USA Experiments With WEF’s ‘You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy’ Agenda By Giving Free Money

The US is officially set to put to test the World Economic Forum’s stated agenda that “You will own nothing and still be happy” by 2030 by giving away free money to people and tracking it to see what happens.

usa experiments with wef’s 'you will own nothing and be happy' agenda by giving free money

According to the World Economic Forum’s stated predictions for the future, “You will own nothing and you will still be happy” by 2030.

As one of the experts from their Global Future Councils, Danish MP Ida Auken puts it:

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” – Read more HERE.

Now dozens of American cities are putting these ideas to test by experimenting with giving some low-income residents a guaranteed income of $500 to $1,000 each month to do with as they please, and tracking what happens.

In experiments across the country, dozens of cities and counties — some using money from the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package approved in March — and the state of California are giving some low-income residents a guaranteed income of $500 to $1,000 each month to do with as they please, and tracking what happens.

A coalition known as Mayors for a Guaranteed Income plans to use the data — collected alongside a University of Pennsylvania-based research center — to lobby the White House and Congress for a federal guaranteed income or, for starters, to make the new $300 per month child tax credit that’s set to expire after this year permanent.

The surge in interest in these so-called free money pilot programs shows how quickly the concept of just handing out cash, no strings attached, has shifted from far-fetched idea to serious policy proposal, even as critics blast the programs as unaffordable or discouraging people from going to work.

“The pandemic showed us what is possible,” said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, whose latest budget included a $24 million guaranteed income program to give 2,000 poor families $1,000 per month.

“We’re now going to be a pretty potent lobby to get the child tax credit permanent.”

Some pilot programs have been funded privately — Twitter founder Jack Dorsey has donated over $15 million to MGI. Other places, like Minneapolis, are using federal dollars from the American Rescue Plan.

Must-read article on the subject: No Privacy, No Property: The World In 2030 According To The World Economic Forum.

Matt Zwolinski, director of the Center for Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at the University of San Diego, has studied guaranteed income policy for over a decade and says the increased interest is remarkable.

But he says there’s a flaw in using the pilot projects as a “proof of concept.”

Most are for one to two years and give money to a narrow slice of the population that knows the cash will eventually stop, so participants may be more likely to seek fulltime employment during that period than if they knew the cash was permanent.

This is exactly what Klaus Schwab proposes in his book COVID-19: The Great Reset.

Source: GreatGameIndia.com

WEF’s Great Reset: What Would A World Without Personal Property Look Like?

Within the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, the mantra has come out that by the year 2030, “you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”

what would a world without personal property look like?

For those of us who haven’t been brainwashed by communism, this likely seems somewhat disturbing. But let us examine just how one can ensure “people don’t own anything.”

Let’s look at what a world without personal property looks like.

“If it were up to me, anybody not wearing a mask when they are out in public would be arrested … That’s an act of domestic terrorism and should be treated like one,” Lancaster, California, Mayor Rex Parris.

Let’s start with the low-hanging fruit, shall we? John Locke pointed out that “Every man has a property in his own person,” with Paul Skousen further adding that your body is your first piece of original property that you own. If you are to own nothing, does it not follow that your body will no longer be your own as well?

We already see the fruits of this type of thinking in forced (or coerced)vaccinations for people to work and travel (and not be arrested). We’ve most certainly seen this with mandatory masking. What could be the further logical progressions of this type of thought, though?

Is mandatory sterilization out of the question? What about forced organ donation? Are these indeed that far out of a concept – are they not the next logical step – in a world where you own nothing?

Forced Relocation

“The theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.” – Karl Marx.

You will no longer own your house. And if you no longer hold the right to choice, your body, or your property, then you likely won’t have much of a say as to where you would reside either.

Perhaps climate change could be argued as a reason to move all people into cities. Maybe racism/equity could be claimed as to why your home is being given to somebody else.

Regardless of which form it takes place, there are excellent odds that you would not be permitted to live where you want for long.

The Death Of The Second Amendment

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” – Karl Marx

Your right to defend is centered around your right to life and right to own property. As illustrated above, if you no longer own the right to your own body, you in essence no longer own the right to your own life either. As such, there’s nothing for you to defend. “We – the government – will do that for you.”

Likewise, the Second Amendment must be destroyed to crush any potential opposition. In his masterpiece The Road to SerfdomFA Hayek pointed out that people resist being robbed: whether that be by someone with a ski mask or by someone with a badge. The only way that a collectivist can thus ensure that his mandates are followed is by ever-increasing amounts of violence against resistors.

This act is sorely hampered by those who are capable of defending themselves against attack. It is much easier to force an unarmed populace to bend to your every whim (witness current Australia, Canada, or the UK), and thus, America must be disarmed.

Vaporization Of Savings Or Nationalization Of Savings

“Because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy to our means of redistributing wealth.” – Jim Moran (D-VA) November 10, 2008

If you are to own nothing, that means that you can no longer have anything in your savings. Any money you have put into a 401k, savings account, safety deposit boxes, or the like will be vaporized overnight. It can come about through three main mechanisms.

#1 Hyperinflation

The first is through hyperinflation. As John Stormer pointed out in None Dare Call It Treason, hyperinflation was one of the prime reasons for the communization of China. If you can deflate a nation’s currency to the point that it is worthless (partially accomplished by abandoning the gold standard), you can drive a country into ruin. Once that has happened, you can rebuild out of the ashes – Karl Marx’s intentions for communism all along.

That destroyed nation is now ripe for the harvest by communists who will swiftly step into the void and create a government of their own.

#2 Nationalization

The second way that savings can be confiscated is through nationalization. When a government simply decides that all retirement accounts will be nationalized, you just lost all of your savings through government-sponsored theft. You will likely be given the balm of, “But look, we’ll take care of you. There’s a government pension for you, a universal basic income, free education, free healthcare, free housing, food stamps. Don’t worry. You don’t have your savings anymore, but this is much better.”

If you don’t think this can happen, think back to Cyprus in 2013 when their government locked down accounts for a “bail-in.”

Keep in mind that a cashless society makes it far easier for the government to control your every cent.

#3 Destruction Of A Nation

The third means that savings can be destroyed is through the destruction of a nation via war.

In much the same way as hyperinflation, invaders climb over the ruins to craft a “new” currency in a nation. It can occur via outright war/invasion or by “humanitarian aid” following some sort of national tragedy that leaves a nation in ruins.

Nationalization Of Your Business

“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake. That his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” – Ayn Rand

Your business is a part of your property. It enables you to produce – with production being true wealth, as Ayn Rand pointed out – and thus, it must be taken from you as well. It will likely come via the nationalization of all businesses.

This already happened in the past (e.g., nationalization of railroads) and must be enforced for the WEF’s intentions of a ‘no property planet’ to be realized.

Whether you’ll still be permitted to work in your chosen field remains to be seen. Choice is an aspect of freedom (the second domain according to John Stuart Mill), and only a fool would believe that the WEF is about freedom.

Thus, it is highly likely that centralized planning would determine where some people would work (e.g., government-sponsored dams, roads, canals, etc.)

Anti-Hoarding Laws Endorsing Government Confiscation

In May 1918, Francis Smith Nash and his wife were arrested, with a bail set of $3000($57,000 in 2021). Their crime? Possessing too much food in their home – despite it’s all being legally purchased – because it violated the Food Control Act.

If you are to own nothing, that means everything that is currently under your roof will not be yours for much longer either. Government-sponsored confiscation must follow necessity. The easiest method would be for there to be “turn-in” centers where people brought their goods to “collection centers.” Something similar happened in Venezuela and remember when the shelves got cleared before the lockdown and the media blamed preppers?

Very severe penalties would be enacted against those who didn’t voluntarily bring all that was required of them. Again, this is of necessity in such a world, as FA Hayek pointed out.

Overwhelming shows of force would likely be used against initial resistors with a considerable media dispersal to cow into submission to those riding the fence on the issue.

For those who still resisted, door-to-door confiscation would only continue, with armed men doing what it took for them to confiscate what remained.

Government-Sponsored Kidnapping Of Your Children

“The family is now one of the major obstacles to improved mental health, and hence should be weakened, if possible, so as to free individuals and especially children from the coercion of family life.” – International Congress on Mental Health, London, 1948

Once more, collectivism throughout history has often resorted to children being held in common. Witness the government confiscation of children in ancient collectivist Sparta. Boys were taken at the age of 7. In the collectivist Incan empire, all girls were turned over to the state at 13.

A third became involved in religious practices, a third were given away as wives/concubines, and the remaining third were slaughtered at the altar. If we look at more recent history, we can see how the Hitler Youth impacted the future of their nation.

The Death Of All Human Rights

“If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner…” – George Bernard Shaw, socialist

As Ayn Rand pointed out, once property rights die, all other rights are soon to follow. Property rights are the foundation of all other rights.

Given that the destruction of property rights is the end goal of the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset – as illustrated by their own propaganda – this means that free speech, the right to defense, the right to life will not be that far behind.

In many cases and many ways, these freedoms are already being chiseled away. Do you want to live in a world where that destruction is brought to completion?

What Is To Be Done?

It may come across to some reading as if I am solely spreading fear for fear’s sake itself. I assure you, that is not the case. I am writing this to you because I am genuinely concerned. Think through the logical progressions for yourself.

If you are going to live in a society where you own nothing, what are the logical stepping stones of such a state? What can be inferred?

My conclusions on the matter are by no means original. They come from examining what already happened to humanity and looking at the full implications of a world without property.

By doing the same, I believe you’ll come to the same conclusions as I.

So what does a world where you own nothing look like?

I can guarantee you this: it is one where happiness is an emotion you will have long since forgotten.

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/world-without-personal-property/

Your Entire Life Will Soon Be Controlled By Tracing Apps Funded By Rockefeller, Clinton Foundation

As soon as they are ready for full commercial release, a new series of smartphone apps funded and created by Rockefeller and Clinton Foundations, among other nefarious players, will control every aspect of post-COVID life

According to reports, the non-profit trust Commons Project Foundation, part of the World Economic Forum, is set to release three different smartphone apps – CommonHealth, COVIDcheck, and CommonPass – that together will collect, store and monitor people’s health data in order to determine where they are allowed to travel, study, work and live.

The Commons Project website explains that, with support of the Rockefeller Foundation, new “platforms and services” will soon be introduced to tightly regulate life after COVID-19.

We also know that part of the plan is to implement the World Economic Forum’s ”Great Reset” agenda, which is essentially a transition to the New World Order under the guise of a plandemic.

CommonHealth, we are told, will collect and “manage” people’s health data in order to relay it to health services, organizations and even other smartphone apps.

This app exists as an alternative to Apple Health for the 73 percent of the global population that uses Android devices instead of Apple devices.

CommonHealth was developed in collaboration with the University of California San Francisco, Cornell Tech, and Sage Bionetworks, the app informational page explains.

COVIDcheck, another Commons Project app created in partnership with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Clinton Foundation and the World Medical Association, is similar to CommonHealth except it exists to create a “new normal” post-COVID for schools, universities, employers and public health agencies.

COVIDcheck will contain a series of questions that explain to users how to “check” if they have COVID-19, as well as what to do next in the event that they receive a positive test result.

And finally, CommonPass, which is already being tested out at Heathrow Airport in London, functions as a type of digital passport allowing travelers to present their health data to airport screeners.

CommonPass will contain users’ COVID-19 positive or negative status, as well as proof of vaccination once a Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is released.

Air travelers will presumably need CommonPass in order to travel, especially internationally, in a post-COVID world.

“The pass works by passengers taking a test at a certified lab before uploading it,” Great Game India reveals, further explaining that CommonPass can be used “to satisfy various governments’ different regulations” concerning the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).

“It generates a QR code that can be scanned by airline staff and border officials. However, it will require governments to trust coronavirus tests taken at foreign labs. Based on your CommonPass status you may or may not be allowed to travel.”

COVID-19 Is Exactly What The Rockefeller Foundation Proposed Under “Operation Lockstep” Back In 2010
All three apps are a direct manifestation of what the Rockefeller Foundation “predicted” back in 2010 as part of “Operation Lockstep.”

This program was described as a scenario-planning exercise for global elites to manipulate and influence public policies during an alleged pandemic – you know, much like the one the world currently faces.

In the Foundation’s “Scenarios for the Future of Technology” document, four scenario narratives are presented.

One of them is called “Lock Step,” and it details how governments should deal with a global pandemic.

This document was reportedly created as a type of “operation manual” for how to proceed with a “new normal” in the event that a global pandemic strikes the world.

If this sounds eerily familiar, that is because it was all planned to happen this way 10 years ago.

Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 Was Planned to Usher in the New World Order

Whether In Colonial Madagascar Or In America, Public Schools Have Evolved In Remarkably Similar Ways – How Is This Possible?

All around the world, students attend schools which have an astonishing degree of similarity.

• Children are required to attend.
• It runs from kindergarten to grade 12.
• Students are divided by age, not by what they need or want to learn, nor by what they’ve already learned.
• The teacher is the authority. The children provide heads which the teacher is supposed to fill.
• There is little or no opportunity for students to explore a subject in depth, to develop a passion, to hone a skill.
• There’s an hour for one subject, then an hour for another.
• Teachers are considered qualified if, and only if, they have the required certificate.
• Whether they can teach well is irrelevant.
• Whether they love or hate children is irrelevant.
• Whether childhood is a happy time for anybody, is irrelevant. That’s not on the spreadsheet.
• Curriculum is fixed, and taught at a fixed rate, even if that doesn’t work for some students… even if it doesn’t work for anybody at all.
• It centers around a standardized curriculum and lesson plans, not real-life experiences.
• Students and teachers alike believe that the main purpose of school is preparing students to pass the exam.

Origin Of Schools

Whether in colonial Madagascar of 1908 (above) or 1920s America (below), public schools have evolved in remarkably similar ways.

Origin Of Schools USA

If you were starting from scratch, and wanted to help children become contributing, well-rounded members of society, would you have invented this plan? Surely not. Nobody else did. Well, almost nobody else.

For many centuries, the favorite pastime of European rulers was invading one another to win more territory.

King Frederick William III of Prussia encountered a problem: Most of his troops were farmers who had been drafted to serve him. When the enemy shot at them, they had an annoying tendency to go home to their family and farm. He wouldn’t win more land with that army! He wanted soldiers who, if ordered to make a suicidal charge, would blindly obey — not soldiers who might shoot their captain and go home.

To create them, Prussia instituted a system of schools that focused on making students respect and obey the authority figure — a teacher. (1)

When young men arrived for their first day in uniform, they already knew how to stand in a straight line. Prussia became a military powerhouse. It expanded its territory, and today we call it Germany.

But the king couldn’t tell parents, “Send us your children so we can teach them to be cannon fodder.” Schools also taught reading and arithmetic. History does not tell us if the primary goal was to mold obedient soldiers or obedient citizens. Prussia got both. Students did not, however, learn to think independently. The teacher had the answer; the students’ job was to memorize it.

This, alone, would have been enough to persuade other rulers to adopt what became known as the Prussian System. Soon another incentive appeared: The Industrial Revolution.

Previously, most Europeans lived in the countryside and worked for themselves — typically as farmers, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, or carpenters.

The invention of the steam engine changed all that. Within a few decades, urban factories sprang up. Farmers — sometimes seeking a better life, other times forced off their land — moved to the city. But they weren’t reliable factory workers.

Owners needed workers who would show up on time, follow orders, and accept boredom as their fate in life. Prussian-style schools churned them out.

More support came from a different direction. Horace Mann, an American reformer, thought the Prussian school system could improve the lives of poor people in the United States. He got Massachusetts to adopt it and other states soon followed.

European nations introduced the Prussian system in their colonies. It created the docile, low-level workforce that they needed, while appearing to benefit the local population.

In most countries today, school enrollment has increased but the Prussian system still predominates.

Today, further support for this Prussian system comes from a new source: The education industry. A vast network — administrators, teachers, and government officials; textbook and curriculum publishers; teacher training colleges; aid workers in developing countries; and the inevitable consultants — all derive their income from the public school system that has evolved.

Many of them genuinely care about children and education. But they also care about their income and job security. That shapes their thinking, and limits their enthusiasm for deep change.

And so here we are today, with a model of schooling intended to mold soldiers who wouldn’t run away when the enemy started shooting, and which evolved to meet the needs of factory owners, but also to make everyone feel good about sending their children into it. The origins of this system are still in evidence.

Origin Of Schools Gpe Lockstep

This year the Global Partnership for Education, a Western NGO that has spent $6 billion to influence school policies in developing regions, proudly announced its latest grants with this photo of schoolgirls marching in lockstep. (The boys, in back, aren’t so enthusiastic about the lockstep thing.) (2)

A never-ending stream of critics, in the global South and North alike, see plainly that the system doesn’t work, and think this is so obvious, it shouldn’t be hard to improve it.

But the system does work — for many people. Not only those in the education industry, but also for the global elite. And so, it continues to thrive. Even if children do not.

What can YOU do?

My goal here has been to give a brief history of the school model that has spread to much of the world. There were schools long before this, but the earliest schools focused on learning. This system does not.

If this is what you’ve got, and you want to change it, I can’t tell you what to do. Too many people are already trying to run it from afar! But I’ll suggest a starting point:

Set a goal to talk with five people in the next three days — family, friends, other parents, government officials — about this. Ask what they think. Discuss your ideas.

If you do this, I’d love to hear what comes of it, either as a comment (below) or a reply to the Tweet on 17 Sept. 2020 (at @k_colonialism) that has brought many people to this page.

And of course, we welcome links to this page on social media or your website. If you found this informative, your friends and followers are likely to, as well.

Tell Congress that Puerto Ricans want nationhood, not statehood

For Puerto Ricans who support self-determination, it is truly mind-blowing that some Democrats have the audacity to offer statehood as a solution on the question of Puerto Rico’s political status. At a time when Congress cannot come to grips with its responsibility to decolonize Puerto Rico – let alone guarantee a process of negotiation – support for statehood becomes suspicious at best, seeming way too much like political opportunism. The disconnect between the Puerto Rican reality and pro-statehood declarations is dismaying. 

Ill-informed support for statehood is based on several myths: 

Puerto Ricans are Americans: False. The Puerto Rican national identity remains an ethnic identification of peoples without a national citizenship of their own who live in a territory they call “their country.” This does not obscure the reality that Puerto Rico constitutes a nation, which has had a colonial relation with the United States since 1898. Ambiguities were created by Public Law 600and by the portrayal in 1953 at the United Nations of the Commonwealth as “a compact” between both nations. As the Harvard Law Review clearly stated in 2017: “Puerto Rico’s heart is not American. It is Puerto Rican.” 

Puerto Ricans in the U.S. have struggled for civil rights, but the political, societal and constitutional reality of Puerto Rico is altogether another issue. You cannot erase a nationhood by overlooking its existence and assume that “Puerto Ricans are Americans.” Such statements constitute a classic strategy of assimilation that negates Puerto Rico’s right to exist.

Most Puerto Ricans support statehood: False. Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood in five plebiscites held since 1968. The 2017 plebiscite was boycotted by all anti-statehood Puerto Rican parties, resulting in statehood receiving 97 percent support, with only 23 percent of registered voters’ participation. The 2012 plebiscite, so far the only one held the same day as local elections, was boycotted by one of the major political parties, resulting in an avalanche of blank votes, pro-independence and pro-Free Association, which outnumbered pro-statehood votes. Statehood persistently has lost support since the 1993 plebiscite (788,296 votes in 1993728,157 votes in 1998834,191 in 2012, and 502,801 in 2017). 

While in power, pro-statehood administrations have corrupted the Puerto Rican government to the point of its collapse, making this faction incapable of leading any future political project. In summer 2019, the pro-statehood governor Ricardo Rossello was ousted

Civil rights in the U.S. are not being addressed by making Puerto Rico a state. As an unincorporated territory, Puerto Rico has a different constitutional reality, and its urgency is not related to civil rights but rather to our human right to decolonization. Since 1998, the only political option gaining support is Free Association, a negotiated compact in which both countries become freely associated. 

Puerto Rico is not a country: False. The Foraker Act, the first law passed in Congress concerning Puerto Rico, stated that Puerto Ricans “shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto (sic) Rico.” Fifty years later, Public Law 600 recognized Puerto Ricans as “peoples.” In 1953, in a push to get international recognition for the Commonwealth as a pact between the U.S. and Puerto Rico “forming a political association, which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of Puerto Rico [and] maintains the spiritual bonds between Puerto Rico and Latin America,” the United States pursued Resolution 748 at the U.N. General Assembly, allowing the U.S. to cease delivering annual reports on Puerto Rico’s colonial status. Our nationhood has withstood all attempts to be assimilated. Puerto Ricans refer to Puerto Rico as “el País” (the country). Puerto Ricans are a nation, and its people are in Puerto Rico and in its global diaspora. We are not American expats living in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a domestic issue: Partially true. Puerto Rico is a domestic issue as much as it is an international issue. The U.S. took over Puerto Rico through invasion, bilateral negotiation, and a peace protocol, normalizing the relationship through Supreme Court decisions known as the Insular Cases. The U.S. scored a diplomatic victory with U.N. approval of Resolution 748. Even though Puerto Ricans at the time already were U.S. citizens, and even if the country’s political fate was thought to have been sealed, Puerto Rico today again faces the important issue of sovereignty.

Furthermore, the persistent federal mismanagement of the humanitarian crisis following the 2017 hurricanes will continue to be an international issue, as economic, political and social conditions deteriorate. Puerto Rico is a pending international issue with multilateral repercussions.

Puerto Rico has no option but statehood: False. Puerto Rico’s status question can be resolved with strong bipartisan commitment. Inspired by its anti-colonial foundational spirit, guided by its experience with the freely associated republics in the Pacific, and in compliance with international law, the United States has available political options that Puerto Ricans would be ready to discuss. In fact, many Puerto Rican professionals agree that negotiating a compact of Free Association with the United States is the correct mechanism for finding a reasonable political solution to this issue.

Congress will serve the cause of Puerto Rico and the United States by understanding and accepting that Puerto Rico needs decolonization, through a process of dialogue and negotiation. Statehood goes against U.S. political and economic interests, and actually never has been on the negotiating table. Sovereignty serves the interests of both countries, and currently is Puerto Rico’s only feasible solution for decolonization and economic development.

What If? Part 1

“What If?” histories are a good read. They are entertaining, and they provoke thought and encourage the imagination. How different the world would be if different judgments, decisions, and circumstances had prevailed at history’s turning points. Certainly English history would have been different if King Harold’s soldiers had obeyed his order not to pursue the defeated fleeing Normans down the hill. This broke the impenetrable Saxon shield wall and exposed King Harold to Norman cavalry. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Battle_of_Hastings

Would there ever have been a Soviet Union if the Czar had stayed out of World War I?

Would there have been a World War II if British, French, and American politicians had listened to John Maynard Keynes’ warning that the Treaty of Versailles would result in a second world war? Germany had been promised a different outcome–no reparations and no territorial loss–in exchange for an armistice. As Keynes realized, the betrayal of the peace led to another great war.

There are a couple of what ifs that I have been waiting for historians to explore. As no historians have risen to the challenge, I will have a go. Keep in mind that a what if outcome is not necessarily a better outcome. It might be a worse outcome. As what if did not happen and there is no what if history, there is no way of making a judgment.

Suppose Churchill had not succeeded in pressuring Chamberlain to interfere with Hitler’s negotiations with the Polish colonels by issuing a British guarantee to Poland in the event of German aggression. Would World War II have resulted or would it have been a different war?

The British guarantee emboldened the colonels and frustrated Hitler’s attempt to restore
a Germany dismantled by the Versailles Treaty. The result was Hitler’s secret pact with Stalin to divide up Poland, technically known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Having given the guarantee, Britain was honor-bound to declare war on Germany (fortunately not also on the Soviet Union), which pulled in France because of the British-French alliance against Germany.

Without Britain’s guarantee, the German (September 1, 1939) and Soviet (September 17, 1939) invasions of Poland would have been prevented by the Polish colonels’ acquiescence to Hitler’s demands and would not have resulted in Britain and France starting World War II by declaring war on Germany, resulting in the fall of France, the British driven off the continent, and Roosevelt’s determination to involve the US in a foreign war unrelated in any significant way to Americans’ interests.

Historians write that Hitler’s ambitions were in the East, not the West. Without the British and French declaration of war, the war might have been contained, with the two totalitarian powers fighting it out.

Alternatively, Hitler and Stalin might have continued their cooperation and together seized the oil rich Middle East. The British, French, and Americans would have been a poor match for the German and Soviet militaries. General Patton, the best American commander, thought he could take on the Red Army that had crushed the Wehrmacht, but his hubris did not worry Red Army commanders, who defeated the bulk of the German Army, which was deployed on the Eastern Front, while the Americans, aided by German motorized units running out of fuel, struggled to contain a small part of German forces in the Battle of the Bulge. Today we would be buying our oil from a German/Soviet consortium.

This outcome implies a different history for the Middle East, and so does another what if. What if the 9/11 Commission consisted of experts instead of politicians with their fingers in the wind, and what if the commissioners had too much integrity to write a report dictated by the executive branch? The unlikely and untenable failure of every institution of the American national security state would have been investigated, and the collapse of WTC 7 at free fall speed would have had to have been acknowledged in the report and explained. A totally different story would have emerged, a story unlikely to have locked Americans into permanent war in an expanding number of countries and into a domestic police state.

Americans might still be a free people. And American liberty might still be a beacon to the world.

On the other hand, a finding of government complicity in 9/11 could have threatened powerful interests and resulted in violent conflict and martial law.

What ifs are provocative, and that is what makes them fun. Thinking is America’s national disability. I’m all for anything that provokes Americans to think.

The Face Mask: A Powerful Symbol of COVID Oppression

A few weeks ago face masks were said to be useless and even dangerous against COVID-19. Now, people are urged to wear them and some cities are making them mandatory. Was this complete 180 made for health reasons? Or to create a specific social climate?

After two months of COVID-19 panic and terror, the world is now being ushered into a “new normal”. However, there is nothing “new” nor “normal” about an oppressive police state that haphazardly revokes rights and freedoms while citizens snitch on each other. Nope, such regimes have existed in the past. And, in societies that dare call themselves “free” and “democratic”, the “new normal” is an aberration – a slippery slope towards a global totalitarian regime.

Despite the fact that all viruses inevitably peak and phase-out from human circulation, profound and permanent changes are being made to society. And, to the elite, COVID-19 is the perfect opportunity to create a society that is rooted in fear, dehumanization, and widespread distrust of the “other”.

Since symbols rule the world, one symbol perfectly embodies this “new normal”: The face mask.

After two months of COVID-19 panic and terror, the world is now being ushered into a “new normal”. However, there is nothing “new” nor “normal” about an oppressive police state that haphazardly revokes rights and freedoms while citizens snitch on each other. Nope, such regimes have existed in the past. And, in societies that dare call themselves “free” and “democratic”, the “new normal” is an aberration – a slippery slope towards a global totalitarian regime.

Despite the fact that all viruses inevitably peak and phase-out from human circulation, profound and permanent changes are being made to society. And, to the elite, COVID-19 is the perfect opportunity to create a society that is rooted in fear, dehumanization, and widespread distrust of the “other”.

Since symbols rule the world, one symbol perfectly embodies this “new normal”: The face mask.

A headline from Canada about masks and the “new normal”. Equivalent headlines can be found across the world.

Although face masks were deemed useless and even dangerous only weeks ago, they are now being enforced in several cities around the world. What happened?

Did science make a last-minute, game-changing discovery about masks? No. However, those who are profiting from this crisis saw an opportunity: It can be instrumentalized to create a specific social climate. It is about keeping fear, anxiety, and paranoia going. It is about being constantly reminded that things are NOT going back to normal. In short, it is about social engineering.

Here’s how the usage of the face mask made an inorganic, unnatural about-face in cities worldwide.

Not Necessary

In the early onset of the pandemic, nearly all organizations and specialists advised against wearing a mask. Here’s an infographic made by the World Health Organization (WHO) in late 2019.

“For healthy people wear a mask only if you are taking care of a person with suspected 2019-nCoV infection”.

In March 2020, the WHO was still advising against wearing masks.

Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program said at a media briefing:“There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there’s some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly.”Meanwhile, the US Surgeon General was also urging people to not wear masks.

In April, Dr. Brosseau, a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases at the University of Illinois at Chicago published an article titled “Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data”. She wrote:

“Sweeping mask recommendations—as many have proposed—will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year. Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.

Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person) from a symptomatic patient in a healthcare setting to stop the spread of large cough particles and limit the lateral dispersion of cough particles. They may also have very limited utility as source control or PPE in households.

(…)

If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”

On the official website of the Canadian government, a page lists lots of reasons why homemade masks are practically useless while also hindering oxygen intake.

Homemade masks are not medical devices and are not regulated like medical masks and respirators. Their use poses a number of limitations:

  • they have not been tested to recognized standards
  • the fabrics are not the same as used in surgical masks or respirators
  • the edges are not designed to form a seal around the nose and mouth
  • they may not provide complete protection against virus-sized particles
  • they can be difficult to breathe through and can prevent you from getting the required amount of oxygen needed by your body

These types of masks may not be effective in blocking virus particles that may be transmitted by coughing, sneezing or certain medical procedures. They do not provide complete protection from virus particles because of a potential loose fit and the materials used.

Fast forward a few weeks. Here’s a headline from the CBC (which is funded by the Canadian government).

The Face Mask: A Powerful Symbol of COVID Oppression

What happened? The answer can be summed up in one word: Agenda.

Complete 180 and Media Mask-arade

After advising against the mask for weeks, the CDC made a complete 180 in early April.

This decision was not the result of new science. The world elite realized that the widespread usage of the mask creates the perfect fear-based social climate to advance its agenda. It can be used to justify longer lockdowns, intrusive contact tracing and all kinds of oppressive measures.

Of course, a shameless media mask-arade quickly ensued.

The Governor of Colorado wearing a mask during a press conference

The Mayor of Los Angeles saying “this is the new style”
In this slightly terrifying Instagram post, Hillary “Hell” Clinton dubs the mask “the must-have accessory for spring”
Of course, children around the world are being indoctrinated into wearing mask.

Probably the most grotesque use of the mask for agenda reasons can be found during White House press conferences.

Although these people are outside and spread apart, these reporters are wearing masks for the camera

When the cameras are off, the reporters turn into the rapper Future when he chants “Mask off, f*ck it mask off”.

The same hypocrisy was also found indoors.

The mask is for show? pic.twitter.com/XnRLiEJ1L5

— Power Tie (@realPowerTie) May 15, 2020

This media mask-arade has a specific goal: To normalize the widespread use of the mask in public places. And governments around the world are being pressured to make the mask mandatory.

A recent article that throws around words like “science” and “experts” to force mask compliance.

On May 11th, the city of Paris made masks mandatory in public transportation. The city is already testing ways to enforce it.

A headline from Bloomberg about Paris testing face recognition software to identify those who do not wear mask.

The Meaning of the Mask

Do not be fooled. The elite is not enforcing the mask because it cares about your health. It is all about the agenda. As COVID infections and deaths drop around the world, the masses are looking to go back to some kind of normalcy. They do NOT want that. The widespread use of the mask is the perfect tool to keep COVID-related fear and oppression going.

It does not take a Robert Langdon from DaVicinci Code to realize that the mask is a powerful symbol. A person wearing a mask is a startling sight that affects us on a visceral level. It instantly triggers our deeply-rooted fear of illness and death. It unconsciously raises our brain’s stress and anxiety levels while alerting us of impending danger. Each masked face is a reminder that things are not normal, that we should be afraid, and that we are still looking for outside forces to save us.

On a human level, the mask dehumanizes the people around us. How can we relate and associate with other people if we cannot tell if they’re smiling or not? How can we connect with other people if we can only communicate using muffled words through a piece of cloth? We can’t. Quite to the contrary, the mask says: Stay away from me, I don’t trust you.

What about the children who are growing up in this climate? They are being “groomed” into believing that this new normal is … normal.

This specific social climate is pure gold for social engineers who are looking to profoundly alter society. A society that is subjected to fear and panic becomes irrational and readily accepts any measure that promises some kind of safety. And this is what is happening now.

In Conclusion

To be clear, I personally do not care if you wear a mask or not. If it makes you feel safer, then, by all means, wear one. You can even cover your eyes and ears for all I care. However, if you began wearing a mask after the media mask-arade, ask yourself this question: Why now? Can’t you make decisions based on facts and your research rather than blindly obeying mass media?

Because, right now, the mask is not about health – it is about turning you into a walking, talking agent of fear.

10 Steps To Turn A Pandemic Into The Brave New Normal

Now, dear reader, I know you’re not a member of an institutionally sociopathic elite caste, trying to extend your power back to the good old days of supreme monarchs ordained by God himself.

But imagine you were.

Imagine you were one of the richest people to ever exist, and your vast network of wealth and influence was based on some imaginary money and the widely cultivated belief that “there is no alternative”.

10 Steps To Turn A Pandemic Into The Brave New Normal

Now imagine the lies which secure your position are suddenly and violently challenged. Imagine Yellow Vested protests in the streets of Paris, an independence referendum in Catalonia. Anti-globalists, on the left and right, surging in popularity all around the world.

Imagine Brexit and Bitcoin and PirateBay and the myriad tiny ways people won’t do what they’re told.

What you’re suffering from is a loss of control of the narrative. What you need, really, is a new story. Something to instil everyone with a sense of common purpose. To frighten them, and distract them and keep them busy.

You need a threat, something that will make everyone “come together”. To put aside “divisions” and “hate” and all work together to face a “common enemy”.

And enemies, like cakes and lemonade, are always far more satisfying when you make them yourself.

Here are the 10 steps you should employ, if you want to turn an unthreatening virus into a global power grab.

  1. Start with a poorly defined virus, add an inaccurate test for it, and encourage as many terminally or critically ill people as possible to be repeat tested until they test positive.
  2. Report your inevitably very high death rates and get vague about whether these people died OF the virus or simply WITH it.
  3. Create a ‘response’ to the ‘crisis’ that rolls out a vast network of authoritarian measures, some of which have been in planning for a long while, and only a minority of which have any possible application to pandemic-prevention. (Make sure to cancel elections until further notice and to hugely increase police powers of arrest and surveillance)
  4. Shut down your hospitals to all but ‘covid cases’. Cancel elective surgeries, kidney dialysis, cancer treatments, normal GP consultations and all “non-emergency healthcare”. Thus inevitably increasing all-cause mortality.
  5. Change your laws in numerous ways to allow almost all of these new deaths to bypass normal checks and balances and be easily diagnosed as ‘covid-19 related’, either with the inaccurate test or simply by ‘clinical presentation’.
  6. In case some attending medics are reluctant to go along with this, change the law to allow a single MD, who may never even have seen the patient in question, to diagnose covid19 at his/her own discretion.
  7. Report the startling numbers of ‘new cases’ you find as a result of these various manipulations, as evidence for how essential the new authoritarian measures are for ‘saving lives’.
  8. With no sense of irony introduce mandatory Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)s for any demographic you consider useless eaters. (If challenged talk about human suffering, limited healthcare resources and ventilators)
  9. Don’t forget to add any ensuing deaths to the covid19 totals. (source)
  10. Make sure the media calls anyone who questions any part of this a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

Not only will these ten steps allow you to create a quasi-fascist police state, but the chattering classes will actually criticise you for not being enough of a police state and beg for more.

No doubt some will say this is excessively cynical, maybe even ‘conspiratorial’. But is it?

Since February 2020 we have dedicated this site to bringing you the factual reality of the entity called the “covid19 pandemic”. We have done this using official statistics and data, and the ignored testimony of experts in the field.

What has the orthodox story brought, in the same time frame?

The claim for this being a unique pathology requiring unique levels of intervention is being made every day, in virtually every mainstream outlets, many alt news outlets and by virtually every major government and health-related NGO.

It’s a deafening cacophony, a 24/7 bullhorn of fear and certitude, a fog of headlines and speculation and ‘what ifs’ and ‘some experts claim’ and forests of unsourced or unexplained numbers.

But what is it based on? What data, what statistics, what observations are forming the basis of this narrative?

Is there anything solid behind the noise?

Despite the atmosphere of panic being generated, and despite frequent usage of epithets like ‘deadly virus’ in the popular press, no one is claiming covid19 kills a lot of people.

In fact quite the opposite, as we pointed out recently. The very same sources that are promoting the need for unique action over this virus will tell you in the next breath that there is nothing uniquely dangerous about it at all.

According to the UK’s chief medical officer, 80% of those infected will get no symptoms or a mild cold, only a tiny minority will even need treatment in hospital, and even of those, the vast majority will survive.

So, what, in actual real-world terms, is being claimed? If the problem isn’t that this virus kills a lot of people, what is the problem?

The only response to that is to talk about health services being overrun due to the ‘R0’. As if you can take that number in isolation and have it mean something.

It’s nonsense. A high R0 is not concerning if the virus is harmless to most people who encounter it. The common cold has an R0 of between 2-3, pretty much the same as SARSCOV2. It also can kill vulnerable people, sometimes in large numbers.

So, if this argument makes sense we should be locked down permanently for fear of catching a sniffle.

The R0 argument used to get additional cred from referring to the Imperial model and its prediction that the health service would be overrun if some kind of lockdown was not enforced.

But this is more than problematic. The Imperial model has now been widely discredited, and its author, Neil Ferguson, exposed as a serial incompetent, or serial data-fudger for the govt or the Gates Foundation. It can no longer be used to support either the claim for uniqueness or the argument for lockdown. There is nothing to show it does either very well if at all.

Which means the entire ‘flatten the curve’ meme is also discredited, by the way. Far from being overrun, the NHS is virtually shut down, apart from those almost empty covid19 wards. Yet apparently it’s going to take the UK govt 12 months to get elective surgeries back.

Because, you know, reasons.

Covid19 reasons.

NOT an opportunistic bid to finally shut down and privatise or otherwise commandeer the NHS.

That’s definite.

Seriously though, people. If you think there is any coherence, rational thought or data behind the global, Gatesian official position – please tell me where it is.

H.R. 6666 – The Nullifying Your 4th Amendment And Forcibly Separating Your Family To Keep You ‘Safe’ Act

Representative Bobby Rush (D-Il) introduced on May 1st H.R. 6666, a piece of Orwellian legislation that could create a national surveillance and quarantine program, allow government entry into our homes to test for Covid-19 and even grant the authority to remove Americans from their homes by force.

Also called the TRACE Act (Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone), the bill was co-sponsored by 58 house democrats and touts that it would allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to provide grants to some hospitals, schools, and nonprofits to help fight the coronavirus.

“This bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to award grants for testing, contact tracing, monitoring, and other activities to address COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019).” [SOURCE]

H.r. 6666 – The Nullifying Your 4th Amendment And Forcibly Separating Your Family To Keep You ‘safe’ Act

However, the law would also give these organizations the power to test Americans for Covid-19 “as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes,” and give the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to forcibly remove Americans from their homes if “necessitated by the circumstances of the declared emergency.” [SOURCE]

This bill is in clear violation of the fourth amendment, which guarantees, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The key word here is ‘unreasonable’, however, meaning if the Supreme Court classifies it as ‘reasonable’, these home invasions will remain legal despite being clearly against the spirit of the law.

The push for forced entry echoes remarks made by the World Health Organization’s Dr. Michael Ryan in early April.

“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units, now we need to go and look in families and find those people who may be sick and remove them, and isolate them, in a safe and dignified manner.” – Dr. Michael Ryan [SOURCE]

The Queen of England voiced her support for forced entry as she compared it to British evacuations prior to the London bombings of WWII.

“[Citizens were] evacuated from their homes and sent away for their own safety. Today, once again, many will feel a painful separation from their loved ones but now, as then, we know, deep down, it is the right thing to do.” [SOURCE]

The TRACE Act has a keen focus on ‘contact tracing’, a term that effectively means government surveillance of our everyday behavior.

Its purpose is to test for who has the coronavirus and to whom they may have come in contact.

In Washington State, the government will soon require restaurants catalogue the phone numbers, emails, and time of arrival of every customer.

You may want to think twice if you believe that these programs will ever go away once enacted. Governments rarely give up power without incredible pushback from voters.

Edward Snowden articulated this brilliantly while the pandemic was still in its early stage.

“Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept?

“That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what is being built is the architecture of oppression.” – Edward Snowden [SOURCE]

Interestingly, Bill Gates was recently awarded patent #060606 for a, “crypto currency system using human body activity data.” In layman terms, it’s a patent for a digital tattoo microchip which can detect ‘body activity.’

Millions of dollars have already been awarded to companies for similar technologies by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Watch “A Message To Humanity” on YouTube