Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Was it not that Russians finally tired of the Kremlin’s lies and hypocrisies that permeated every facet of their falsified lives?
Here are 10 symptoms of Sovietism. Ask yourself whether we are headed down this same road to perdition.
1. There was no escape from ideological indoctrination — anywhere. A job in the bureaucracy or a military assignment hinged not so much on merit, expertise or past achievement. What mattered was loud enthusiasm for the Soviet system.
Wokeness is becoming our new Soviet-like state religion. Careerists assert that America was always and still is a systemically racist country, without ever producing proof or a sustained argument.
2. The Soviets fused their press with the government. Pravda, or “Truth,” was the official megaphone of state-sanctioned lies. Journalists simply regurgitated the talking points of their Communist Party partners.
In 2017, a Harvard study found that more than 90 percent of the major TV news networks’ coverage of the Trump administration’s first 100 days was negative.
3. The Soviet surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out ideological dissidents.
Recently, we learned that the Department of Defense is reviewing its rosters to spot extremist sentiments. The U.S. Postal Service recently admitted it uses tracking programs to monitor the social media postings of Americans.
CNN recently alleged that the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security is considering partnering with private surveillance firms to get around government prohibitions on scrutinizing Americans’ online activity.
4. The Soviet educational system sought not to enlighten but to indoctrinate young minds in proper government-approved thought.
Currently, cash-strapped universities nationwide are hiring thousands of diversity, equity and inclusion staffers and administrators. Their chief task is to scan the admissions, hiring, curriculum and administration at universities. Like good commissars, our diversity czars oversee compliance with the official narrative that a flawed America must confess, apologize for and renounce its evil foundations.
5. The Soviet Union was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of their own radical ideologies.
Now, woke Silicon Valley billionaires talk socialistically but live royally. Coke and Delta Airlines CEOs who hector Americans about their illiberality make millions of dollars a year.
What unites current woke activists such as Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Mark Zuckerberg and the Obamas are their huge estates and their multimillion-dollar wealth. Just as the select few of the old Soviet nomenklatura had their Black Sea dachas, America’s loudest top-down revolutionaries prefer living in Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills, Montecito and Malibu.
6. The Soviets mastered Trotskyization, or the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.
Are Americans any different when they indulge in a frenzy of name-changing, statue-toppling, monument-defacing, book-banning and cancel-culturing?
7. The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons for rooting out all potential enemies of the people.
Since when did Americans encourage co-workers to turn in others for an ill-considered word in a private conversation? Why do thousands now scour the internet to find any past incorrect expression of a rival? Why are there now new thought criminals supposedly guilty of climate racism, immigration racism or vaccination racism?
8. Soviet prosecutors and courts were weaponized according to ideology.
In America, where and for what reason you riot determines whether you face any legal consequences. Politically correct sanctuary cities defy the law with impunity. Jury members are terrified of being doxxed and hunted down for an incorrect verdict. The CIA and FBI are becoming as ideological as the old KGB.
9. The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.
In modern America, the Pulitzer Prizes and the Emmys, Grammys, Tonys and Oscars don’t necessarily reflect the year’s best work, but often the most politically correct work from the most woke.
10. The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom. Instead, they boasted that they were advocates for equity, champions of the underclass, enemies of privilege — and therefore could terminate anyone or anything they pleased.
Our wokists are similarly defending their thought-control efforts, forced re-education sessions, scripted confessionals, mandatory apologies and cancel culture on the pretense that we need long-overdue “fundamental transformation.”
So if they destroy people in the name of equity, their nihilism is justified.
Daily we hear and observe a stream of endless propaganda about the miracles of the new generation of Covid vaccines in order to calm fears and increase public compliance.
In unison, editors at the New York Times, Washington Post and the major multimedia networks encourage everyone to be vaccinated as soon as enough vaccines are available.
Anthony Fauci and the captains in the pandemic efforts claim Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines are about 95 percent effective, and the Department of Health and Human Services is convincing us they are safe and effective.
Therefore, we should all be willing to stand in the waiting line.
There is nothing to be concerned about, we are told, except those anti-vaccine heretics, who the World Health Organization has now dubbed among the ten most dangerous risks to global health.
What The Media Blitzkrieg Is Ignoring Are The Very Legitimate And Even Worrisome Unanswered Questions What the media blitzkrieg is ignoring are the very legitimate and even worrisome unanswered questions on the minds of many citizens.
Aside from concerns over these vaccines’ uncertainties for effectiveness and safety due to quickly being fast-tracked past the usual regulatory analyses and reviews, Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines are largely experimental.
Never before has an mRNA vaccine been distributed en masse to tens of millions of people.
Other suspicions include:
1) the length of time neutralizing antibodies are effective before immunity wanes, 2) what kind of protection the vaccines will actually offer, 3) does the data truly support Moderna and Pfizer claims that their vaccines are 95 percent effective, 4) are vaccine recipients protected from contracting the virus, and if not, can they transmit it to others, and 5) the absence of long-term safety profiles following vaccination that are still pending.
The Pfizer Phase 3 trial lasted less than 4 months. Moderna only completed its COVE trial enrollment on October 22; now two months later people are receiving the vaccine.
Therefore, insufficient time has lapsed to make any realistic clinical determination about either vaccine’s safety following months after vaccination.
Yet despite these questions, over half of Americans believe that being vaccinated will provide complete immunity from infection and therefore their lives will return to normal.
New Discrimination Against Unvaccinated? Now the most recent narrative we are witnessing is stoking public fear that unless we are vaccinated we will be unable to board a plane or train, will be prevented from attending schools or public events, and may even become victims to more austere and harsh quarantine laws.
There is also the lingering myth of the PCR test as a reliable standard for diagnosing Covid infections.
Due to the widespread abuse of PCR, which was never designed nor intended to be relied upon as a confirmatory diagnostic tool, a growing number of medical experts argue that the US, the UK, Germany and other EU nations are facing a “casedemic” rather than a pandemic due to a pathogenic virus.
Despite PCR’s high rate of misdiagnoses, positive results are still being reported as Covid cases.
How Much Protection Will The New MRNA Covid Vaccines Provide And For How Long? In early December, the New England Journal of Medicine published a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease analysis of the Moderna vaccine’s length of efficacy based upon neutralizing antibody levels.
This was the first data published of its kind for any of the Covid vaccines.
Although the analysis only included 34 individuals who had received both shots, it found that antibody counts were significant over a 3-month period, averaging between 50-75 percent.
The report stated this was “less than we were hoping for.”
The rate of antibody decline increased among the older trial participants.
This disappointing result should not be a surprise, although even a sharp drop in antibodies may still provide sufficient immunity, at least for some.
The most recent issue of the British Medical Journal reports that natural immunity following infection lasts approximately 6 months.
Yet this study conducted by Oxford University Hospitals likely has serious flaws since it relied upon PCR for diagnosing the data.
Furthermore, Moderna has also been using its mRNA technology for vaccines against several influenza strains.
A similar pattern of antibody decline was noted in their flu vaccines, showing effectiveness for about 6 months and then an antibody drop by as much 90 percent.
So how much protection will the new mRNA Covid vaccines provide and for how long? Only time and further monitoring of vaccine recipients will tell.
Can One Still Be Infected After Vaccination And Can They Transmit The Virus To Others? Another important question on people’s minds is whether they can still be infected after vaccination and whether they can transmit the virus to others.
In principle, vaccine proponents argue that vaccines prevent both infection and transmission.
But the data does not support this conclusion.
It is well known that persons vaccinated against the flu will frequently contract the virus, become ill and spread it to others.
This is largely because we are dealing with viruses that enter the upper respiratory tract by way of the mucous layer in the nose and throat.
Mucous itself slows down the spread of the virus to the lungs.
However, it is also an obstacle for antibodies and immune cells, such as T-cells, from reaching the multiplying virus.
For this reason, Anthony Fauci has continued to state that vaccinated persons should continue to wear masks and observe social distancing to avoid transmitting the virus.
The World Health Organization has stated that there is no “evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on.”
95 Percent Efficacy? Back in October, Dr. Peter Doshi, at the time an editor for the British Medical Journal, had already warned that the later vaccine clinical trials were never properly designed to determine whether it would reduce the likelihood of falling ill nor preventing infection.
In a later article Doshi questions the vaccines’ purported 95 percent efficacy based upon how the results are being reported and the ambiguity between “suspected” and “confirmed” Covid cases among the trial participants who received the vaccine.
If the “suspected” cases are included, there is a 20-fold higher number of vaccinated individuals who later contracted the virus.
However, Doshi reminds us that neither Pfizer nor Moderna have provided the raw data for public scrutiny.
Moderna says it will make the data available after the trial is completed, which will be in 2022.
Repeatedly Bill Gates, Fauci and all of the media pundits tell us that unless there is large vaccination compliance, the transmission of Covid will never be interrupted.
However, based upon what we are learning, these new Covid vaccines have always been and remain an unsupported illusion to realistically end the pandemic.
Another important piece of information that is very rarely mentioned is Covid-19’s 4-5 day incubation period. In the event a person is asymptomatically infected with the virus, the CDC states:
mRNA vaccines are not currently recommended for outbreak management or for post-exposure prophylaxis, which is vaccination to prevent the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a person with a specific known exposure.
“Because the median incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 is 4 to 5 days, it is unlikely that the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine would provide an adequate immune response within the incubation period for effective post-exposure prophylaxis. Thus, vaccination is unlikely to be effective in preventing disease following an exposure.”
Reports are already coming in to confirm this.
Recently, hundreds of Israelis became infected with the virus after receiving Pfizer’s Covid vaccine. There may be several reasons for this.
First, were the vaccine recipients already carrying the virus at the time of vaccination?
Second, it takes 8-10 days for immunity to sufficiently increase after receiving the vaccine, and after the first dose there is only about 50 percent efficacy.
This is why the second shot for the mRNA vaccines is so critical in order to reach the magical 95 percent effectiveness.
Serious Adverse Effects Now that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are being administered throughout the US – 4.6 million recipients since January 4th – and in other nations, we are beginning to read reports about serious adverse effects.
Recently Covid vaccine injuries have started to be reported in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
During a seven-day period, December 15-22, there were 1,158 cases entered. However, this is but a fraction, albeit significant, of the actual number of adverse events.
On December 19, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices convened to review the cases of life-threatening anaphylaxis following mRNA vaccination.
In his presentation to the Working Group, Dr. Thomas Clark presented statistics showing that there was a minimum of 3,150 “health impact events” among 112,807 vaccine recipients (2.7 percent) during only a five-day period (December 14-18).
Moreover, these 3,150 adverse events were tagged as “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from a doctor or health care professional.”
The presentation did not include the number of minor and moderate adverse events which are likely much higher.
Reproductive Issues? In early October we reported on Covid-19 vaccine risks stated by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, the former chair of microbiology at the University of Mainz Medical School in Germany.
Among those risks is the possibility of the vaccine’s mRNA contributing to mutogenesis in reproductive cells that may be inherited later by children.
Subsequently, the University of Miami has reported it is following up on its earlier discovery of the virus present in men’s testicles up to six months after infection.
Now the researchers are investigating whether the vaccine’s Covid genetic information may do likewise and interfere with sperm quality and reproduction.
What About The Precautionary Principle? The final question is why are we failing to discuss, let alone adhere, to the precautionary principle before this massive undertaking to produce and distribute potentially billions of vaccines to inoculate the global population?
The precautionary principle quite simply states that any new medical intervention with results that are either disputed or unknown should be avoided.
In fact, the principle has frequently been invoked for products or processes that would introduce genetically modified organisms or foods for consumption.
Now we are injecting questionable genetically engineered substances into human bodies, and worse there are voices that want to mandate this enormously expensive experiment long before any reliable medical consensus can be reached on their long-term safety.
If the precautionary principle had been respected and honored during the past 100 years, the US would have prevented untold numbers of life-long injuries and deaths due to the public If the precautionary principle had been respected and honored during the past 100 years, the US would have prevented untold numbers of life-long injuries and deaths due to the public advertising of smoking, asbestos and DDT poisoning, synthetic hormone replacement, toxic pesticides such as Monsanto’s glyphosate, AZT during the early part of the AIDS epidemic, and the swine flu and Gardasil vaccines that were also rushed to market without proper scientific oversight.
The US Government Has An Atrocious Track Record For Introducing Toxic Chemicals To The American Public Then Denying All Responsibility For Their Adverse Effects The US government has an atrocious track record for introducing toxic chemicals to the American public then denying all responsibility for their adverse effects and the indescribable suffering that their shortsightedness has caused.
It is only well after the tragedy gains some public attention that a whistleblower or someone “in the know” comes forward to reveal the wrongdoings and corruption behind the companies developing these toxic products.
And how often do we find the government, the regulatory agencies and mainstream media being the primary source to expose these felonies? Rarely ever.
Even when protective laws are enacted, such as the Clean Air, Food, Water and Energy acts, corporate lobbyists and big money apply their trade to buy off legislators and heads of federal agencies to gradually scrub away these laws’ safeguards.
This is part of the corporate cancel culture to erase our protections.
Today’s largest propaganda campaign
These trends that have become ingrained into the government’s politick have led to today’s largest propaganda campaign in the country’s history and is now orchestrated by the CDC and NIH in collusion with the pharmaceutical industrial complex, Bill Gates, many of our leading corporate-funded medical schools and institutions and across the ideological spectrum of the media.
All are heavily invested in the new generations of Covid vaccines and whatever new novel drugs in the pipeline and to invalidate the highly effective and cheap drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and invermectin, that have been proven to treat Covid infections quickly and safety.
This is the same artifice of corporate scoundrels and their media escorts that have relied on faulty science, fabricate their own research to serve their financial interests, and hide behind a cloak of non-transparency who Fauci now encourages us to openheartedly trust as Covid vaccines reach your local clinics and downtown pharmacies.
Sadly their past track records of colluding and showing favoritism to private interests over public health should top the list of our worries.
Whatever the long term consequences from this massive vaccination campaign, praise, condemnation or even criminal accusations will ultimately rest upon the shoulders of our nation’s Anthony Fauci-s, Bill Gates and Moncef-s.
It’s quite clear to see for anybody who is doing deep research into the COVID pandemic that there is a big split within the scientific/ medical community as to whether or not the measures being taken by governments around the world, like lockdowns, masking and social distancing are appropriate, effective and necessary.
It’s quite a concern to many that doctors and scientists who oppose the views and perception being given to us by mainstream media about the pandemic are largely ignored and censored.
Somebody like Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, can receive instant virality yet thousands of scientists and experts in the field who disagree seem to be ignored, censored and never really given the light of day to share their research, data, and opinions.
This was recently expressed by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine in an article written for The Hill titled “Facts, not fear, will stop the pandemic.”
In that article he expresses that the case fatality rate from the virus has dropped sharply since March, and that it’s now 99.95 percent for people under the age of 70 and 95 percent for people over the age of 70.
He also recently expressed this fact on a JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) Network conversation alongside Mark Lipsitch, DPhil and Dr. Howard Bauchner, who interviews leading researchers and thinkers in health care about their JAMA articles.
Bhattacharya cited this study published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, along with approximately 50 others as expressed in the video interview.
In the article he wrote for The Hill, he points out a number of facts regarding the implications of lockdown measures.
The media have paid scant attention to the enormous medical and psychological harms from the lockdowns in use to slow the pandemic. Despite the enormous collateral damage lockdowns have caused, England, France, Germany, Spain and other European countries are all intensifying their lockdowns once again.
By lockdowns, we mean the all-too-familiar shuttered schools and universities, closed playgrounds and parks, silent churches and bankrupt stores and businesses that have become emblematic of American civic life these past months.
The relative dearth of reporting on the harms caused by lockdowns is odd, since lives lost from lockdown are no less important than lives lost from COVID infection. But they’ve received much less media attention.
The harms from lockdown have been catastrophic. Consider the psychological harm. Reader, since you’re reading this in lockdown, you can undoubtedly relate to the isolation and loneliness that these policies can cause by shutting down typical channels for social interaction.
In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that one in four young adults had seriously considered suicide. Opioid and other drug related deaths are on a sharp and unsurprising upswing.
Internationally, the lockdowns have placed 130 million people on the brink of starvation, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, measles and polio, and 1.8 million patients at risk of death from tuberculosis.
The lockdowns in developed countries have devastated the poor in poor countries. The World Economic Forum estimates that the lockdowns will cause an additional 150 million people to fall into extreme poverty, 125 times as many people as have died from COVID.
Criticism of lockdowns has been a common theme. Early on during the first wave of the pandemic, a report published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) titled Covid-19: “Staggering number” of extra deaths in community is not explained by covid-19″ has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the months of April and May.
A response by Professor David Paton, Professor of Economics at the University of Nottingham and Professor Ellen Townsend, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine, to an article published in the the BMJ in November titled “Screening the healthy population for covid-19 is of unknown value, but is being introduced worldwide” states,
Taken together, the data are clear both that national lockdowns are not a necessary condition for Covid-19 infections to decrease and that the Prime Minister was incorrect to suggest to MPs that infections were increasing rapidly in England prior to lockdown and that without national measures, the NHS would be overwhelmed…
Lockdowns have never previously been used in response to a pandemic. They have significant and serious consequences for health (including mental health), livelihoods and the economy.
Around 21,000 excess deaths during the first UK lockdown were not Covid-19 deaths. These are people who would have lived had there not been a lockdown.
It is well established that the first lockdown had an enormously negative effect on mental health in young people as compared to adults.
The more we lockdown, the more we risk the mental health of young people, the greater the likelihood the economy will be destroyed, the greater the ultimate impact on our future health and mental health.
Sadly, we know that global economic recession is associated with increased poor mental health and suicide rates.
According to a recent study published in Pediatrics, lockdown and social distancing measures are strongly correlated with an increase in suicidal thoughts, attempts and behaviour.
According to Dr. John Lee, a former Professor of Pathology and NHS consultant pathologist,
Lockdowns cannot eradicate the disease or protect the public…They lead to only economic meltdown, social despair and direct harms to health from other causes…Scientifically, medically and morally lockdowns have no justification in dealing with Covid.
These facts and many others are what inspired Bhattacharya, along with Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology to create The Great Barrington Declaration.
The declaration strongly opposes lockdown measures that are being and have been put in place by various governments around the globe. The declaration has an impressive list of co-signers from renowned doctors and professors in the field from around the world, and now has nearly 50,000 signatures from doctors and scientists. The declaration also has approximately 660,000 signatures from concerned citizens.
In the article they argue that, “In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.”
According to the AIER,
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
AIER gathered data that was put together by engineer Ivor Cummins Ivor Cummins but has also added its own in the summary they posted, which you can see below.
The studies are focused only on lockdown measures and they “do not get into the myriad of associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.”
You can access those studies posted by the AIER here.
Other concerns with regards to lockdowns are the fact that they are based on “positive” results from a PCR test. Just because a person, especially an asymptomatic person, tests positive does not mean they have COVID. We seem to be forgetting this.
For example, 22 researchers have put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives.
The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe recently stated that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.
In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.
There are many examples, the list goes on and on and you can read more about that specifically here.
Although deaths are currently running at normal levels, fear is being driven by inflation of Covid “ases” caused by inappropriate use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test. This test is hypersensitive and highly susceptible to contamination, particularly when not processed with utmost rigour by properly trained staff. Case inflation also occurs from use of excessive number number of rounds of amplification cycles (termed CT) which amplifies non-infectious viral fragments and cross-reacting nucleotides from non-Covid coronaviruses/other respiratory viruses. These become mis-labelled as Covid.
Even Dr. Fauci confirms that a positive result using CT above 34 is invalid. An obvious improvement is to immediately halt any use of CTs above 34 and ensure that or CTs between 25 and 34, two consecutive positive results are required before confirming a case as Covid positive. – Eshani M King, Evidence Based Research in Immunology and Health, Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, UK. (Source, BMJ)
Many concerns have also been raised about the death count, with various public health authorities admitting to counting deaths as COVID when they’re not actually a result of COVID. For example, Ontario (Canada) public health clearly states that deaths will be marked as COVID deaths whether or not it’s clear if COVID was the cause or contributed to the death. This means that those who did not die as a result of COVID are included in the death count. You can read more about that and see many more examples, here.
The ease to which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence..came as a shock to me…History will look back on measures – as a monument of collective hysteria & government folly.” – Jonathan Sumption, former British supreme court justice. (source)
The Takeaway Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. –Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.
Why is there so much suppression of science and scientists who oppose the narrative and information being put out by the World Health Organization?
Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)
Why is there a digital fact-checker going around the internet censoring information?
Should people not have the right to examine information, publications and evidence transparently, openly and determine for themselves what they wish to believe?
Why are government health authorities not consulting with independent scientific organizations to determine the right course of action during this pandemic?
Why do tens of thousands of doctors and scientists oppose the measures being taken by our governments?
Do we really want to give these entities so much power that they can basically do whatever they choose against the will of so many people? Do governments even represent the will of the people and have our best interests at heart or is something else going on here? Why do we as a society fail to have proper discussions about controversial topics? Why are controversial stances that go against the grain always labelled as a “conspiracy theory” and ridiculed by mainstream media no matter how strong the evidence is behind them?
“Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence.”
…Under the leadership of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, twenty-six nations agreed in January 1942 to the initiative of establishing a United Nations Organization (UNO), which came into existence on October 24, 1945.
Since its inception, the United Nations and its branches, such as the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), have prepared the countries of the world… [for] a world government…
The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome.
In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.”
The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report to the Council of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (Read more)
Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030.
The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs).
The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument. Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors.
Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse.
In the meanwhile, these anti-capitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.
Also read: The United Nations Agenda To Take Over The World
In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system.
Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system.
In 1945, [Julian] Huxley noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary.
In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN sub-organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders.
The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO – have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.
As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38).
The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61).
This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.
How many Americans really died FROM the China coronavirus?
On Christmas Day the government’s television channel, PBS, reported on the the China coronavirus first thing. This is all they talk about but they never mention China, they label the pandemic COVID-19:
“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made the announcement last night to help prevent the spread of new highly contagious COVID variants in Britain. That comes as the U.S. death toll surpassed 330,000. And hospitalizations nationwide hit a new record high yesterday, more than 120,000.”
Yes, this was from the CDC’s own reporting. So today it looks like less than 20,000 deaths in the US (330,000 x 6% = 19,800) over the past year have actually been due to the coronavirus only.
The remainder of the deaths reported by the CDC include accidents, overdoses, suicides and those presumed to have had the coronavirus upon their death.
So basically many local and state governments are shutting down their local businesses and institutions due to over-inflated statistics regarding the number of Americans who died from this China oriented coronavirus.
A new white paper by the IMF calls for linking your search history to your financial credit score, which would in effect lower your score if you visit websites marked harmful by their fact-checkers.
In a new blog post for the International Monetary Fund, four researchers presented their findings from a working paper (read below) that examines the current relationship between finance and tech as well as its potential future.
The researchers propose using the data from your browsing, search, and purchase history to create a mechanism for determining the credit rating of an individual or business.
The plan is outlined in a blog written by Arnoud Boot, Peter Hoffmann, Luc Laeven and Lev Ratnovski, pitching the Orwellian notion as a breakthrough in financial technology (Fintech).
Fintech resolves the dilemma by tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases.
Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion.
Overall, while much of the technological progress in finance is evolutionary, its pace is accelerating fast. Fintech’s potential to reach out to over a billion unbanked people around the world, and the changes in the financial system structure that this can induce, can be revolutionary.
Governments should follow and carefully support the technological transition in finance. It is important to adjust policies accordingly and stay ahead of the curve.
The researchers acknowledge that there will be privacy and policy concerns related to incorporating this kind of soft-data into credit analysis. And they do little to explain how this might work in practice.
The paper isn’t long, and it’s worth a read just to wrap your mind around some of the notions of fintech’s future and why everyone seems to want in on the payments game.
As it is, getting the really fine soft-data points would probably require companies like Facebook and Apple to loosen up their standards on linking unencrypted information with individual accounts. How they might share information with other institutions would be its own can of worms.
However, the policy seems to be designed to bring an end to alternate news media with grave consequences for those engaged with the organisation.
America’s frontline workers are now receiving the Covid vaccine, it was reported that 2 health care workers who received the experimental shot in Alaska experienced severe adverse events minutes after taking the experimental Covid shot.
Both were admitted to the ER and one was transferred to the ICU after experiencing severe adverse events both are expected to survive. One of the health care workers had not history of allergies.
This is similar to two health care workers who also experienced adverse events in the UK after receiving the experimental shot, prompting the government to issue a warning that pregnant women, children and people who have clergies to medicine, vaccines or food avoid the shot for now.
Today health care workers at Memorial Hospital is a hospital located in Chattanooga, Tennessee received the vaccine and about 10 minutes later, a nurse who reviewed the vaccine passed out on TV.
The local media reported that the nurse did regain consciousness and appeared to be OK, which is a good thing.
But remember, this is an experimental vaccine that has not received official approval from government regulators. The Pfizer vaccine has only received EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) and the trials are still ongoing. So that makes this an experimental vaccine in my book and the public appears to be the guinea pigs.
An Austrian parliamentary member exposed the defectiveness of the government’s COVID-19 tests by demonstrating in the parliament how a glass of Coca Cola tested positive for COVID-19.
In footage from the meeting in Vienna Friday, FPO General Secretary Michael Schnedlitz brings a glass of Coca Cola to the podium, from which he proceeds to collect drops to use on an antigen rapid test being used on a mass scale.
After going to the lectern and starting his speech, the politician sprinkled few drops of cola on corona rapid test. Three minutes later the test showed a result: Coca Cola was COVID-19 positive.
After demonstrating a positive result, Schnedlitz goes on to slam the tests as a waste of taxpayer resources.
Mr. President, we are likely to have a problem now, we have a positive corona test in parliament, namely this cola triggered a positive corona test. I don’t know how to deal with it now!
With things like this you are throwing tens of millions of euros in tax money out of the window instead of providing real protection for old people’s and nursing homes, instead of investing money in our hospitals.
The corona mass tests are worthless! This was also shown by a simple experiment in parliament, in which a cola had a positive result! But this black-green government spends tens of millions in tax money on precisely these tests.”
When the NHS, Britain’s socialized medicine system, debuted its contact tracing app, six million eagerly rushed to download it. After a few days, 10 million had downloaded and installed the app, and after a month, around 40% of smartphone users had put a monitoring device on their phones that would trace their social interactions and could tell them to isolate at any moment.
In October, Governor Cuomo (Sollozzo The Turk) launched a New York contact tracing app based on technology from Google and Apple, and some assistance from Bloomberg’s organization.
“It’s going to not only bring contact tracing to a new level,” Cuomo boasted, while claiming that it wouldn’t violate anyone’s privacy.
Few New Yorkers seemed to believe him. Despite being available in Spanish, Chinese, Bengali, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, and, even more unexpectedly, English, the app hasn’t taken off and Cuomo’s regime has refused to reveal the data that would actually show if it’s tracking positive cases.
The lack of data transparency has been the second biggest story about Cuomo’s mismanagement of the pandemic, after the deaths of 11,000 nursing home residents when his administration forced nursing homes to accept infected patients. The numbers are likely higher, but the Cuomo administration, in its typical fashion, is refusing to release the data.
After a month, only 5% of New Yorkers have downloaded Cuomo’s spy app. That’s far short of the 60% that’s needed for contact tracing to work.
Even Europeans haven’t hit that 60% target. Few outside Communist China have.
Apple and Google claimed that they needed at least 15%. Only a few states in America hit that bar and they tend to have small populations that lean leftward. Most Americans have opted out.
Governor Murphy launched his state’s contact tracing app to great fanfare, urging a, “shared sense of personal responsibility to support our contact tracing efforts”. Only 4% of New Jersey residents decided to take up the former Goldman Sachs tycoon on his modest proposal.
Murphy, like Cuomo, had forced nursing homes to accept infected coronavirus patients. Some of the state’s deadliest outbreaks had also taken place in state hospitals for veterans.
Pennsylvania’s Governor Wolf and Secretary of Health Richard Levine, debuted their contact tracing app in September.
“We won’t know who has downloaded the app, who has received notifications and who used symptom check,” Richard (Rachel) Levine, who had taken his mother out of a nursing home and into a hotel, while forcing nursing homes to take in infected patients, assured Pennsylvanians.
Only 4% of Pennsylavanians were convinced. Richard Levine has begun pleading with 13-year-olds to download the app. If there’s anything that’s bound to reassure state residents, it’s a strange man in a blonde wig urging their children to download an app to monitor them.
Contact tracing app adoption in America isn’t likely to get much better even with more time.
Governor Northam rolled out a contact tracing app in Virginia back in August. After half a year, the state has passed Google’s 15% bar with an estimated 19% of smartphone owners having installed the app.
But few people are actually using it.
Only 553 people submitted their positive results out of 100,000 positive tests in the state.
While Democrat governors and their European counterparts have brandished download figures, many people download apps and then uninstall them. Or leave them on and then pay no further attention to them. The actual utilization of contact tracing apps is laughably miniscule.
Virginia’s 800,000 plus downloads figure still only comes out to 553 people submitting results.
That’s why Governor Cuomo in New York and the NHS in the UK refuse to release their impact numbers. Considering the performance of contact tracing apps in Europe, it’s not hard to guess what they’re hiding.
Italy’s Immuni app was downloaded by 14% of the population, but only had 155 positive results submitted in three months. In France, after 2.3 million downloads, only 72 risk contacts were flagged.
A lot of people can be badgered into passively downloading an app, but when it comes time to upload their results and have the system notify everyone they’ve been around, they just as passively choose not to do it and the system fails.
After a year of touting contact tracing as the answer, the assault on privacy has stalled.
Contact tracing apps have failed miserably in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. California only got around to launching its contact tracing app now. The numbers are worse in much of the rest of the country with only 8 million Americans actually using contact tracing apps.
Trust is the biggest factor in the adoption of contact tracing apps. And very few Americans trust Big Tech, the government and its public health experts with tracking their lives and the lives of those around them.
The NHS app intends to start asking users about their personal lives to “score” their lifestyles for coronavirus risk. It’s easy enough to see this sort of thing as not only a privacy violation, but as an echo of China’s public surveillance and social credit system.
In a socialized medicine system where people are already penalized for their risk factors by being denied access to medical care, leaving them with few options except emigration or death where age or obesity can mean a denial of medical care, and where babies can be killed because saving them is not deemed to be the best use of resources, a “score” isn’t just a score.
Few people want to be denied medical treatment because they failed the social credit system.
Conservatives are the most likely to see the downside of such calculations and the more conservative parts of the United States have the lowest utilization rates of contract tracing apps.
Nevada’s contact tracing app was only downloaded 70,000 times, as of last month, and zero exposures were registered in September. In Wyoming, its app only managed 5,000 downloads.
South Carolina’s legislature banned the use of contact tracing apps by government agencies.
But all of that may be about to change if the Democrats succeed in their plan to place Biden in the White House.
Biden’s team is filled with Big Tech lobbyists and strongly favors a national contact tracing app infrastructure.
While the Trump administration allowed states to define their own policy, the Democrat plan has been to nationalize the crisis and control the response.
Key to their plans is the creation of a national server that would store information across state lines, and allow national authorities to monitor everyone’s movements even if they leave a state.
Ten states have already moved their codes to Microsoft’s National Key Server maintained for the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Another five are following suit.
As of now, virtually every state and area, such as D.C., with a contact tracing app, is on the National Key Server. That includes heavily populated states such as California, New York, and Michigan.
The hodgepodge of apps and approaches will be replaced by one system to rule them all.
Scott Becker, the CEO of the Association of Public Health Laboratories, has also been touting Biden’s plans for app contact tracing.
A national server will make a national contact tracing app much easier to implement. Google, which is also involved in the national server using its own cloud system, has, along with Apple, rebranded “contact tracing” as “exposure notification”.
Big Tech decided that people were leery of “contact tracing” so they gave it a new name.
Meanwhile, Biden’s people have been coordinating with the Rockefeller Foundation on testing plans.
“Policy makers,” the Rockefeller Foundation had urged, must “allow the infection status of most Americans to be accessed and validated in a few required settings and many voluntary ones.”
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently warned that the “pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty”.
Despite that, under President Trump, Americans have still enjoyed an oasis of human rights compared to the brutal restrictions and measures in the rest of the world.
Red states were able to choose less restrictive and abusive routes for tackling the pandemic, even while blue states relentlessly violated civil rights under the guise of a public health emergency.
The near future may be a mandatory national app based either on the existing Apple or Google architecture embedded into virtually every smartphone, or, worse, GPS tracking like Norway’s app which was withdrawn after being panned by Amnesty International, linked to the National Key Server, which will serve as a key element of a national pandemic social credit system.
The ten-page “Reg 174 Information for UK Healthcare Professionals” describes the vaccine, how it is to be stored, diluted, and administered, and the trial studies carried out to test it.
To be effective, the vaccine is supposed to be administered twice.
In a section called “Fertility, pregnancy and lactation,” the guide says there is “no or limited data” on the vaccine.
Therefore, it is not recommending its use for pregnant women.
“Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy,” the guide states in section 4.6.
“For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination.”
The guide also advises that women should avoid becoming pregnant for the first two months after their Covid-19 shots.
“In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose,” it says.
Because it is still unknown whether or not the vaccine can be transmitted to a breast-feeding infant through his or her mother’s milk, the instructions state that “a risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded.”
Therefore, the guide specifies that the vaccine “should not be used during breast-feeding.”
But alarmingly the guide has only one thing to say about the vaccine’s impact on fertility: they don’t know if it does or doesn’t.
“It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility,” it states.
The guide notes that the safety of the vaccine was tested in two clinical studies. The first study enrolled 60 people aged 16 to 55, and the second involved “approximately” 44,000 people aged 12 and older.
The most common negative effects of the vaccine in people over the age of 16 have been “pain at the injection site” (a muscle), experienced by over 80%, fatigue (over 60%), headache (over 50%), sore muscles (over 30%), chills (over 30%), joint pain (over 20%), and fever (over 10%).
According to the guide, these side-effects “were usually mild or moderate in intensity” and went away after a few days.
Earlier this week, two leading doctors wrote to the European Medicine Agency, which is responsible for the safety of vaccines, in an attempt to stop human trials of all Covid-19 vaccines, especially the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 described above.
Among other concerns, Yeadon and Wodart warn that some of the vaccines may prevent the safe development of placentas in pregnant women, resulting in “vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.”
“Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2,” the doctors wrote.
“Syncytin-1 […] which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses,” they continued.
“There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies.
“However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.”
The doctors suggest that because the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol says that “women of child-bearing potential” can take part only if they are not pregnant or breastfeeding and are using contraception, it could take “a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of post-vaccination infertility could be observed.”
Pfizer Can’t Be Sued For Damages
According to the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, Pfizer, the owner of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has been given indemnity in the United Kingdom, which means that people who suffer damage from the vaccine will not be able to sue the company.
“NHS (National Health Service) staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufactures of the drug, are also protected,” the Independent reported.
The newspaper also reported that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on Tuesday under Section 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012.
The regulation, which was altered by the British government this autumn, currently states that the ordinary “prohibitions” in Britain’s requirements for authorization “do not apply where the sale or supply of a medicinal product is authorized by the licensing authority on a temporary basis in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of — (a) pathogenic agents; (b) toxins; (c ) chemical agents; or (d) nuclear radiation, which may cause harm to human beings.”
The Independent noted that in a press conference on Wednesday, Pfizer’s U.K. managing director refused to explain why the company needed this legal protection.
“We’re not actually disclosing any of the details around any of the aspects of that agreement and specifically around the liability clauses,” said Pfizer’s Ben Osborn.
Curiously, in October the government’s Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), posted a bid request stating that “For reasons of extreme urgency,” they seek “an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs).”
The bid goes on to explain that “it is not possible to retrofit the MHRA’s legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine,” and that this “represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.”