Category Archives: On the Road to Serfdom ?

“Do Not Comply . . . “

Melissa Ciummei, a financial investor from Northern Ireland, has serious concerns that injection passports will be used more like data passports to control participation in society. The only way out is to not comply. Mass noncompliance.

All in The Lead up to November 29, the World Coup D’état

Israel on verge of state of emergency, two weeks after ‘Omega’ COVID-19 variant ‘war game drill’ –All three Omicron cases in Israel were detected in those who were vaccinated, according to The Times of Israel. By legitgov | 26 Nov 2021 | Today, the Independent reported: Israel on ‘verge of state of emergency’ over new coronavirus variant –Country extends ban on travel to and from Africa after new strain detected in three travellers. Euronews.net reported on Friday: “The B.1.1.529 variant, named ‘Omicron’ by the World Health Organization (WHO), has been described as having an ‘extremely high’ number of mutations, according to South African scientists who first detected the Beta variant.” Agence France-Presse, November 12, stated: Israel holds ‘war game’ in case of lethal new coronavirus strain–The exercises, which simulated the outbreak of an ‘Omega’ Covid-19 variant that bypasses vaccines and sickens children, prompting mass hospitalisations –The ‘world first’ drill covered different aspects of a crisis, including mass inoculation, ordering curfews and imposing a flight ban. Disclose.TV tweeted: “NOW – Israel is on the verge of a state of emergency just two weeks after its ‘Omega War Game’ virus exercise, says PM Bennett.”

Israel detects its first case of new, highly mutated COVID-19 strain –Two other returnees from Malawi also suspected to have contagious B.1.1.529 variant; all three were vaccinated| 26 Nov 2021 | The first case of a new, highly mutated coronavirus variant that first emerged in South Africa was detected in Israel on Friday, the Health Ministry announced, a development that experts have been fearing. The person was identified as an Israeli who had returned from Malawi. The ministry said two others were suspected of also being infected with the new strain, currently known by its scientific name, B.1.1.529, and were awaiting final test results. All three were vaccinated, the ministry said, adding that their inoculation details were still being verified.

Dow posts biggest single-day drop this year as new COVID-19 variant triggers market sell-off –Dow ends the day down 903 points, marking worst day of the year | 26 Nov 2021 | U.S. stocks suffered from some of the biggest single-day declines of the year on Friday as a new, fast-spreading COVID-19 variant detected in South Africa triggered fresh fears that a resurgent coronavirus could scuttle the global economy’s recovery from the pandemic. The Dow Jones Industrial Average – after briefly falling more than 1,000 points – ended the day down 905 points, or 2.5%, for its worst drop of the year, while the S&P 500 fell 2.27%, its worst day since February. The Nasdaq Composite dropped 2.23% in the shortened trading session on Friday. (U.S. markets close at 1 p.m. ET due to the Thanksgiving holiday.)

U.S. to curb travel from eight southern African countries over new COVID-19 variant | 26 Nov 2021 | The United States will bar entry to most travelers from eight southern African countries beginning next week over concerns about a new coronavirus variant found in South Africa, Joe Biden said on Friday. The restrictions, which go into effect Monday, do not ban flights or apply to U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. permanent residents, a Biden administration official said. The U.S. is among countries around the world that rushed to suspend travel from southern Africa on news over the new variant, named omicron, which the World Health Organization said was “of concern.” The restrictions apply to South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Lesotho, Eswatini, Mozambique and Malawi.

WHO names new COVID variant ‘Omicron’ | 26 Nov 2021 | The new COVID-19 variant first detected in South Africa was given the name Omicron by the World Health Organization on Friday. An advisory panel classified Omicron as a highly transmissible virus of concern and gave it its name under its Greek letter system. It marks the first time in months that WHO has classified a COVID-19 variant with such a name — and is only the fifth variant to be given the designation amid the pandemic.

California County Mandates Masks in Private Homes for People Not in Same Household –Vaccination status doesn’t matter, say Santa Cruz County officials | 23 Nov 2021 | Officials in Santa Cruz County, California, imposed a sweeping indoor mask mandate this week that includes private settings. For individuals gathering with people who do not live in the same household, masks should be worn in homes regardless of the COVID-19 vaccination status, according to the county on Monday. “Masks must be worn in private settings, including your home, when non-household members are present,” the county wrote, without saying how it would enforce masking inside private homes. The mandate will also apply to public settings including offices and grocery stores. Businesses will be required to post signs about the mask requirement, the county said.

Irish senator proposes vaccine passports should be needed to buy groceries | 25 Nov 2021 | A senator in Ireland has said that the government should consider banning those without a vaccine passport from public transportation and supermarkets, in one of the most extreme Covid proposals to date. “Why not supermarkets? Why not public transport,” Senator Gerry Horkan asked. “I know it is difficult to police some of these things, but really, if you want to participate in society, you need to be vaccinated.” Horkan’s remarks stirred backlash on social media. One Twitter user wrote, “When you propose that the unvaccinated should be banned from feeding themselves you are advocating for genocide.”

COVID outbreak hits Canadian army base, even though all soldiers are fully vaccinated –Soldiers based on CFB Petawawa located in Ontario all got infected after participating in a training course that took place between November 13 and 14. | 23 Nov 2021 | Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Petawawa has been hit with a COVID outbreak resulting in hundreds of fully vaccinated Canadian soldiers being forced into quarantine. According to a CTV News report, soldiers based on CFB Petawawa located in Ontario all got infected after participating in a training course that took place between November 13 and 14. Everyone who participated in the course had been fully jabbed. Col. Eric Landry, Commander of 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, said that at first “a positive case was identified” and placed in quarantine, according to CTV News.

Active and retired Canadian law enforcement officials warn head of Mounted Police about forced vaccines –‘Requiring mandatory COVID-19 treatment options is a slippery slope and allows the government to overstep its authority unchecked,’ reads the letter by Mounties for Freedom. | 27 Oct 2021 | Active and retired members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) joined together to say they cannot “willingly participate in enforcing” COVID jab mandates. They have asked their boss to investigate government officials’ role in coming up with draconian virus rules. “Requiring mandatory COVID-19 treatment options is a slippery slope and allows the government to overstep its authority unchecked. It infringes on the fundamental belief in our society that the individual has the right and freedom to choose. The choice of whether to receive medical treatments has always been an individual’s right in Canada,” says the group called Mounties for Freedom in an open letter dated October 21 sent to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki.

Top Australian Official: We’re Transferring COVID-19 Patients to Quarantine Camps | 23 Nov 2021 | Australian authorities are removing COVID-19-positive patients and residents in the Northern Territory to a quarantine camp in Howard Springs, after nine cases were identified in the community of Binjari, according to a local official. Hard lockdowns were implemented in Binjari and nearby Rockhole on Nov. 20, according to Northern Territory’s chief minister. “Residents of Binjari and Rockhole no longer have the five reasons to leave their homes,” Chief Minister Michael Gunner said in a Facebook post dated Nov. 20. Australia’s five allowable reasons for people to leave their homes include going to work or school, buying food or supplies, exercising, caregiving, or getting vaccinated… Gunner said on Nov. 21 that eight people have been taken to a facility in Howard Springs, the Guardian reported.

Judge Rules Local Missouri COVID-19 Orders Unconstitutional | 24 Nov 2021 | A Missouri judge on Tuesday ruled that local COVID-19 orders violated the Missouri Constitution, ordering local health officials to rescind them. Judge Daniel Green of Cole County wrote that the Department of Health and Senior Services unconstitutionally gave too much power to individual local health officials and directors. As a result, he ruled, those orders must be lifted, meaning that local health orders must be rescinded. “This case is about whether Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services regulations can abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws, and whether it can authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official. This court finds it cannot,” the judge wrote in his order.

Global Organization Attempts To End Free Speech Worldwide

by Joseph Mercola via Mercola.com

If you suspected censorship was being coordinated on a global scale, you’d be right. The International Grand Committee on Disinformation1 (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.” What could possibly go wrong?

The idea behind the IGCD came from four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments: Damian Collins and Ian Lucas from the U.K., and Bob Zimmer and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith from Canada. The first session of the IGCD took place at the end of November 2018, so they’ve been quietly working in the background for some time already.

Since then, they’ve held meetings in Canada and the U.K. and hosted seminars in the U.S., attended by spiritual leaders, journalists, technology executives, “subject matter experts” and parliamentary leaders from 21 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, St. Lucia, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S.)

According to the IGCD, the organization functions as a “forum for information sharing, collaboration and harmonization of policies to … achieve common goals among democratic states. Never mind the fact that democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech.”

Logistics for the group are provided by an initiative called “Reset,”2 which feels like a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset. They know people would never go along with the Great Reset plan if allowed to freely discuss the ramifications.

‘Online Safety Bill’ Seeks to Shut Down Counternarratives

The IGCD helps shed light on the technocracy front group known as the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH),3 seeing how one of the CCDH’s board members, Damian Collins MP, is also one of the founders of the IGCD. Both groups were formed in 2018 and clearly have the same goals and agenda.

One of those goals is to eliminate free speech online, which is what the U.K.’s proposed “Online Safety Bill” would achieve. Not surprisingly, Collins is part of the Online Safety Bill Committee, charged with examining the Bill “line by line to make sure it is fit for purpose.”4

In an August 11, 2021, blog post, Collins asked for the public’s help to track down counternarratives, taking screenshots of the offending material and emailing it to him. “Unless harmful content is reported, whether it is terrible images of self-harm, violent or extremist content or anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, it can otherwise be unknowable to regulators and governments,” he said.

It’s impossible to miss the fact that Collins is lumping “anti-vaccine” content in with violent and extremist content that must be censored and, in reality, that’s probably one of the top categories of information this bill seeks to control.

As reported by iNews,5 “The Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] has repeatedly insisted the powers contained within the legislation would help crack down on … anti-vaccine disinformation.”

Online Safety Bill Is ‘Catastrophic for Free Speech’

While some might think it’s a good idea to spoon feed people “correct” information about vaccines, it’s important to realize that while vaccines are the issue of today, tomorrow another topic that is near and dear to your heart could be deemed out of bounds for public discussion. So, supporting censorship of any kind is a slippery slope that is bound to come back to bite you when you least expect it.

As reported by BBC News,6 the “Legal to Say. Legal to Type” campaign warns that if the Online Safety Bill becomes law, Big Tech firms will be in a position of extraordinary power:

“While the group supports the bill’s aim of ensuring online platforms remove images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence, it fears other provisions will adversely affect free speech …

Under the bill, Ofcom [the British Office of Communications] will be given the power to block access to sites and fine companies which do not protect users from harmful content up to £18m, or 10% of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.

Campaigners claim this gives tech firms an incentive to ‘over-censor,’ and ‘effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley’ …

Mr. [MP David] Davis described the bill as a ‘censor’s charter.’ He added: ‘Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal’ …

Campaigners are also concerned that technology companies may use artificial intelligence to identify harmful content. That, they say, may introduce racial biases and will wrongly censor language, ‘especially when it comes to irony-loving Brits.’”

US Democrats Attack Free Speech

Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., would suspend Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections in instances where social media networks are found to boost “anti-vaccine conspiracies,” and hold them liable for such content. In a July 22, 2021, article, Tech Crunch reported:7

“The bill would specifically alter Section 230’s language to revoke liability protections in the case of ‘health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service’ if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm.

The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of COVID-19, and wouldn’t apply in normal times. The bill would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with defining health misinformation.”

As with the British Online Safety Bill, the Health Misinformation Act is an open portal for abuses. Ironically, the Act actually relies on misinformation to make its case. It specifically mentions the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report,8 which falsely claims a dozen individuals, myself included, are responsible for a majority of the “anti-vax misinformation” being shared on social media platforms.

‘Disinformation Dozen’ Have Negligible Reach

Meanwhile, in an August 18, 2021, statement,9,10 Facebook’s vice president of content policy, Monika Bickert, stated there’s no evidence to support the CCDH’s claims, and that the people named by the CCDH as being responsible for the vast majority of vaccine misinformation on social media were in fact only responsible for a tiny fraction — 0.05% — of all vaccine content on Facebook. Here’s an excerpt from Bickert’s statement:11

“In recent weeks, there has been a debate about whether the global problem of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can be solved simply by removing 12 people from social media platforms. People who have advanced this narrative contend that these 12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. There isn’t any evidence to support this claim …

In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.

The report12 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users. They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.

Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”

It’s quite clear that the CCDH exists to fabricate “evidence” that is then used to destroy the opposition in order to control the information. As such, it’s really nothing more than a front group for the much larger, global IGCD, which aims to shut down free speech across the world.

The ‘Whistleblower’ That Isn’t

One of the dirty tricks used to shut down free speech is to employ fake whistleblowers. Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee turned “whistleblower” who testified before Congress October 5, 2021, accusing her former employer of aiding evildoers, is not an actual whistleblower.

She is being legally represented by a firm called Whistleblower Aid, founded by a national security lawyer, Mark Zaid, who is known for betraying his clients and siding with prosecutors.13

Whistleblower Aid is funded by tech billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and the Reset Initiative, which provides logistics for the IGCD, is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies.14 That tells you everything you need to know about the intended purpose behind Haugen’s testimony. As reported by The Gray Zone:15

“Haugen emphasized in her testimony that she ‘doesn’t want to break up’ Facebook; she was merely looking for increased ‘content moderation’ to root out ‘extremism’ and ‘(mis/dis)information’ … Haugen appears to be little more than a tool in a far-reaching plan to increase the U.S. national security state’s control over one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.”

In short order, Haugen managed what has been impossible for other whistleblowers. She secured audiences with lawmakers in France, the U.K. and the European Union to discuss the need for more censorship.

Dark Money

Over the past year, the CCDH’s fabricated “Disinformation Dozen” report has been repeatedly used as the foundation for calls to strip American citizens of their First Amendment free speech rights. It’s been used by attorneys general and elected politicians, and it’s been cited in all the Big Tech hearings.16

Aside from being directly tied to the global IGCD (remember, Collins is on the board of both the IGCD and the CCDH), the CCDH is also connected to Arabella Advisors — the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.17 — by way of CCDH chairman Simon Clark.18 (“Dark money” is a term that means the identities of those funding the organization are kept secret.)

Clark is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress,19 where he specializes in “right-wing domestic terrorism” (are we to believe there’s no such thing as left-wing terrorism?), which is funded by a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss.20,21

Wyss also funds Arabella Advisors, which runs a large number of temporary front groups that pop in and out of existence as needed for any given campaign.22 Reporter Hayden Ludwig has described the inner workings of Arabella Advisors and the influence of the “dark money” flowing through it:23

“Arabella’s nonprofits act as the left’s premier pass-through funders for professional activists. Big foundations — including the Gates, Buffett, and Ford Foundations — have laundered billions of dollars through this network, washing their identities from the dollars that go to push radical policies on America.

But the real juice from these nonprofits comes from the vast array of ‘pop-up groups’ they run — called so because they consist almost solely of slick websites that may pop into existence one day and pop out the next, usually once the campaign is through.

We’ve counted over 350 such front groups pushing everything from federal funding of abortion to overhauling Obamacare to packing the Supreme Court. Arabella is as dark as ‘dark money’ gets. It’s also the prime example of liberal hypocrisy over anonymous political spending, operating in nearly total obscurity …

As more of this massive web of groups — responsible for churning out nearly $2.5 billion since its creation — has come into focus, one thing’s become clear: When a special interest donor goes to Arabella, they’re expecting a political payoff.”

You can learn more about Arabella Advisors and its hidden influence over U.S. politics through pop-up front groups in the Capital Research Center series, “Arabella’s Long War Against Trump’s Department of the Interior.”24

An Open War on the Public

We’re now in a situation where asking valid questions about public health measures are equated to acts of domestic terrorism. It’s unbelievable, yet here we are.

Over the past two years, the rhetoric used against those who question the sanity of using unscientific pandemic countermeasures, such as face masks and lockdowns, or share data showing that COVID-19 gene therapies are really bad public health policy, has become increasingly violent.

Dr. Peter Hotez has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives, and this vile rhetoric was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, of all places.25 His article should have set off alarm bells at the CCDH, were the CCDH actually about protecting us from online hate.

But the CCDH is not about protecting the public from hate. In classic Orwellian Doublespeak, it actually exists to foster and create it. Incidentally, the journal Nature also published an article by CCDH founder Imran Ahmed, in which he discusses the need to destroy the “anti-vaxx industry.” How he, who has no medical credentials, managed to meet publication requirements is a mystery, and just goes to show we cannot even trust some of our most esteemed medical journals.

In the end, lies cannot stand up to the truth, which is precisely why the CCDH and IGCD are working overtime to ‘harmonize’ laws across the democratic world to censor any and all counternarratives.

In his article, Ahmed flat out lied, saying he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers.” Far from being “private,” the meeting in question was actually a public online conference, open to anyone and everyone around the world, with access to the recorded lectures part of the sign-up fee.

The fact that Ahmed lied about such an easily verifiable point tells you everything you need to know about the CCDH — and by extension the IGCD, which it clearly is working with. In the end, lies cannot stand up to the truth, which is precisely why the CCDH and IGCD are working overtime to “harmonize” laws across the democratic world to censor any and all counternarratives.

Like I said before, right now, it’s primarily about silencing questions and inconvenient truths about the COVID shots, but in the future, these laws will allow them to silence discussion on any topic that threatens undemocratic rule by globalists.

To avoid such a fate, we must be relentless in our pursuit and sharing of the truth, and we must relentlessly demand our elected representatives stand up for freedom of speech and other Constitutional rights.

Sources and References

Tucker Carlson Today – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Brilliant!

 

Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons

by Iain Davis via In This Together

The people who none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate & business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”

They are the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) and while elected representatives are within their ranks, they don’t set either the agenda or policy. We need to both recognise who the GPPP are and understand the implications of their gambit. How are this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons and why should we resist them?

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore these questions. By recognising what the globalist think tanks and other policy makers mean by the global commons we can begin to appreciate the jaw dropping magnitude of their ambitions.

They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like ‘inclusive,’ ‘sustainable,’ ‘equity’ and ‘resilience’ are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.

While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP), who orchestrated the chaos, have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilises Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).

This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.
Laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID 19. This was planned.

The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by US ex-President Clinton following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.

We will need to consider UN Agenda 21 and 2030 in more detail, as these are key to the theft of all resources, but for now we can reference it to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will explain why politicians around the world have used it.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (b) of Agenda 2030 states:

“By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards.. adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.”

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), written in 2015, states:

“The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk; .. strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership.. it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels.. and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation.. Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed.. and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.”

“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post “disaster” reconstruction. It means the global participation of relevant stakeholders to strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships in order to implement instruments to achieve sustainable development.

SDG 11 (b) was a plan to substantially increase the global number of human settlements adopting “build back better” polices by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.

Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics – SCM – were devised by the World Economic Forum, who describe themselves as the international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP to seize the entire Earth, all its resources and everything on it, including us.

In order to control us we are being transitioned into a technocracy with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security and centralised control of the entire system has been established during, and as a result of, the pseudopandemic.

The new IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI or similar state payments) which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC.) This will ensure our compliance, as Central Banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.

The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” How it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up the Earths resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.

Throughout the pseudopandemic the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Their Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

It is the self-serving belief that some special people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate “democratic” mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption.

The WEF have claimed the supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy. They intend to do this by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”

world economic forum
They have put themselves forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the fourth industrial revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF are not alone in their ambitions, but rather the leading proponents for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of their self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.

The United Nations (UN) acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.

In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013 the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.“

They wrote:

“International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space.. Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations – such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity – have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons.. while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace.. Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”

This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020 The Rothschild backed bank the Global Environment Facility offered a more extensive list of the shared resources all life relies upon:

“In order to protect our global commons.. humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”

That coalition is the GPPP and citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they agree to promote the agreed policy agenda. In December 2020 the Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept. Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the development of Technocracy, he said:

“To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken.. human activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos.. the recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity.. It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it.. We must turn this momentum into a movement.. Everything is interlinked – the global commons and global well-being.. This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas.. Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries.. More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries.. From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line.. From classroom education to community engagement.. From voting booths to places of work.. We cannot go back to the old normal.. We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.. Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world – and with each other.”

Again we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us, we are a pestilence that must be controlled; Covid-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same and everything must be transformed.

Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breath), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.

Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), where we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and system, education, the communities we live in and even our relationships, are all to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.

The “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything. All life, all resources, all land, all water, the air, the stars and all of us. It is their intention to have dominion over all.

The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. In June 2021 the WEF wrote the Case for a Digital Commons. Whenever they want to include something else in the list they use the language of sustainable development. It doesn’t matter that this makes no rational sense, the point is to sell the notion with the right buzz-words:

“COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”

Now they claim the authority to rule the Internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the tax paying cash cows that will fund the construction of the empire:

“In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress.. Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems.. as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”

It is truly remarkable that a low mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation. The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, the authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:

“One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years….the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild…It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”

At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019 Schwab wrote What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want. The “we” referenced in that title was not “us” but rather the GPPP, though the article assumed we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:

“Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society,and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”

Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. It has a specific legal definition:

“The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”

It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with our society. Many of us would disagree which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked. There is no justification for Schwab’s claim.

I speak for no one but myself, but I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be a significant contributor to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe they should determine the alleged solutions?

Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.

Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and their leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are just people, no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.

They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they imagine this is hard to say.

We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.

Ida Auken
Ida Auken

There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations. These incorporate global logistics, international finance and cross border regulatory alignment. These world-wide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few, senior board level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same.

However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.

However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. The article was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader,” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.

The title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that her article was not intended to describe her “utopia” and that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near term future:

“Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.. When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people.. Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”

The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons) they will take care of us.

Why, is the obvious question. If they control all of the Earths resources, everything is free and AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly loosing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.

We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID 19 opportunity, a response to a set of crises which gives rise to doing “things differently.”

We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.

As Schwab noted, there was no existential threat. The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not a respiratory disease.

It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. However, when we look at Agenda 21 and 2030 an uncomfortable realisation dawns.

While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect. The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique of GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet, it is that, in Agenda 21 and 2030, the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists.

Make no mistake, the GPPP intend to control every aspect of the Earth and our lives. That is the transformation they are working towards and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.

Combined with SDGs, while we have been preoccupied with a low mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP have not only started building, they have partly completed the new global monetary and financial system. Once installed this will finalise their coup d’état and enable them to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.

We will explore how this has been done, and the remaining elements needed to accomplish the theft, in Part Two.

Please feel free to share anything from In This Together. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting In This Together. Many thanks.

Threat to National Security: Dmitry Medvedev Proposed to Surrender the Country Under the Direct Control of WHO In Russia

 

Editors’ Note: On November 29, 2021 takes place the WHASS2: Special session of the World Health Assembly referred to in decision WHA74(16). It looks like the WHO is preparing to rule the world. Not only over the West, but through the 5th column, over Russia as well and the Russian liberals are ready to toss away Russia’s sovereignty on behalf of the clique at the head of WHO. The article below is from a Russian website dedicated to fight Sputnik V vaccine mandate, which, as it turns out, is just as deadly as its Western counterparts, Pfizer, Moderna, etc.

The site was originally set up to track the devastating effects on the vaccinated in Russia, the number of deaths and the injured; we invite anyone to visit their site in Russian: https://stopvaczism.ru/. However this article by itself is the most disturbing piece of news. It presents former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev arguing in a recent press conference for no less that deposing Russia’s state sovereignty and placing it under direct external control of WHO (of course to the benefit of its Western controllers).

Here is the English translation of the article titled: Threat to National Security: Dmitry Medvedev Proposed to Surrender the Country Under the Direct Control of WHO In Russia

by RIA Katyusha Translated by Algora

Russian Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, who became famous over the past year — albeit with some reservations (as many thought, not by chance): “universal vaccination is needed, otherwise it will be impossible to spread the disease,” again reminded about himself. On the eve of the November WHO Assembly, which is scheduled to sign a “pandemic agreement” on emergency powers delegated by all countries to the neo-Malthusian office of globalists, Medvedev published a program article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta entitled ” Six Lessons from One Pandemic. About the past, present and future of the fight against COVID-19″. In our estimation, the article was prepared by a whole team of authors (it is no secret that previously the functions of such a “prompter” for DAM [Dmitry Anatolevich Medvedev] were performed by Timakov’s ex-press secretary) and is very revealing in itself. It marks the open transition of the pro-government liberal “elite” of Russia under the wing of globalists, its complete separation from the Russian and other indigenous peoples, as well as the transfer of the country to direct external control. However, it is not too late to stop all these processes.

Let’s not hide the fact that much of this article, signed by Medvedev, struck a chord with us. We selected the most striking quotes, in our opinion, and decided to present them in the format of correspondence polemics (the emphases are ours). Let’s note right away that a thoughtful analysis of the text helps to find answers to two questions: Where are the architects of the Plandemia project dragging us off to, and what do they want from us?

“To prevent disasters of such magnitude as the global pandemic of a previously unknown virus, requires not only advanced technologies and vaccines, it requires no less the political will, diplomatic efforts and the ability to put above all else the main thing – concern for the lives, health and safety of millions of people.

There can be no separate immunity in a particular country. Only collective immunity on a global scale is possible, which must be achieved together…”– Medvedev takes the bull by the horns.

Global immunity, mutual actions of states, concern for the life and safety of millions, advanced technologies and vaccines… All these, of course, are the basic postulates of the transhumanist globalists. In general, a closer look at the text does not dispel the feeling that we are just looking at a slightly rewritten resolution of the G20 health ministers, adapted to the national flavor of Russia, or some kind of declaration on cooperation with the same WHO. This is not how thoughts are usually expressed in Russian.

“No one can give accurate forecasts right now. The situation in the global economy is affected by many non-economic factors: the rate of vaccination of the population, the threat of new, more dangerous strains of coronavirus,” Medvedev continues.

The main factor in stabilizing the world economy is the vaccination of the entire planet with experimental GM drugs, which is causing millions of side effects and a huge number of deaths around the world (officially – some hundreds of thousands; in practice – real statistics are not kept, the exact figure is not provided to us, and citizens are forced to resort to word of mouth, social networks and information from honest doctors who are trying to treat post-“vaccination” complications right now.

«…And especially strongly – political factors. This includes the political will for international cooperation in the fight against the coronavirus. However, not all states are ready to show it. And this is one of the most serious problems today.”

There is clearly something new in the high-level messages from the Russian authorities. DAM here happily demonstrates his complete submission to the globalist structures and their proposed model of world governance. That is, he not only fully shares the agenda of the WHO, the UN, the World Bank, the WEF, etc., but already begins to scold and urge those countries that have not yet taken the globalists under the visor to “correct actions”. An amazing desire to curry favor, the owners will appreciate.

“In the midst of the pandemic, calls for universal solidarity and mutual assistance in the fight against the disease, for the lifting of sanctions that hinder the work of health systems, and even for a cease-fire in “hot spots”, in fact, have failed. National egoism, the “bunker mentality” of the Cold War, paranoid phantom fears, attempts to protect their own narrow geopolitical interests often turned out to be much stronger than universal values,” Medvedev’s text says.

It turns out, from the point of view of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Medvedev, Russia now no longer has “its own geopolitical interests”[!?] All the current confrontations involving Russia are “paranoid phantom fears” and our “national egoism”? And NATO is also our friend, and the EU countries that recently asked Biden to introduce the strategy of a preemptive strike against the enemy into the US nuclear doctrine? With such an approach to national security, one can go very far – to the complete removal of defense and the “alarm system” in the name of supporting “universal values”.

Now let’s compare this statement by Dmitry Medvedev with the thoughts of the founder of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Klaus Schwab, from the book “COVID-19: the Great Reset”:

“The flip side (of lockdown) is that it causes an increase in patriotic and national feelings, along with dark religious beliefs and ethnic preferences. And this toxic mix brings out the worst in us…”

Medvedev, of course, did not say anything about religious views, but in general, the message of DAM and Schwab is exactly the same: patriotism, nationalism, and the geopolitical interests of a single country have no place in the wonderful post-Soviet world. However, so far all these were flowers. Further in the article, the most delicious part begins, for which the whole kipish was started:

“The authority of the World Health Organization has been greatly shaken. Many countries initially refused to cooperate with WHO, and the United States effectively stopped funding the organization. Then the WHO cooperation somehow improved. However, problems remain to this day. The main one is that the organization does not have the levers to force States to implement a single unitary policy that is coordinated at all levels. National Governments have the right to defy WHO recommendations or issue their own decisions, sometimes contradicting those of the world.

In this regard, it is necessary to think about giving WHO the authority to make significant mobilization decisions in an emergency situation (for example, in a pandemic) in the interests of the entire world community. Probably, in order for WHO to receive such powers, it will be necessary for UN members to adopt an international convention on cooperation in this area,” Medvedev gives directives.

That’s just the end. The second in command at the Security Council of the Russian Federation proposes to officially transfer the levers of managing the national policy of one’s own country and all countries of the world into the hands of a non-governmental office, which was fully described by the head of the Kurchatov Institute, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Mikhail Kovalchuk:

“CIA Director Allen Dulles and his brother, US Secretary of State John Dulles, with the full financial support of billionaire John Rockefeller, created the World Health Organization. For what? Not to treat people, but to take full control of the world’s health and influence it – through vaccination, whatever… Rockefeller’s closest associate, Brock Chisholm, became the first president of WHO.

Here is his quote: “To come to a world government, it is necessary to banish from the minds of people their individuality, adherence to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas. Destroying the concepts of truth and falsehood, which are the basis of raising a child, replacing faith in the experience of elders with rational thinking — these are belated goals needed to change human behavior,” Kovalchuk said at the round table of the Army-2020 military-technical forum. We have not been able to find information about Medvedev’s presence at this forum in open sources. Apparently, there were no interests of the Security Council there, so Kovalchuk’s words flew past the ears of the former prime minister.

We are getting yet another confirmation and understanding of what is being prepared for humanity in November this year at the WHO General Assembly. The neo-Malthusian office will have the authority to make “meaningful mobilization decisions in the interests of the entire world community” in an emergency situation (in a pandemic that the WHO itself will declare – all conditions are already created for this), i.e., directly ordering governments around the world what to do with their peoples and territories. Medvedev has absolutely no doubt that these decisions will be made “for the benefit and interests of all”. And judging by his position, Russia will definitely vote for the surrender of sovereignty, and is already actively working on undecided countries on this topic. This is actually called an official institution of the world government (more precisely, the legalization of one of its structures so far), which manages the entire world from a single center.

Now the teachings of WHO and Rospotrebnadzor in Kazan, the construction of a WHO epidemic preparedness center in Saratov to prepare for epidemics, which will focus on training epidemic specialists, and international staff. If an international convention is signed, WHO will be able to carry out any “anti-epidemic” measures in any country of the world, based on its own considerations and standards. National governments will be obliged to comply, to open borders, implement recommendations, provide all possible assistance without question, give appropriate orders to their doctors, etc. If this is not a loss of sovereignty or a threat to national security, then what should we call it?

“It is absolutely clear that all states of the world should not just sacrifice their own geopolitical interests for the sake of saving people. Recognize vaccines produced in other countries. But the main thing is to provide the UN or WHO with a sufficient number of such drugs to transfer to countries that are not able to buy them on their own,” Medvedev continues the vaccine agenda.

Then the official called on the leaders of the countries to pour more money into the vaccination of the planet and directly to the WHO, as well as to establish a continuous supply of experimental drugs, making them available to poor countries to break everyone’s teeth. Nothing new, just another WHO template slogan about eliminating “vaccine inequality”, translated into Russian. But here’s a more important question – why do you have to sacrifice your geopolitical interests in order to save people? What, the people of a single state cannot be saved while protecting national interests? Of course, you can. The message here is quite specific: what is” saving people ” and what measures should be taken to” save them ” – from now on and forever WHO should decide for everyone on the planet.

“Another aspect of foreign policy is closely related to the issue of mutual recognition of vaccines – the so-called Covid passports (or, as they are metaphorically called in some countries, “passports of opportunity”). This is the simplest and most logical way to restore one of the basic rights of citizens – the right to freedom of movement, allowing them “open borders” and at the same time ensure the safety of people. However, such a system can only work effectively if different vaccines are recognized by a large number of countries. And, what is especially important, when creating a unified system for exchanging information about those who are sick and vaccinated, for example, under the auspices of WHO or another authorized UN body,” Medvedev broadcasts.

DAM suggests legalizing the segregation of the vaccinated/unvaccinated on a global scale and returning basic rights to people (this is not just about freedom of movement) only after an injection and marking with a QR code. In fact, these are not “passports of opportunity” at all, but digital neo-fascist ausweis [ID card] of the e-covid concentration camp system being built around the world. Yes, and they will be back again soon – in half a year (and maybe less, because new strains are coming soon) before the next injection is scheduled. If you miss it for one reason or another, it means you are an anti-vaxxer! A very original way “to save people’s lives”, given the position of a huge number of immunologists and epidemiologists on the unconditional harm to immunity due to regular vaccination “against covid”. And the most egregious thing is that the Number 2 person of the Security Council proposes to hand over to globalists from the WHO and the UN a special category of Russian citizens’ personal data – information about their health, which is subject to medical secrecy under our laws. Yes, this character is definitely in its place.

One of the key paragraphs in the state official’s article is devoted to the vaccination policy – and Medvedev thinks on an anti-national, global scale, which is already familiar to him.

“How critical is the threat posed by the coronavirus? Do we now need universal vaccination as a preventive measure against new outbreaks of the pandemic? Despite the obvious answer, there are different opinions in society on this issue. There are also groups of so-called Covid-19 dissidents who actively call for ignoring the recommendations of scientists and doctors.”

It is very interesting – for Medvedev, the answer to the question is already obvious: he is ready (probably in the interests of all mankind, even personally) to forcibly inject “life-saving substances” into people’s bodies, which have already been completely proven to cause massive thrombosis, myocarditis, autoimmune reactions, ischemia, leukemia, paralysis, convulsions, severe allergies, immune suppression, and so on. As of October 22, 2021, the American VAERS service, which does not register all cases, recorded more than 17,619 deaths, 86,542 hospitalizations, 19,584 life-threatening conditions, 2,712 miscarriages in pregnant women, 7,706 anaphylactic shocks, 10,956 myocarditis, 27,277permanent disabilities, etc..

As for the “patriotic” Sputnik from SIC Gamalei by Mr. Ginzburg and other Russian vaccines, “our” medical authorities decided simply not to accept, collect, take into account or publish data on post-vaccine events “at all”. Well, obviously, in order to maximize Russians’ confidence in fashionable GM products. Ginzburg, with a satisfied smile, never leaves the screens of the federal state media, providing statements like: “There are no victims!” But wait – here’s a story from an official Kazakh TV channel. Astana TV media with a telling headline – “More than seven hundred Kazakhstanis died after vaccination”. Local medical authorities were forced to recognize this fact, although in reality, based on messages in social networks, such cases are much more numerous. We specifically provide a screenshot, because such stories, even from serious news agencies, tend to ” suddenly ” disappear.

“Vaccination: Risk or Rescue?” More than 700 Kazakhs have died…”

In Kazakhstan, as you know, the main GM cocktail against Covid is Sputnik. And now let’s ask a simple question: if there are 700 deaths in this country, how many must there be among the more than 50 million (according to official data) jabbed residents of Russia? Wait, at the beginning of his article Medvedev carefully prophesied that the goal is “caring about people’s lives”… And all the victims that have suffered, and departed this world altogether, in the above-reported cases alone, and all the unborn children… Yes, let them be, even 100, even 50… Isn’t this reason enough to stop the skating rink of injections that have not passed the test phases prescribed for all mankind without exception, without any preliminary analyses, with med. withdrawals only for the period of exacerbation of chronic diseases? Where did the humanism of Dmitry Anatolyevich disappear? However, we are convinced that there was no trace of humanism here.

Medvedev’s thesis, “there are different opinions on this issue in society”, also does not stand up to criticism. No, not in a healthy human society, and not in a team of elite officials or seduced journalists with doctors at the Ministry of Health, since the Nazis at Nuremberg were sentenced for forced veterinary experiments on people, on this matter there is a complete consensus. In our country, this is being discussed by the authorities themselves as a complete failure of the vaccination propaganda campaign.  (There is probably something wrong with the people, Dmitry Anatolyevich, if a handful of “anti-vaxxer bloggers” have defeated the state and information propaganda machine, into which trillions of taxpayer funds have been poured), and by surveys of citizens on the Internet at federal sites. For example, on the RIA Novosti website on the morning of November 1, almost 80% of users out of 190,000 who answered voted against mandatory vaccination.

By the way, there are quite a few scientists among them (in particular, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Zverev, Professor Shafalinov), whose positions on the introduction of biotechnological substances into the body differ from the recommendations of Medvedev and doctors in power. And the arguments of the former sound much more convincing, because supporters of forced injections cannot give an example of when and where in the world such tactics ever helped to get rid of Covid. So bad luck to you again, Medvedev – we have 80% of “covid-dissidents”, according to your logic.

“In this regard, the state faces questions that are very ambiguous from the point of view of morality. To what extent can the personal interests of citizens run counter to the interests of society and contradict the safety standards of other people? Does the state have the right to force citizens to get mandatory vaccinations?”,– Medvedev begins to approach the key point.

Dmitry Anatolyevich, these questions have already been answered by the people – the only direct source of power in Russia. However, there is one more important nuance. For some reason, you have decided that you have the right to discuss measures against citizens on behalf of the state. But you yourself write in this article that you are ready right now to put all the country’s sovereignty in the fight against Covid in the hands of WHO, to create a mechanism to enforce the implementation of WHO decisions for Russia. After that, what right do you have to broadcast on your own behalf, as a representative of the state? Part 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation clearly states:

“The State guarantees equality of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as OTHER circumstances.”

Are you seriously pushing for the ability of the state to violate a person’s human rights and freedoms, depending on the circumstances, depending on the circumstances —whether this person wants to take the vaccine. In fact, misanthropic dictatorial regimes have always used categories of “public good  that are supposedly higher than the good of the individual, and it would be a good idea for you to review the course of world history.

“Is such compulsion always justified? The issue is controversial and complex. On the one hand, human rights are an unshakable value. On the other hand, there are citizens who directly interact with the virus or come into contact with a huge number of people, work in the medical and educational sphere, in public catering enterprises, in public institutions where it is always crowded. Their infection threatens the health and lives of other people, violates other people’s rights. It’s important to find the right balance,” DAM says cautiously.

Medvedev decided to make the bed softer and think about the “necessary balance”. But this is obviously deceitful, because the balance regarding the enforcement of Covid-vaccination in Russia has long been broken. In Tatarstan, for example, the chief medical officer brought all citizens 60+ under the obligation, while in other regions even managers working remotely, by phone, are suspended if they refuse to be injected.

And most importantly – the Security Council official repeats the frankly stupid and absurd argument of all adherents of “life-giving injections”: “an unvaccinated person who falls ill, they say, puts other people’s lives at risk.” Dmitry Anatolyevich, so what prevents you from getting vaccinated and getting reliable protection – with the “elixir of immortality” from Ginzburg, or with a newfangled cocktail from Pfizer (this office is always littered with lawsuits from dissatisfied relatives of the deceased – well, these are all trifles)? How do unvaccinated people who rely on their natural, rather than synthetic, laboratory GMO immunity interfere with you personally? Well, if everything goes badly for them – it’s better for you, you’ve already reduced the retirement age… In your opinion, only “super-soldiers” with antibodies from Ginzburg will remain – this is natural selection, as many vaccinators angrily note. But no, you need to take away the legal right of everyone on the planet – including a parent for their child – to refuse a fashionable procedure. By the way, only externally, in form, and not in content, of course, vaccination has similarities with the only legal method of suicide in a number of “civilized” countries – with euthanasia. Well, a very big similarity, but purely external — we emphasize. The contents of syringes are different, no doubt.

“Although some countries actually force their citizens to get vaccinated, Russia did not go this way: vaccination in our country is generally voluntary. Although decisions on mandatory vaccination of certain categories of citizens by the end of October were adopted in all regions of Russia. At the same time, discussions on total mandatory vaccination continue both at the expert level and, as they say, at home,” Medvedev writes.

Great – that is, the inability for a man to earn a piece of bread for his (often his only mastered) profession, the denial of access to sports and culture, to education (in the regions students are all obliged to take the injection), to planned medical procedures, to shops (so far, essential goods are excluded from the ban), public transportation (all the described limitations in one way or another are used in the regions of the Russian Federation) — Medvedev calls all this “in general, voluntary.” It’s not fun to think about what he means by “total commitment.” As far as continuing the discussion – another lie and manipulation. Every day, the discussion is fueled exclusively by state employees working on the topic of coercion – officials, journalists, and media “opinion leaders”. Opponents of compulsory vaccination do not forbid, and are not about to forbid, anyone to get injected if they want to.

For greater significance, the article provides a legal reference and an excursion into history. As an example, the ECtHR’s decision of April 2021 against a Czech citizen is offered – his unvaccinated child was banned from going to kindergarten. The court recognized the administrative fine and suspension of the child from education as legal. This is followed again by the well-worn arguments about ” saving the lives and health of millions of people.” Once again, what prevents all these millions from getting vaccinated, Dmitry Anatolyevich? After all, only vaccinated people will probably be saved, as we have already seen above, Covid vaccines are completely effective and absolutely safe, right?

And it is also completely ridiculous that the article constantly stigmatizes refuseniks from injections as “Covid-dissidents”. What does this have to do with anything? If a person using open sources has studied numerous cases of death from Covid after taking a newfangled GM product, which has nothing to do with the composition and principle of action of classical activated/inactivated vaccines, if he is afraid to play Russian roulette and refuses the procedure for now — until accumulation of more information about vaccines — why is he a “Covid dissident”? It is obvious that such denigration of the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens, for lack of other arguments, does not make Dmitry Anatolyevich look good.

“In certain situations, the public safety of the entire population is more important than the observance of the rights and freedoms of an individual citizen. Protection of the majority is a fundamental principle of democracy,” Medvedev tries to play big.

And again, slyness on top of slyness and the banal opposition of “general vs. private”. The fundamental principle of democracy is the fulfillment of the will of the majority, and we have an overwhelming majority of citizens precisely against coercion! Thus, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, Medvedev is fulfilling the will not of our sovereign people and country (which he also wants to take away), but the will of WHO, the UN, Soros, Gates and other globalists. Both he and those who helped him write this article cannot but understand that they have no right to forcibly “protect” the people against the will of 80% of this very people.

“Improving legislation in this area is a challenge that our state has yet to find an answer to. And, frankly, such a response will have to depend on the level of threat to public safety that the pandemic poses,” DAM concludes.

Very, very ominous wording. What exactly is the level of threat that Medvedev considers sufficiently dangerous? As of today, according to the official responses of Rospotrebnadzor, no region of Russia has exceeded the epidemic limit. Covid thresholds. But at the same time, almost every professional group is being jabbed, segregated and discriminated against very harshly. A pandemic is a concept that in principle does not exist in the Russian legal field. Why does Medvedev persist in forcing us to think in WHO terms? The direction in which he wants to” improve” the legislation is quite clear. The task of the majority of Russian citizens is to prevent this adept of globalists from realizing their aspirations in our country.

Final communiques in the form of a duty to “our” globalists in power, bowing to Klaus Schwab, his concept of “digital transformation” of society in the framework of the “fourth industrial revolution”, a joy for the fact that the virus has accelerated and brought (who would doubt) the implementation of these plans, we will not disassemble – all this is analyzed in detail in a separate thematic materials of the “Katyusha”.

***
But now let’s take the liberty of noting a key point in the framework of the controversy: in Medvedev’s article, there was not a single word, not a single real proposal about raising the authority of the state and citizens’ trust in medicine (including preventive vaccinations) in Russia. After all, Dmitry Anatolyevich must know that the draft law on increasing compensation payments for side effects after vaccination, which has long been prepared by deputies, is being stubbornly blocked in the Government. Currently, compensation is just chicken scratch – a one-time allowance of 10,000 rubles for a major complication (if a person, for example, became disabled for life), and 30,000 rubles to relatives of the deceased after vaccination. This money won’t even be enough for a funeral! Secondly, the state does not maintain and does not plan to maintain an open registry, following the example of the USA and Britain, and it is almost impossible to achieve justice and recognition of responsibility on the part of medical organizations/medical officials for victims after vaccination.

Third, the immunization of citizens, like any medical intervention, should be the result of an individual approach to the patient – everyone should be seriously examined, study the medical history, then follow up further under the personal responsibility of the doctor – only in this case will the person come to a conclusion about the benefits and safety of vaccination. Even oranges or bananas cannot be eaten by absolutely everyone without consequences – and here we are talking about an experimental biotechnological substance! Instead, we see people treated as biomaterial that passes through the “machines” of vaccinators in subway stalls and shopping centers without any prior examination.

What is happening in our country with emergency registration, clearly incomplete tests of the 3-4 phase of Sputnik (moreover, the third phase of testing is already impossible to complete according to the canons of science, because the placebo group is lost after vaccination), its equally emergency permission for pregnant and lactating women (although even in veterinary medicine, it is forbidden to jab pregnant animals; almost no currently known widely-used medicine is given to pregnant and lactating mothers), with the stated readiness to approve a formula for children, although trials on that have only just begun in August. All this has nothing to do with evidence-based medicine and absolutely does not inspire confidence in citizens.

You put the painting under “voluntary consent” under strong pressure, when the boss says to you: “Give up – or suck your paw from tomorrow” (this is already some kind of surrealism), and you understand that in case of health problems, no one will care about you-these are the Russian realities. The reasons given in the updated guidelines of the Ministry of Health for med. withdrawal from an experimental injection is just a mockery, we can say that they do not exist at all. A GM cocktail, meanwhile, provokes serious autoimmune reactions in the body, which are well known since Soviet times to veterinarians who unsuccessfully tried to create a vaccine against swine coronavirus. But no one turns to experienced scientists!

In general, as long as the state does not show that it is really interested in treating and curing people individually, including registering promising new drugs, and not only to promote the current treatment fad, when the state actually takes responsibility for the consequences of vaccination, for fully informing the citizens on the subject and for strict control of immune therapy – only then will it receive the right to broadcast something so pretentious and categorical about the coercion, irresponsibility and darkness of the people. In general, regarding government policy in this area, I would like to answer with a catch phrase from Ilf and Petrov: “in the morning – money, in the evening – chairs”.

***

The general conclusion of Dmitry Medvedev’s program article is clear – another “sleeper” has clearly shown himself in our power elite, who in general never fell asleep. This is the program text of a typical representative of a supranational power from a completely de-sovereignized country, who fully shares, supports and is ready to impose the globalist agenda with all his might. According to our value judgment, this material was prepared and compiled — I will not give it away, but the essence of this does not change in any way – its authorship is there. With this position, the Security Council should be renamed the National Security Council. Medvedev’s intention to force Russia to comply with all WHO decisions, to transfer to this NGO the authority to eliminate emergencies on the territory of Russia, to direct command of internal Russian politics, taking into account the fact that the main sponsors of WHO – private foundations of “philanthropists” and the United States – directly threatens to lose sovereignty and transfer the country to external control.

As for Medvedev’s lobbying for the introduction of mandatory vaccination for the entire population in Russia against the will of the overwhelming majority, this is an obvious basis for further destabilization of the situation, increasing social disadvantage and distrust of the authorities, which will thus completely disown their people. This can only be suggested by a visiting Gauleiter who dreams of splitting and destroying the target country. We believe that the true defenders of sovereignty from the relevant structures and bodies should carefully analyze Medvedev’s article regarding calls for the surrender of the powers of the Russian authorities in favor of the WHO — for the applicant’s compliance with his high position in the Security Council, as well as the likely presence of signs of a crime under Article 275 of the Criminal Code “High treason”. And of course, it is vitally important for our country not to sign any global pandemic agreements at the upcoming WHO Assembly in November. If such a document appears in the state, a completely real emergency may occur, threatening Russia with death.

RIA Katyusha

 

 

As Bill Gates Warns Of Smallpox Terror Attacks – Deadly Virus Samples Accidentally Found At Merck


Bill Gates has warned governments to prepare for smallpox terror attacksand future pandemics by investing billions into research and development. Bill Gates has raised alarms with critics by suggesting that billions of dollars be invested into a global pandemic task force running “germ games” to prepare for future outbreaks or biological attacks.

Meanwhile, one of the most deadly Smallpox virus samples in the world has been accidentally found at a Merck vaccine facility while cleaning. The virus is considered so deadly that only two labs in the world are authorized to store samples of it, one in Russia and the other at the CDC in Atlanta.

Mr Gates made the comments in a Policy Exchange interview with the chair of the health select committee Jeremy Hunt.

He said that countries like the US and the UK must spend “tens of billions” to fund the research adding that while it may be expensive, it could lead to the eradication of the flu and common cold.

“I’m hoping in five years, I can write a book called, ‘We are ready for the next pandemic’, but it’ll take tens of billions in R&D – the US and the UK will be part of that”, he said.
“It’ll take probably about a billion a year for a pandemic Task Force at the WHO level, which is doing the surveillance and actually doing what I call ‘germ games’ where you practise.”

The Microsoft founder suggested that the ‘germ games’ could prepare nations for bio-terrorism such as smallpox attacks on airports. Mr Gates warned that bioterrorism caused epidemics could be worse than naturally occurring ones.

“The nice thing is a lot of the R&D we need to do to be ready for the next pandemic are things like making vaccines cheap, having big factories, eradicating the flu, getting rid of the common cold, making vaccines just a little patch you put on your arm, things that will be incredibly beneficial even in the years when we don’t have pandemics,” he said.

Simultaneously Bill Gates is also funding a project that aims to deliver an invisible quantum tattoo hidden in the coronavirus vaccine for storing your vaccination history.

The researchers showed that their new dye, which consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots, can remain for at least five years under the skin, where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.

He added that he will continue to talk about pandemic preparedness, as part of his work as a philanthropist.

He said: “So along with the climate message and the ongoing fight against diseases of the poor, pandemic preparedness is something I’ll be talking about a lot.

“And I think it’ll find fertile ground because, you know, we lost trillions of dollars and millions of lives. And citizens expect their governments not to let that happen again.”

Meanwhile, one of the most deadly Smallpox virus samples in the world has been accidentally found at a Merck vaccine facility while cleaning. The virus is considered so deadly that only two labs in the world are authorized to store samples of it, one in Russia and the other at the CDC in Atlanta.

There were reportedly a total of 15 questionable vials, according to the unclassified “For Official Use Only” alert, a copy of which was obtained by Yahoo News. Five of the vials were labeled “smallpox” and 10 were labeled “vaccinia.” The vials were secured immediately.

Davos World Economic Forum Psychopaths – Members and Goals

via

Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, Chrystia Freeland, Jose Manuel Barroso, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sakozy, Nikki Haley, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel,  Mark Zuckerberg, Jacinda Ardern, Gordon Brown… What do they all have in common?

The Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) is a premier forum for governments, global corporations and international entrepreneurs. Founded in 1971 by engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, the WEF describes its mission as “shaping global, regional and industry agendas” and “improving the state of the world”. According to its website, “moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does.”

The WEF has been involved in the coronavirus pandemic in several ways.

First, the WEF was, together with the Gates Foundation, a sponsor of the prescient “Event 201” coronavirus pandemic simulation exercise, held in New York City on October 18, 2019 – the same day as the opening of the Wuhan Military World Games, seen by some as “ground zero” of the global pandemic. China itself has argued that US military athletes may have brought the virus to Wuhan.

Second, the WEF has been a leading proponent of digital biometric identity systems, arguing that they will make societies and industries more efficient, more productive and more secure. In July 2019, the WEF started a project to “shape the future of travel with biometric-enabled digital traveler identity management”. In addition, the WEF collaborates with the ID2020 alliance, which is funded by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations and runs a program to “provide digital ID with vaccines”. In particular, ID2020 sees the vaccination of children as “an entry point for digital identity.”

Third, WEF founder Klaus Schwab is the author of the book COVID-19: The Great Reset, published in July 2020, which argues that the coronavirus pandemic can and should be used for an “economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological reset”, including, in particular, advancing global governance, accelerating digital transformation, and tackling climate change.

Finally, the WEF has been running, since 1993, a program called “Global Leaders for Tomorrow”, rebranded, in 2004, as “Young Global Leaders”. This program aims at identifying, selecting and promoting future global leaders in both business and politics. Indeed, quite a few “Young Global Leaders” have later managed to become Presidents, Prime Ministers, or CEOs (see below).

During the coronavirus pandemic, several WEF Global Leaders and Global Shapers (a junior program of the Global Leaders) have played prominent roles, typically promoting zero-covid strategies, lockdowns, mask mandates, and ‘vaccine passports’. This may have been a (largely failed) attempt to protect public health and the economy, or it may have been an attempt to advance the global transformation agenda outlined above, or perhaps both.

In this regard, some notable Young Leaders include Jeffrey Zients (US White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator), Stéphane Bancel (CEO of Moderna), Jeremy Howard (founder of influential lobby group “Masks for All”), Leana Wen (zero-covid CNN medical analyst), Eric Feigl-Ding (zero-covid Twitter personality), Gavin Newsom (Governor of California, selected in 2005), Devi Sridhar (British zero-covid professor), Jacinda Ardern (Prime Minister of New Zealand), Greg Hunt (Australian Health Minister and former WEF strategy director), French President Emanuel Macron (selected one year prior to his election in 2017), Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (selected back in 1993), German Health Minister Jens Spahn, and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair (a leading proponent of ‘global vaccine passports’).

To get a full overview of their members, see Global Leaders for Tomorrow and Young Global Leaders on WikiSpooks (a Wiki focusing on covert power structures) as well as the official Young Global Leaders website. For an overview of some notable members in politics and the media, see below.

In conclusion, the Davos World Economic Forum has indeed been involved in the strategic management of the coronavirus pandemic, with a major emphasis on using the pandemic as a catalyst for digital transformation and the global introduction of digital identity systems.

Digital Identity: The 2018 vision of the World Economic Forum

Digital Identity: The vision of the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2018)

WEF “Young Global Leaders”

An overview of some WEF Young Global Leaders (2005-2021) and Global Leaders for Tomorrow (1993-2003) in politics and the media. The list is not exhaustive.

Sources: Global Leaders for Tomorrow and Young Global Leaders on WikiSpooks.

United States

Politics and Policy

Jeffrey Zients (White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator since 2021, selected in 2003), Jeremy Howard (co-founder of lobby group “masks for all”, selected in 2013), California Governor Gavin Newsom (selected in 2005), Pete Buttigieg (selected in 2019, candidate for US President in 2020, US secretary of transportation since 2021), Chelsea Clinton (Clinton Foundation board member), Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton aide, selected in 2012), Nikki Haley (US ambassador to the UN, 2017-2018), Samantha Power (US ambassador to the UN, 2013-2017, USAID Administrator since 2021), Ian Bremmer (founder of Eurasia Group), Bill Browder (initiator of the Magnitsky Act), Jonathan Soros (son of George Soros), Kenneth Roth (director of “Human Rights Watch” since 1993), Paul Krugman (economist, selected in 1995), Lawrence Summers (former World Bank Chief Economist, former US Treasury Secretary, former Harvard University President, selected in 1993), Alicia Garza (co-founder of Black Lives Matter, selected in 2020), Stéphane Bancel (Moderna CEO).

Media

CNN medical analyst Leana Wen (selected in 2018), CNN chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, Covid Twitter personality Eric Feigl-Ding (a ‘WEF Global Shaper‘ since 2013), Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times financial columnist), Thomas Friedman (New York Times columnist, selected in 1995), George Stephanopoulos (ABC News, 1993), Lachlan Murdoch (CEO of Fox Corporation).

Technology and Social Media

Microsoft founder Bill Gates (1993), former Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer (2000-2014, selected in 1995), Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (1998), Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (2002/2005), former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (2001-2017, selected in 1997), Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales (2007), PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel (2007), eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar (1999), Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg (2009), Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (2007).

Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand

Professor Devi Sridhar (a leading ‘zero covid’ proponent, selected in 2020/21), former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (both selected in 1993), BBC World Service journalist Dawood Azami, Lynn Forester de Rothschild (co-owner of The Economist), Nathaniel Rothschild (son of Lord Rothschild), historian Niall Ferguson (selected in 2005), William Hague (Foreign Secretary, 2010-2014), Charles Allen (CEO of ITV, 2004-2007; Chairman of EMI, 2008-2010).

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (since 2017, selected in 2014), Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt (selected in 2003; former WEF strategy director), Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland (selected in 2001; former managing director of Reuters). Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a WEF participant, but is not a confirmed Young Global Leader.

Germany

Chancellor Angela Merkel (selected in 1993, 12 years before becoming Chancellor), current Health Minister Jens Spahn and former Health Ministers Philipp Roesler and Daniel Bahr, current co-chair of the Green Party and failed Chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock (selected in 2020), former co-chair of the Green Party Cem Özdemir (selected in 2002), media mogul and Axel Springer CEO Mathias Doepfner (selected in 2001), talk show host Sandra Maischberger, late Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor Guido Westerwelle (1997), former German President Christian Wulff (selected in 1995, 15 years before becoming President), Reto Francioni (former CEO of Deutsche Boerse).

European Union

EU Commission Presidents Jose Manuel Barroso (2004-2014, selected in 1993) and Jean-Claude Juncker (2014-2019, selected in 1995), French President Emanuel Macron (since 2017, selected in 2016), former French President Nicolas Sakozy (2007-2012, selected in 1993), Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (2014-2016, selected in 2012), former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (1996-2004, selected in 1993), Klaus Regling (CEO of the European Financial Stability Mechanism since 2012), Guy Verhofstadt (former Belgian Prime Minister, Chair of the Brexit Steering Group), Danish Minister for the Environment Lea Wermelin, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin, former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb, and Mark Leonard (founding director of the Soros-funded European Council on Foreign Relations).

Switzerland

Natalie Rickli (Director of Health of the Canton of Zurich, selected in 2012), former Presidents of the Swiss National Council Christa Markwalder (selected in 2011) and Pascale Bruderer-Wyss (selected in 2009), Geneva politician Pierre Maudet (selected in 2013), NZZ media group CEO Felix R. Graf (selected in 2007), former Swiss Justice Minister Ruth Metzler (selected in 2002), former Swiss television CEO Roger de Weck (2011-2017, selected in 1994), former UBS CEOs Peter Wuffli (selected in 1994) and Marcel Rohner (selected in 2003), former Credit Suisse CEO Tidjane Tiam (1998).

2005 YGL Nomination Committee

The 2005 WEF Young Global Leaders Nomination Committee consisted primarily of major media publishers and editors, including Arthur Sulzberger and Steve Forbes (USA); James Murdoch, Jonathan Rothermere and Tom Glocer (UK); Arnaud Lagardère (France); Mathias Doepfner and Hubert Burda (Germany); Michael Ringer (Switzerland); and Carl-Johan Bonnier (Sweden).

Video Annex

1) Bill Gates demanding “digital immunity proof” in March 2020

 

 

2) Edward Snowden warning of the “destruction of rights” (March 2020)

 

 

3) The Chinese “social credit” system (May 2019)

 

 

Resist the Unique Patient Identifier!

By Ron Paul, MD – Ron Paul Institute

If people who torture animals are psychopaths, then what are government officials who use taxpayer dollars to fund animal torture? Many are asking this question in the wake of revelations that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci – high priest of the COVID cult – funded medical “research” involving the torture of puppies. This led “Fire Fauci” to trend on Twitter, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to call for his resignation.

The puppy torture story was followed by disclosures that the federal government funded the testing of experimental AIDS vaccines on orphans. Many of the orphans used as human guinea pigs subsequently died, and nurses who assisted in these experiments reported that many children got sick immediately after receiving the vaccines.

Testing dangerous drugs on orphans and torturing puppies in the name of “science” is certainly shocking, but is it really surprising that government would fund these types of activities? What is the difference between using orphans and puppies for cruel experiments in the name of protecting public health and killing innocent children in drone attacks in the name of stopping terrorism?

Ironically, these revelations come when Congress is on the verge of allowing the federal bureaucracy to destroy what remains of our medical privacy. Both the Senate and House versions of the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill remove the prohibition on the development of a “unique patient identifier.”

The prohibition on funding for the unique patient identifier, which I sponsored, has been in place since 1998. The push to allow the government to force every American to obtain a unique patient identifier is being justified as a means to efficiently monitor Americans’ “contact and immunization” status.

When I began fighting the unique patient ID in the 1990s, my opponents denied that medical identifiers would make it impossible to ensure confidentiality of medical records. Now, they are saying we should support medical identifiers because they allow government officials, employers, schools, airlines, and even stores and restaurants to discover what, if any, vaccinations or other medical treatments we have or have not received. The result of the identifier will be a medical caste system, where those who refuse to follow the mandates or advice of the “experts” are denied opportunities to work, receive an education, or even go to church or enjoy a night out on the town.

A unique patient identifier will weaken health care by making individuals reluctant to share personal information—such as drug and alcohol use and past sexual history—with health care providers. It will also discourage sick individuals from seeking medical care for fear their physicians will discover they are unvaccinated, smoke, are overweight, or engage in other unapproved behaviors.

A unique medical ID could also be tied to government records of gun purchases. Someone with “too many” guns could be labeled a potential mental health risk and harassed by law enforcement. This is especially likely if the gun grabbers are successful in their push to enact “red flag” laws in every state.

Fortunately, there is a growing resistance to vaccines and other mandates. This resistance is unlikely to passively accept a federally-issued unique patient identifier. If those of us who know the truth take advantage of the opportunity presented by the resistance to COVID tyranny, we can not only stop the scheme to force every American to obtain a “unique patient identifier” but end all government control of our health care.

‘Climate Change’ is an Expensive Folly…

Lord Christopher Monckton

Climate-change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton exposes what he sees as the myths about global warming and why he thinks pursuing net zero is a bad idea.

Lord Monckton is known as one of the world’s most vociferous climate-change sceptics. He has published many papers on the climate question and spoken extensively about the issue over the past 15 years. A policy adviser to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, he has worked as a journalist, and was the inventor of the mathematical puzzle Eternity.

Lord Monckton begins by pointing to areas where mainstream and climate sceptics agree. “Burning coal, oil and gas returns some CO2 to the atmosphere from which it originally came,” he says. “Some warming is likely to result. The world has warmed by about one degree in the 170 years since 1850. Some of that warming is attributable to us.”

However, he goes on, “There has been no global warming for seven and a half years.”This statement alone contradicts everything we see on the mainstream news, and also the increasingly wild apocalyptic pronouncements of the likes of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion.

To support his theory, Monckton evokes the past, arguing that we have experienced more extreme warming, even in recent times: “In the 40 years from 1694 to 1733, the Central England temperature record – the world’s oldest regional record – showed warming at a rate equivalent to 4.3 degrees per century. There has been no warming as fast as that anywhere in the world in recent decades.”

Moreover, he claims, “Deaths from adverse weather have been declining for a century, not least because warmer weather is better for life on Earth than colder. That applies even to polar bears: there are now seven or eight times as many as there were in the 1940s.” That’s certainly not what we hear from Sir David Attenborough on his much-fêted BBC wildlife programmes.

In fact, Lord Monckton suggests the stories we are fed about the rise in extreme-weather events are largely false. He states, “The imagined disasters from warmer worldwide weather are imaginary. Floods show no trend. The land area under drought has been declining for 30 years. Forest fires are less frequent and less severe than they used to be. Hurricane activity has shown no trend in a century.”

He is also not overly concerned about claims of rising sea levels, asserting, “Sea levels are rising at a rate equivalent to four inches per century – about half the 20th-century rate. Between 11,000 and 4,000 years ago, it rose 130 feet – equivalent to an annual rate more than five times the present rate. The Antarctic has actually cooled over the past 30 years, and the sea-ice extent there has grown, so there is little trend in global sea-ice extent. Northern-Hemisphere snow cover shows little change. Above all, the world has warmed at a rate one-third of what was originally predicted in 1990.”

So, I ask, if this is the case, why, in recent years, has UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson been converted from a climate-change sceptic to one of its leading cheerleaders? A dismissive Monckton responds, “Mr Johnson has allowed his current wife to sway him. Like most of the governing class, he altogether lacks sufficient intellect and knowledge even of elementary science and its language, mathematics, to be able to evaluate scientific information presented to him. He has been fooled. To lead the lemmings over the cliff is not to lead at all.”

He is sceptical that any good will come from next week’s COP26 meeting beyond a lot of hot air and photo opportunities. He says, “Boris Johnson and others will strut and fret their hour upon the photo op and then be heard no more. The pandemic greatly reduced economic activity, but the CO2 concentration in the air went up at exactly the same rate as before. They should remember King Canute, who set up his throne on the seashore, stretched out his hand and told the sea level not to rise. The sea paid no attention, and he got the royal tootsies wet.”

If Western leaders persist in their drive towards net-zero carbon emissions, he first points me to the costs involved, which are eye-watering. He tells me that, according to Britain’s grid operator, it will cost the UK $4.2 trillion to achieve Boris Johnson’s target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The UK emits only 1.2% of global emissions, but the international cost of abating the three degrees’ warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts the world will experience by 2100 will be $2.8 quadrillion, he says. And that, Monckton says, is “an immense cost.”

He believes that, even if the West does embark on the net-zero path, the results will be negligible. He says, “The economic damage from global-warming abatement is targeted only at the West, which accounts for just 20% of global emissions. Even if the whole of the West went net zero, which we won’t, the warming forestalled would be only 1/13 degree.” He claims the approach makes even less sense for the UK because it accounts for such a tiny percentage of global emissions. Indeed, the UK’s net zero would abate only 1/220 to 1/550 degree of global warming by 2050, by his calculations.

Read more from Conservative Beaver