, echoing virtually the exact phrase employed by CIA mouthpiece Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.
Oh sure, the protests are ostensibly about the arrest of Sergei Furgal, the regional governor who is suspected of multiple murders, but, the New York Times assures us, this also has something to do with the “rigged” national plebiscite on constitutional reforms. Trust the Times.
Now, readers of this column know that I’m no fan of Putin (or any political misleader) and no fan of the mystical ability
of a majority of the public to impose their will on the minority of the
public. But anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that,
after the last four years of unhinged hysteria over the supposed Russian
menace—from the Russiagate nonsense to the latest debunked Afghan
bounty story—we all know that each and every claim about Russia in the
Western establishment press is a lie. So it’s natural to take these
claims about Putin’s thuggery and the people’s anger with a gigantic
grain of salt.
Then what’s really going on here? Is there somewhere we can turn for a more balanced critique and analysis of the situation?
You might remember in my article
on the constitutional reforms back in January I cited Gilbert
Doctorow’s analysis. Let’s turn back to Doctorow. He’s an independent
political analyst who has pushed back on the lazy “Putin as tyrant”
tropes that the MSM has been using ever since Putin started badmouthing
the US-led world order (the “wrong” sort of world order) back at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. And what’s Doctorow’s take on these latest developments? Regarding the protests “rocking” Russia’s Far East:
I believe that the crackdown on Furgal is one more move
by United Russia to establish a stranglehold on Russian politics ahead
of the 2021 State Duma elections. The leadership of United Russia was
surely behind the changeover of the constitutional amendments from a
redistribution of power between the three branches of government, the
clear intent of Vladimir Putin when he announced the initiative on 15
January 2020, into a ratification of Putin’s eligibility to stand for
election again in 2024 and 2030, which is what the 1 July referendum was
all about in the end. Surely the leadership of United Russia was also
behind the removal of the leaders of the opposition parties in the Duma
from nearly all television and media appearances for approximately three
months this spring, till just before the referendum.
And regarding the results of the constitutional amendment plebiscite, which herald a turn into a more pronounced “cult of personality” surrounding Putin:
Indeed, one would have to be blind to miss the changes in
Putin’s behavior since the start of the year, to miss the evidence that
he is less in control of his entourage and the rival factions vying for
influence over policy, more a captive of his supporters than ever
before. The result is a pandering sort of populism that appeals to the
lowest common denominator in the general population. When I say this is
off-putting to Thinking Russia, I have in mind not the young, brash and
me-me-too professional classes of Moscow and Petersburg who all have
one foot in the West, but true patriots who have served their country
well, are of a certain age and remember all too well what is a “cult of
personality.” Moreover, I speak here not abstractly, but with the faces
of my friends and acquaintances in Russia before me with whom I
exchange thoughts on current politics from week to week.
Doctorow’s main point regarding the recent constitutional reforms is
that, more than simply ensuring a Putin presidency for the next 16 years
(providing he can win two more elections and maintain his health and
faculties for the duration of his term), they bring two real worries to
the fore: Firstly, that Putin is increasingly relying on a cult of
personality that he himself is playing more and more into. And secondly,
that these reforms simply kick the can down the road on the incredibly
important question of presidential succession. Rather than giving
clarity and establishing a path for some sort of stable transfer of
power, Putin is merely increasing the likelihood that he will not even
live out his term and a haphazard emergency succession will have to be
cobbled together.
As usual, the reality of these constitutional changes is more complex
than the flashy clickbait headlines of either the MSM or the
alternative press would have you believe. Yes, these reforms are
significant, assuming you’re a statist who believes in the magical
democratic rituals and sacred pieces of paper that supposedly govern our
lives or you’re an anarchist who recognizes that we live in a statist
world where such things have importance whether they are legitimate or
not. And yes, there are elements of Russian society that are displeased
with these developments. But, as always, there are a host of domestic
political factors at play, meaning that these issues are being used to
pit elements of the population against each other for the benefit of
this or that political party.
In the end, none of this changes the core truths:
That the neo-neocons
now have their arch-bogeyman (Putin) safely installed for the
foreseeable future, making a perfect foil as we descend into the (phony, fake, staged and manipulated) Cold War 2.0.
And that Putin is another puppet and arch-globalist of the neo-globalism variety who plays along with the coronavirus scamdemic and every other key globalist objective when need be.
Still, the political puppet show makes for entertaining soap opera, doesn’t it?
