Seems like there is a concerted effort to continue the ‘this time it’s different’ explanation for the markets in general, and to keep the ‘soft landing, don’t worry’ sentiment going. Economist Harvey Campbell first identified that when the US Treasury yield curve inverts (short-term yield beats long-term), a recession follows. For eight out of eight times, back to the 1960’s, each time this inversion happened, a recession followed. But Campbell now says this time it’s different – it doesn’t signal 9/9 this time. At the same time, most economists and bank execs are repeating the soft landing prognosis for the near future. Even Powell’s ‘dovish’ update this week about having a “path” to bringing inflation down to the Fed’s 2 per cent target without a “really significant economic decline or a significant increase in unemployment” seems to have the stock markets pricing in interest rate reductions into the near future.
As the Market Sniper points out, three top, scary media shows drummed out 24/7 throughout 2022 simply did not go away. Global inflation, zero-Covid China, and the energy-dark Winter for the EU. Have all these problems really, suddenly been ‘fixed’? Or more likely, simply delayed, kicked down the road by 6 or 8 months? Why did China suddenly abandon its zero-Covid lockdowns – it must be for health reasons, right? And did inflation suddenly just go away? As the Market Sniper points out, this latest yield-curve inversion is the steepest decline and deepest in history. But not to worry, because Campbell (above) says that no longer means anything.
Inflation hasn’t gone away, but it is being portrayed in the media as coming down. Not that real prices are coming down, they are just not increasing as fast. The US government measure of this uses its ‘preferred’ benchmark of ‘CORE PCE’. By this measure, they can claim that the interest rates (4.50%) have finally gone above the inflation rate (4.42%), so problem solved. This will provide the needed MSM coverage to ensure people have their 15 second sound bite to repeat ‘did you see – we fixed inflation!’
Forget about the reality of true inflation, putting back in the actual proportions of energy and food pricing that people use, from Shadowstats.com. By any measure (either using the 1990-based proportions or the 1980 one), the true inflation rate is still above 12% – falling but still more than double the official level. This still means that through elements of ‘tyflocracy’, the Western middle class is losing that spread between true inflation and the Federal interest rates. But the 4.42% level in the government measure allows the narrative for ‘we’re getting closer to our target’.
The charade that government is ‘fighting inflation’ with all the tools it has continues, as they show their Core PCE figures coming down per above. While in reality, they purposely cause inflation via flooding of the money supply (M2), with a major difference. This was on the order of hundreds of billions in the ‘great financial crisis’ of 2008-2009. The increase since March 2020 has been around 6 trillion. Increasing the money supply this time didn’t go to bailing out big banks as it did in 2008-2009, rather it filtered out to the entire economy. It is well known that this would directly drive up prices of all goods in the market, and hence the >10% true inflation versus this 4.x% Core PCE.
Again, none of the fundamentals of these problems have been addressed or fixed, except for in the media and government messaging. And, a majority of people still trust that.
It seems like things are set up for some rally or market relief over the next few months. This despite the M2 supply above showing decreases starting late 2022. The stock markets usually track (with lag) the money supply changes, so it would seem a market drop should be built in. There is a lot of real estate in the news touting all the great deals to be had due to the slump in activity. Perhaps they are priming us for some interest rate reductions to extend yet again another mini-bubble, only to reverse course again after the next black swan. Would that be a hot or cold war with China, or, American direct involvement against Russia? It seems both the financial bubble and the C19/‘sudden deaths’ stories may need some distraction at some point, which would also double as an excuse for any market crash. “It Russia’s fault” was last year’s inflation excuse. As Market Sniper says in the link above, the financial problems already have some major reaction built in – just a matter of timing. A handy story like a Russian hack or some other war-fear would help distract people on to another unifying narrative. As an example, it sure looked convenient in hindsight that the C19 ‘pandemic of our lifetime’ launched like a bad Hollywood zombie-plague movie just in time to save the system from a disastrous repo-market crisis – they needed an excuse to print money and there it was.
As for the sudden deaths (mostly being blamed on all sorts of long-Covid or lockdown effects), the tally below puts the ‘sudden deaths’ (or suspected \/ deaths) well above ‘died of C19’ level. (SAAAAD = deaths of despair, abuse, alcohol, suicides, etc.) These figures are for the US but many Western nations have similar ratios:
Both ‘Sniper’ and Ethical Skeptic comment that some sort of hack or war will handily come along for the next distraction/excuse. But, this assumes that the public needs to be distracted in the first place. How many actually are asking questions about either the ‘sudden death’ levels or the financial problems?
Judging by a quick scan of the MSM, I doubt there’s a huge change in skepticism – here’s an MSNBC host using her own experience (with her doctor on air too) to explain that myocarditis is caused by colds and all is normal. I think they have lots of tools to buy time.
DBS
7 Feb, 2023
Blog
This may just be a rambling of unconnected topics – the concept of long-term ‘stories’ or myths to keep people behaving in a certain way was on my mind. With that, I had noted Yuval Harari made comments a few years ago about humans ‘needing a story’ to feel at ease. So, as I looked in to his works, this post started to wander. But it does come back to humans and stories.
I believe that authors such as Aldous Huxley, Bertrand Russell, and Yuval Noah Harari write their works not as warnings about the future (technocratic dystopias), rather they are simply their logical predictions. Huxley followed ‘Brave New World’ with ‘BNW Revisited’, which was even more dire and pessimistic than the novel. But in his last novel, ‘Island’, Huxley offers a possible utopian version of the future, opposite to Brave New World. I lump Harari in with these earlier authors because they all write with a similar, negative view on humans as a quantity-versus-quality problem. Harari gained popularity with his “Sapiens” and “Home Deus” books outlining the path of humanity over history, concluding with “Deus” stating: “What will happen to society, politics and daily life when non-conscious but highly intelligent algorithms know us better than we know ourselves?”
In a recent interview (transcript here), Harari updates his thoughts on ‘useless people’. (A good summary of Harari and the links to earlier authors on the same subject is provided by Matthew Ehret.)
Harari: “After millions of years of evolution, suddenly, within 200 years, the family and the intimate community break; they collapse. Most of the roles filled by the family and by the intimate community for thousands and tens of thousands of years are transferred very quickly to new networks provided by the state and the market.”
And
“I think the biggest question in maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people? The problem is more boredom and how what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life, when they are basically meaningless, worthless? My best guess, at present is a combination of drugs and computer games as a solution for [most]. It’s already happening…I think once you’re superfluous, you don’t have power.”
Harari seems to serve as the bridge from the old class of population control to the new ones. He helps the middle class intellectuals feel smug and helps to smooth out the age-old eugenics ideas into new ones for the future. After ‘Deus’, he followed with ’21 Lessons for the 21st Century’, praised heavily by Bill Gates of course. A major ‘lesson’ was that humans are guided by stories, not data or facts – and this is to be taken advantage of. From a review:
“Harari argues that if you simply tell the unvarnished truth, no one will pay attention. Consequently, you would have no power, as power comes from the stories you convince other people to believe. There will never be a society that values truth over power. Nevertheless, he insists that facts do exist, separate from myths and propaganda. Scientists and journalists need to do their best to spin stories around facts rather than derive “facts” from stories.” (from NextBigIdea.com)
And so, as if on cue within the first week of the ‘pandemic of our lifetime’, Harari posts our required course of action in March 2020: “In the days ahead, each one of us should choose to trust scientific data and healthcare experts over unfounded conspiracy theories and self-serving politicians.” (Financial Times, March 2020.) (I’m sure this is completely unrelated to almost all countries’ media corporations signing on to the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ in 2019, where twitter, facebook, etc. and all MSM agreed to fight disinformation).
‘The story’ is further-reinforced by what many predicted would be a ‘technology civil war’ in the online world. That ‘war’ is not coming, it is and was already here. The majority are deeply-involved with the pandemic story, both in traditional MSM and social media. We are all victims of the age-old ‘divide and rule’ (or ‘divide and conquer’) that has worked on populations for centuries. This time, with the technology of social media perfected the last 20 years, the populations are divided and controlled ‘IVL’ (in virtual life, to steal the stupid acronym away from ‘IRL’ in real life). A sufficient majority are in the narrative camp and remain there due to the positives – it’s safe not to question, you wouldn’t have lost your job due to mandates, you are surrounded by the majority who agree with you, and, ‘it’s all being done for our own good – I trust my government.’ The minorities are shunted away in to their realities and their ‘unacceptable views’. Social media apps have been honed to funnel people to content they already like or agree with. And so it’s no surprise anyone questioning the story gets pulled or pushed to ‘alternates’ like this platform (Substack), or alternates such as Bitchute, Odyssee, or whichever. Anything against the story is corralled and controlled – those thoughts and questions do no exist ‘IRL’ because to the majority, they do not exist online. These ‘new’ social media platforms seem to be analogous to Florida – lure all the wrong-thinkers to one area and then you at least have them all in one location to blow off steam.
An on-going example of something that does not exist is continuous, elevated excess mortality across all the West. Data from governments in the EU and the USA, for example, show that non-Covid deaths and excess deaths in general are worse now (Fall 2022 into Winter 2022/2023) than ever before. So far, the ‘story’ is same as usual – ‘it’s long Covid’, ‘heart attacks are normal’ etc. I’m sure we will get more nuanced stories, tailored to the regions, parroted by the MSM to ensure people don’t stray in to the ‘wrong’ areas of discussion.
Back to the human need for stories. I’m certain Harari would be well-versed in the writings and thoughts of Russell and Huxley. The need to control us messy humans for our own good is a common thought for many authors and experts going back to early 1900’s. The constant messaging that humans are too populous and are destroying the Earth is relentless. We are the cancer and only ‘they’ can show us the way out – Harari just adds the modern touch to this by completing the technological explanations that Huxley would not have known about.
The longer-term story being used in parallel with pandemic fear is climate change fear. A very handy control tool because we can never prove/disprove changes or effects since they take generations to change. And, even if something does change – those maintaining the story will use post-hoc/propter-hoc fallacies to take credit if the change is good. Conversely, if the change is bad it will always be the humans’ fault. (And if the change doesn’t fit the data, it’s labelled ‘weather’). I feel the next big ‘story’ to come, sometime between 2025-2030, will be the ‘would have been worse’ scenario as it applies to climate change. The pseudo-religious story (because humans, especially Western ones with no spirituality, need a myth to cling to) will be one of scientism – the same scientism that has helped erase the old definitions we used to think as normal before 2020. That is, what a ‘pandemic’ is, ‘herd immunity’, ‘vaccine’, that lockdowns work, asymptomatic spread, everyone is equally at risk, ‘vaccines saved millions’, etc. The last three years have normalized all of this for a sufficient proportion of the world – such that enough people will always go along with non-sensical ‘do your part’ mandates dictated to them whenever it is decided necessary.
Regardless where one stands on climate change, similar to regardless where the C19 virus/pandemic came from, they will use and manipulate the story for both in the same ‘would have been worse’ way in order to move the majority on to a new system ‘for the greater good’. Similar to how the West was previously moved on to a debt-based petro-dollar culture of consumption more than fifty years ago, the shift we are undergoing now will be done with a mix of fear and relief, involving crises, currencies, energy, and supply chains (well underway). The old systems will remain behind the scene as we transition, but the story being told will need to be narrated over years to ensure the ‘myth’ aspect remains strong – aimed mainly at the generations under 40 or 50 years old. (Not much use or need to convince the minority over 50 who won’t matter in a decade or two, right?). If people such as Harari openly tell us that we need stories for our own good, and to only listen to authorities, what is a more likely explanation? That the pandemic(s) and climate change are wild, out of control, unknown catastrophes? Or, crises to be taken advantage of for controlling masses of people for our own good (their version of ‘for our own good’)? As said before – humans can’t handle the truth directly, we need stories.
For climate change, it seems like the best way to tell a story to move the system over to a new one. The old links between life – energy, money, supply chains – based on fossil fuels and debt, are already changed/changing to the new model. The same fake scarcity of energy will be needed as before for controlling behavior, only now the money will be completely digital (CBDC) and controllable down to every transaction. Our money is already digital – there is no physical store of value, only trust in the fiat system between people and countries. The comments that ‘the whole fiat system is about to collapse’ has always been there, and will remain there. Only now they will have ultimate control of our transactions with CBDC. It won’t be a 100% cut-over, rather it will be done first to all the main cities and move outwards in order to cover the majority of the populations.
The green energy/renewables story mixed with climate change emergencies and fear-mongering will continue. I predict ‘they’ will continue the deliberate supply chain disruptions and energy manipulations (oil/gas etc.), all the while profiting off driving up those commodities for their own benefit. In parallel, nuclear tech energy sources will quietly replace those dependencies, with the same elites already set up to profit from that into the future. The story will continue to be the desperate, mad rush to rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependency and move all to renewables. Again, the energy scarcity can be maintained in to the future, because fossil fuels and nuclear can be used in the background, while climate change ‘emergencies’ can be used as excuses to limit energy and population movement anytime anywhere since it’s tied to the renewables (wind/solar etc.)
The climate change scare is decades-long, while the pandemic scares are useful for short-term control over a year or two. Both serve the same end – public support for lockdowns and mandates and control ‘for our own good’. It’s no wonder that the WEF and WHO are still pushing ahead with the pandemic treaties – ensuring all 194 nation states remain signed on to their global authority for whenever they announce a ‘pandemic’ or any other emergency. These treaties will ensure no country or State level sovereignty or democratic processes go against the global directives. As with the last three years, to bypass the rights of multiple aspects of life ‘because there’s an emergency’.
For climate alarmism, just listen to a short portion of the recent Davos meet up. Non-stop theatre of fear on energy, Ukraine war, climate change, vaccine passports (still). They must be putting on shows for one another and laughing. Here’s Al Gore again playing his part (audio clip from the No Agenda show).
Wouldn’t it be handy if, as some suspect, the climate starts or has started a cooling trend due to other reasons over the next five to ten years? That is, what if rather than the story – that our selfish human consumption creates too much CO2 which then causes the temperature to rise, heats atmosphere and the planet, is actually the opposite? What if the planet, via its core and ocean thermals, heats the atmosphere which then causes the temperature to rise, which then causes CO2 rise, regardless of human activity? The current fearful story is that we heat the atmosphere which then heats the entire ocean – which is more plausible? (See Ethical Skeptic’s paper here explaining his synopsis on this). More importantly, which story allows for almost complete population control – who benefits? Wokeness, ‘do your part’ for pandemics, and ‘do your part’ for climate change are all crammed down our throats on a constant basis, almost always with fear. Discussion or questioning is to be avoided – almost like questioning a religion in the ‘old days’.
Whatever the reason, if the global trend is cooling naturally without human control, the main point is to take credit for and control the story. Imagine how large an effect of that ‘would have been worse’ narrative would be sometime in the near future? Accepting digital currencies and pandemic lockdowns/restrictions would seem so minor compared to our saving the planet by embracing green energy and ‘following the science’. I don’t have an exact timeline in mind for this, but I’m certain the story will be to take credit for something that they know would happen naturally – ‘would have been worse’. And the people again, needing a story, will go along. It wouldn’t end there – they will always have something to keep us compliant, but this mixing of pandemic and climate fear (and war) will be used to boost uptake of digital currencies. The perceived conveniences will also make the changeover easier.
DBS
7 Feb, 2023
Blog
Let’s start out with some small ‘nudging’ here. Do these look like proper images to keep society calm and cohesive? Or divisive, antagonistic, and fearful?
That’s just a small subset. If you had watched your daily news updates for the last three years, it’s been an intimidating display of ‘experts’ all standing in specific formation, usually with a mask, lots of regalia in the background relating to your Province or country or State to stir up some emotion, and lots and lots of jarring, emergency-themed and colored declarations all over the background. Yes, that’s how you keep your society calm.
I am borrowing almost all of this from Dr. Bruce Scott – his recent essays on the psychological effect and control of pandemic theatre are must-reads. They go far beyond the comic-book propaganda we’ve seen these past three years, and go deeper into the darker, mental control. Read his essays and picture, at your age, if you recognize these effects, and, imagine how your child would perceive them – the tactics are society-breaking. Further to the point of propaganda – to make one feel like they are alone in their opinions, the psychological tactics Dr. Scott highlights are also being done on purpose to mentally break down people and their sense of being. And that is only the past three years – we have more years of this to come and guaranteed they have their playbooks all at the ready.
The psychological techniques used on the populations of (mostly Western) nations these past three years could either be argued as ‘grey’ propaganda – for our own ‘greater good’ to behave in the correct way, or, as ‘black’ propaganda – completely against the population for a malevolent purpose. It is already established that propaganda is and was being used – established only to the minority who can actually see it for what it is, meaning most Westerners do not even know it’s being done. The evidence for the propaganda, or ‘nudging’, comes directly from our own governments and their (sometimes outsourced) propaganda arms. Laura Dodsworth documented this well in State of Fear, outlining all the various groups and offices that are used for ‘nudging’ the public in ‘the right direction’ for our own good. It’s obviously not just for the U.K. – the U.K. may be the hub for these units, but they are all outsourced to almost all Western nations, tweaked and tuned for the changes in culture.
From Dodsworth:
“In Britain, the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), unofficially known as the Nudge Unit, was set up in 2010 under Prime Minister David Cameron. BIT is now a profit-making company with offices in the US, France, Australia, and Canada. Canada not only hosts a BIT office in Toronto; it has its very own unit. A Toronto Star article in February 2021 noted that Dr Teresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, had referenced a behavioural insight team located within the Privy Council Office. It is called the Impact and Innovation Unit and was set up in 2017. The Star’s Susan Delacourt remarks that the role the Impact Unit played in Canada’s Covid messaging is a “social-science experiment” one that “may have given government clues on how to modify citizen’s behaviour for other big global issues – such as climate change, for instance.”
So, there is no debate that propaganda is being used almost everywhere (and has been for decades but it’s very accelerated now). The only questions or debate should be what level is it being used to and to what ‘noble lie’ justification level? That is, once people know it’s there, the majority would probably agree it is ‘for the greater good’ to the level of ensuring people behave properly, because they still trust that their governments are right and looking after us. A minority would believe that the propaganda is not for the greater good to fight the ‘pandemic’, rather it’s a noble lie to ensure we are all programmed to take regular jab updates as a means to normalize ‘updates’ that will soon become tied to our digital currency (CBDC) and QR-code passports – still a greater good but moreso for the governments.
But another level of propaganda is even more plausible, and a much deeper level in to the ‘greater good’. That is, to achieve the second level noted above (CBDC uptake), and in addition, ensure that an entire generation (and future ones) is ‘reset’ to a much-reduced level of physical, spiritual, moral, and logical health. To ‘them’, this is still a justifiable level of ‘greater good’ behavioral change. For whatever reasons, they still deem this as good for their society. My belief is the new society post-2030 is to be a drastic shift in control versus population numbers – to increase behavioral control and flatten population to stay below 10 billion.
It has long been known and accepted that the when a society is anxious and fearful, illnesses and mortality increase – there are direct and measurable effects and correlations for this. E.g. increased poverty (or reduction in GDP) can be directly tied to increased mortality. It is also well-known that the immune system can be suppressed when a person is stressed or anxious, linking mental weaknesses to physical ones. All of this is known in the medical fields. For example, Donald Henderson, credited with eradicating smallpox, established the main pandemic plan cornerstone – keep the public and society functioning as normal as possible to maintain overall mental health. “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.” (Source: How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson – AIER).
There is no doubt that most governments around the world did the exact opposite of keeping society functioning as normal as possible. They shamed people, name-called, forced isolation on the majority of people not at risk from C19, told people not to talk to each other, moved targets continuously (just 3 weeks, just mask till summer, just wait for the jabs, etc.), coerced people into jabs, and flaunted ‘rules’ themselves. On the question as to which level of ‘greater good’ this was done, I see it as the latter, more malevolent level.
In his series on ‘Menticide’, Dr. Bruce Scott outlines the deliberate actions of the ‘nudge’ units based on his background in psychoanalysis. Experts in this field know that by doing the opposite of healing a patient with mental illnesses, that they are harming people on purpose. As Scott points out: “…the Head of Policy of the British Psychological Society, Kathryn Scott, is a member of SPI-B of SAGE; it is just not possible that the group of psychologists on SPI-B did not realise that they had torn up the ethical rule book of their very own profession.” These deliberate manipulations serve to both make people weak and submissive, and to accelerate the pushing down of the individual and his/her liberty-minded ways, in favor of creating a more ‘communitarian’ society (for the 99.x%). Climate fear, virus fear, ANYTHING fear – it’s all to shame the individual. I trust someone with Dr. Scott’s background would be able to see mental therapy being done in reverse, and their outcomes.
Scott explains the further steps and stages – we are only 3 years in to this so there’s more to come. These steps include, as in the past 3 years, messaging and behavior that equates governments to abusive partners, mixing illogical phases of fear with ‘we’re here to protect you’ love.
A shorter summary of this psychological relationship is provided here by trauma specialist Meredith Miller (there’s a 10 minute intro montage in case you want to skip). She outlines many of the same aspects as Dr. Scott – the parallels of abusive relationships to the last three years of government treatment, the meaningless rules and illogical dictates, the constant moving of the goalposts as a means to torture the psyche. A major point she highlights is that the compliance levels need to be enforced and policed not by ‘them’, but by the people voluntarily. As witnessed, this was easily achieved with the age-old ‘you’re either with us or with the enemy’ priming. As with any security or safety threat (real or perceived), they can simply point out the enemy (Al Qaeda, ISIS, virus, etc.), offer the ‘solution’ to save humanity, and the fearful public will go beyond compliance, into vigilante mode enforcement against anyone who even questions the ‘solution’. They know this, and doing the exact opposite has had (and will have) the exact effect they want – anger and division amongst the people. Stirring people anywhere at anytime from a calm group into a vindictive mob is textbook control – only not known to most Westerners.
Miller also points out that the coercion techniques are the exact opposite of what psychological therapy seeks to do in curing a person who was a victim of abuse or trauma. That is, the coercion methods trained people into non-sensical theatre (distancing, masks, stay-at-home orders, vx) irrational, emotional dependency on authority to program for future uptake of other goals – CBDC, digital ID, climate-change behavior. The specific aspect of isolation is well-known to cause multiple illnesses by way of elevating stress hormones – ingrained in humans as social animals for thousands of years. We seek out social bonds and connections based on evolution – the animal instinct that tells us we need our pack or our tribe to feel safe. The only alpha male providing that for the past three years has mainly been father government – ‘we’ll save you, only we can help – don’t turn to anyone else’. And even with masking, which does nothing to prevent respiratory infections, it is known to psychologists that the symbolic nature of the mask signals constant invisible danger all around. Everyone is a threat, a walking disease vector, not someone to talk to a connect with. This has potential for a whole range of future disorders for young people, as pointed out here by Chuck Geddes.
Again, the immediate defense against these analyses would be ‘how could they all be in on this – too unlikely of a conspiracy’, same as for all the professionals – how could they all be in on this and go along? That again is answered by the same proportions of people who go along with anything. The majority trust the government and leave it there, a minority see it’s wrong and know something else is up, but won’t rock the boat (paychecks, mortgages, lifestyle), a small minority will speak out and then self-censor, and an even smaller minority will give up everything to reveal what’s going on, and risk everything. The level of censorship and shaming done against anyone who has spoken out these past 3 years is evidence of that. Even if their objections were wrong or off, it was the fact that there could be no discussion at all that was key. As Dr. Scott points out, there is no way the leaders of these groups are ‘making mistakes’ about the bad effects of lockdowns, isolating healthy people, masking healthy people, jabbing people who aren’t at-risk from C19, withholding common respiratory treatments from sick people, etc. The population as a whole has already bought the fallacy that ‘the jabs saved x millions of people’ via impossible models.
You don’t have to agree 100% with Miller or Dr. Scott’s theories, but it is unarguable that these techniques (some or all) are being employed on the populations for some other reason other than the narrative. It doesn’t need to be some nefarious group in an evil lair somewhere launching 100% of these tactics like a bad movie. Rather, a mix of ‘professionals’ and underlings all working in large entities or systems that are churning out their small, compartmentalized areas of expertise – ‘just doing my job’. The majority in any field, especially with today’s corporate level of propaganda, are simply taken care of by Upton Sinclair’s observation: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Finally, Dr. Scott quotes Joost Meerloo, drawing parallels to past totalitarian control of populations. Again, even if, this time, we don’t have a single, evil dictator controlling us and the narrative, it is clear that similar techniques are being used:
“Each wave of terrorizing . . . creates its effects more easily – after a breathing spell – than the one that preceded it because people are still disturbed by their previous experience. Morality becomes lower and lower, and the psychological effects of each new propaganda campaign become stronger; it reaches a public already softened up.” Joost Meerloo, The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, 1956/2015, Martino Publishing, p.147.
DBS
29 Nov, 2022
Blog
All-Cause-Mortality (ACM) has continued to run in excess amounts of 10 to 20% in most Western nations all throughout 2022, just as it did throughout all of 2021. Do you trust the official ‘vx saved 20 million lives’ based on ‘would have been worse’ models (made by the same people whose models were found to be 10-100 times off for the past 2.5 years)? Or would common sense say that ACM should get better if the measures taken (lockdowns, masks, jabs) were working? My interpretations may be off here, but how can every metric across multiple countries show everything is worse now than ever, and yet people still trust the narrative? I predict this will have an outcome I felt would happen back in 2020 – that this will simply lead to removal of statistics, data, and any info that goes against the MSM storyline. It is almost like they are taunting us by having us confirm their own data for them.
Here are just a few of the ACM notes and links that illustrate this. Some are direct data/graphs straight from official sites, and some are interpretations/summaries done by others. Still, they show a huge signal that no one is discussing beyond ‘long Covid’ or ‘people drop dead all the time’. These excess amounts are not covered by C19 or overdoses or any other cause in the news – they still remain ‘unknown’. It seems this is now the new acceptable level of mortality – the public is not even curious.
Between Ben @USMORTALITY and ‘OS51388957’ (and many others), you can find charts and summaries for almost any nation and their ACM versus the long term averages.
Sweden vs the Nordics. First off, revisiting the whole ‘Sweden failed because their Scandinavian neighbours had less C19 deaths’ storyline. This was popular in 2020 when people were glued to the ‘deaths with a +ve C19 test’ dashboards. By 2021 analysis moved on to ACM since the ‘death with a +ve C19 tests’ was clearly skewing the data. Now we have the (almost) 3 year follow up, to compare Sweden to itself and its neighbours for ACM from the 2013-2019 average through to the 2020-2022 years. This data and data for most of the EU is well-summarized by “OS51388957”.
Whatever was done, Sweden took the ‘hit’ in 2020 (after an abnormally-low 2019 ACM year) and averaged-out to be normal, while the others took their ‘hit’ later, and all averaged-out to be similar. Typically, anything within +/-5% for ACM in any given year-over-year change is considered statistically-insignificant.
Europe in general – most countries showing continued, elevated ACM all through 2022, even in summer months when C19 is not contributing to ACM as much. OS again has a running-summary of charts. But you can also look straight to the EUROMOMO (European Mortality Monitoring) site to see the same trend as others – 2022 and late 2021 are as bad or worse than 2020 during the ‘pandemic’.
All-ages – 2022 on track to be as bad as 2020 and 2021. This is excess mortality. The countries tallied here make up most of the EU, maybe 95% of the total, or about 420 million people. Mortality is roughly 0.85% (depending on age of population), meaning about 3.4 million deaths per year. So 350k excess (like below) is roughly a 10% increase.
What makes 2021-2022 worse is that now the cumulative excess among younger people is worse, compared to mostly elderly excess in 2020:
South Korea. The masks are working well there. Summary from Jose Gefaell:
Taiwan is similar to Korea (most other Asian nations don’t publish their data to the public). From Ben @USMORTALITY:
Canada. You can get the trends straight from the STATSCAN site, although the data is delayed by 4 months depending on the Province. Still, most show continued excess throughout 2021 into 2022 even when C19 is not dominant.
If we zoom in to British Columbia as an example, we see continuous excess deaths of 10-15% for all Summer and longer for both 2021 and 2022. Roughly 700 people per week die during summer months, and 2021, 2022 are showing 800 per week, even without any heat wave (like in 2021).
USA. I still turn to Ethical Skeptic for the United States analysis. The ‘official’ toll is that C19 has killed 1.1 million (with a +ve C19 test). The ACM excess for the last 2.5 years has reached 1.3 million (typically 2.9 million Americans die each year, or 0.88%), so ACM is up approximately 18% over the 2.5 years from 2020 till November 2022.
“A reminder, 977 K have died to date as result of our panic-solutions to the pandemic:
• 133 K overdose, accident, assault, suicide, etc.
• 401 K primarily Factor \/
• 443 K from denial of treatment
That is 76% of all pandemic excess death. Let that sink in…”
By his estimates, more than three-quarters of the excess over these 2.5 years is not C19, but the effects of locking down a (somewhat) healthy society, jabs, and common treatment denial due to the Emergency Use Authorization (needed to force the jabs and conduct the human trials). This leaves 24% of that excess chalked up to ‘involving’ C19 – meaning deaths for any reason with a positive test. Even that generous definition means 24% of the 1.3 million, or 300k deaths, over 2.5 years would be 125k deaths per year. (A ‘bad’ flu season in the US is typically around 50k deaths). (Note SAAAAD = suicide, addiction, assault, accident, abandonment, despair deaths).
Through the sites listed here, you can find almost any country and track its mortality trends. Most are just as bad or worse than the C19 wave of 2020, and most are not accounted for by C19 ‘deaths with a +ve test’. So if no one is investigating or reporting, instead just leaving these as ‘died suddenly’ or ‘unknown causes’, what are we left with?
All countries now acknowledge and warn that the jabs are causing myocarditis and clots well above the background rate (normal rates). For detailed analysis on this, Jessica Rose has compiled chart after chart of adverse events from the jabs (also here). Are the VAERS reports all wrong? All fake? “Well anyone can make fake reports to VAERS”. The system is meant to be a signal-detector for jabs, and it’s putting up quite a loud signal for more than a year and a half.
Here’s the cumulative VAERS deaths-post-jab as of a year ago – December 2021:
The death total as of November 2022 has now passed 32,000 with more than 180,000 hospitalizations. Is this really 5 or 10 times higher due to under-reporting? And if these were all ‘fake VAERS submissions – anyone can make one’, then how would the correlation of adverse events, by type, and by State rates of jabs per capita, have almost PERFECT correlation coefficients? People faking data would have to perfectly distribute across all reports for this. Rose provides a list of correlations here:
Does this have any relation to Norway and Denmark changing their guidance on jabs for those only 50 and older (or 65 and older for Norway)? Did they somehow acknowledge some sort of risk-reward by their changes? If so they still have set the bar quite high on the risk side. I wonder if they use different Science™ than we do in Canada or other countries that still insist on jabbing kids?
How many ‘correlation isn’t causation’ coincidences do people need? Or is this silence just them telling us this is it, “this is what we can now do to you people and no one will know or care”.
DBS
29 Nov, 2022
Blog
(AKA ‘If you let government remove your freedoms during an emergency, they’ll just invent new emergencies’)
Several jurisdictions recently (October, November 2022) added ‘RSV’ (respiratory syncytial virus) and influenza to the COVID19 list of emergencies covered by their Emergency preparedness plans. As expected, it is due to health systems being ‘overwhelmed’ without warning. Don’t be surprised when this pops up in your area. If only we didn’t have to wait for our incompetent health officers to mandate lockdowns and masks earlier and harder, maybe we’d be safer. Maybe in the future the WHO will save us from our pesky ‘democratic’ processes like has been done in the past 2.5 years. Picture in another decade, young people will never have known a ‘normal’ system – they just got overwhelmed suddenly, till the WHO treaty saved us all, else the next one would have been worse. That history will be easily-written so that the 2020-2030 period will be officially recorded as a time of chaos and transition from the old, messy unsafe world to a new, safe and scientific one.
Just to remind myself how the old-normal used to work, I did a sanity check on where these illnesses fall in relation to C19 in terms of fatality rates/risk. I do this each time something gets announced as ‘new’ and ‘overwhelming’ and ‘deadly’ knowing that I’ll never get to have a discussion with anyone in public or thru friends/family. I find once you dig or point out data or questions one or two layers deep, beyond the MSM narrative, that 100% of people either want to change the subject or just get mad at you. It hasn’t worked starting with the first time I did this in April 2020 once the IFR and mortality age-profile was known and published with hard data. So now I just do it to make sure what the real situation is, versus what the politically-correct version is. I always start out with an analysis, then I go through a state of not caring since ‘they’ will just create a narrative based on fear, and the public will just go along. What’s the point of knowing or analyzing what is really going on when 90% or more of the public will never know what’s being done to them on purpose? Any attempt at explaining or questioning any of these events over the past 2.5 years always leads to (if it ever gets there) the ‘trust your government’ default position. Most outsource the majority of their thinking out of laziness or practicality – if they can defer thinking to the level where their start point is ‘government is always right’, then they can (1) fit in with the majority and (2) not bother to dig more than one layer down in to any topic the MSM is shoving down their throats.
But still I need to do this for my own sanity.
(Me playing dumb vs. informed citizens):
‘Didn’t we (the West) remove the previous democratically-elected leader of Ukraine in a 2014 coup?’ “But Putin is evil!”
‘Wasn’t our pandemic plan up till 2020 to isolate the vulnerable and keep the majority of society calm and as normal as possible?’ “But people are dying!”
‘Haven’t we had our hospital capacity low for decades and known about this?’ “But our hospital beds are overwhelmed!”
Now add: ‘Isn’t the mortality rate and risk of RSV similar to a typical flu? And don’t we deal with this every year?’ “Do you want people to die?”
Colorado is a recent example. In early November 2022, the MSM blasted all over that their hospitals are at capacity already (flu season still coming in January). This trend has been known for decades – and bed capacity per capita per season is completely predictable. Yet suddenly, once again, ‘oh no, we’re overwhelmed’, ‘We can’t find staff’ etc. So, Colorado simply decreed that they are adding RSV and influenza to their Emergency status already covering C19. That is, they can use any and all special emergency powers as applied during the C19 ‘emergency’ to RSV and influenza.
Again none of this is new or surprising. A low-mortality respiratory virus, which is known and tracked for decades in terms of mortality, hospitalization rates, etc., similar to flu, ‘suddenly’ pops up as an emergency/disaster? Oh, right we’ve only had years to prepare, we didn’t see this coming.
We can put this aspect aside for now too (from England but same applies to most Western jurisdictions). ‘But it’s not beds it’s staff!’ Tens of billions of dollars can be mustered and sent for a war, but we can’t solve this problem at all:
Back to the sanity-check. RSV, influenza, and other respiratory diseases have a predictable, measurable, trackable trend for mortality, hospitalizations, and cases. A quick search yields studies such as this one, where groups recorded and sorted such data for a 19 year period from 1999 to 2018 in the US.
‘Question “What was the excess mortality from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza in the US from 1999 to 2018?” ‘
This study includes analyzing cause of death for over 50 million people over this period. (Roughly 0.85% of the US population dies each year, approximately 2.8 million deaths based on 320 million people (varied from 1999 to 2018 but close enough). This paper included mortality rates from the main influenza strains and even the 2009 ‘pandemic’.
Main conclusions were that RSV is/was more dangerous to infants, but the overall mortality profile is similar to influenza. The annual mortality average for RSV ranged from 6,549-23,352, compared to influenza at 10,171-27,171 deaths annually (depending on how the death was categorized).
As with C19 and influenza, the age-profile of the fatality rates is important. This paper uses crude mortality, or population fatality, rates of mortality per 100,000 population. It has already been established that the infection fatality rate (IFR) for C19 is similar to influenza, maybe two to five times worse in the first wave, with a sharper age profile towards the elderly. This even includes the whole ‘any death for any reason with a +ve C19 PCR test’ over-counting. So, it is fair to look at the mortality rate profiles for RSV and influenza in this paper knowing C19 mortality is now similar since the latter variants are less lethal.
Page 5 of the report shows how repeatable and consistent the patterns for cases and deaths are for all causes of respiratory illnesses. Keep in mind these are all true ‘cases’ (from the pre-2020 era of ‘science’), in that these are people who are sick with ILI (influenza-like-illness) symptoms, then are tested with targeted PCR, antigen, or some other method, to pinpoint the exact virus. (For 2020 and later, it was PCR cycled over 35 times to catch only SARSCOV2 virus in ANYTHING).
Then, pages 6 and 7 show the overall mortality rates in various groups of ‘underlying causes’. Taking the central list of ‘Respiratory’ as cause, we can see that RSV is overall milder than influenza at 2.2 per 100k versus 3.4 per 100k. For children under 1, RSV is higher but still it is a low overall mortality rate, and, influenza still kills more overall.
The ‘all causes’ portion of the table shows the worst-case figures, if the underlying cause is a combination of these. The overall rates are 7.8/100k (0.008%) for RSV and 9.0/100k for influenza (0.009%). It’s difficult to compare for C19 since all respiratory deaths (and others) were counted as C19 since that was all the test would confirm. For Canada, for example, this was 15,000 deaths in 2020, for a fatality rate of 15,000/37 million = 0.04%, or 40/100k. That’s more than 5 times worse than RSV or influenza, but less if we take the ‘any death for any reason with a +ve C19 PCR test. And, that was for the higher-fatality rate original strain and Delta. Newer strains like Omicron have fatality rates similar to or lower than RSV.
My math comparisons may not be exact, but still the main points are – this is all completely predictable and known, and, the mortality rates are relatively low compared to other causes of deaths and hospitalizations. The stats and patterns for these do not change. And we have done zero to prepare for this aside from ‘we’re overwhelmed again’ Emergency mode.
Recall that this time last year, in October 2021, the ‘hospitals overwhelmed’ status (like in British Columbia), was constantly drummed out in order to shame those responsible for the ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’. ‘Unvaccinated people continue to be largely responsible for much of the disease’s spread, and Dix, at his press conference, once again referred to the fourth wave of COVID-19 as the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”’
At that time, hospitals were not yet ‘overwhelmed’, but the press conferences were used for the same effect – highlight the stress and fear that we are about to be overwhelmed, then point to the dirty selfish group (the enemy) responsible. Exactly the way to keep society calm and cohesive, right?
We may not get this exact scenario in all jurisdictions, but the similarities of the narratives all over and all at the same time yet again seem to be scripted, as with the ‘waves’ of the past 2.5 years.
DBS
29 Nov, 2022
Blog
There are many new books and podcasts highlighting one of the main Reset goals and its progress over the past three years (and before that) – the increasing biosecurity state apparatus.
For detailed background and social commentary on how the biosecurity state is evolving, three recent podcasts (and book promotions) provide great summaries.
Simon Elmer of Architects for Social Housing gave a great overview in this podcast on the acceleration of the biosecurity state under continuous ‘states of emergency’. His latest book is a compilation of his many detailed essays from the past few years, watching the construct of the biosecurity state increase with the public essentially begging for it via the vx passport system
Elmer points out many key features of the rollout and increase of the biosecurity state, features that normally would receive more pushback from supposedly ‘free and democratic societies’. The state of fear and confusion for the past three years has taken care of that pushback. Elmer points out direct links to fascism via comparisons to 1930s Germany, which of course gets immediately dismissed as anti-Semitic and ridiculous since fascism is in the past. These comparisons don’t require direct comparisons to Nazi atrocities- rather it’s the decade-long run up to those atrocities that provide the parallels. These include the removal of freedoms and division of people under the premise of health. Those who met the mandated criteria vs those who didn’t, regardless of severity of the health issue. “This is UNPRECEDENTED” – meaning don’t question it. In the years 1933-1939 – there was a progressive removal of political opponents, then Jews, then anyone who questioned the State. The ‘Editors Law’ was enacted – citizens could not write about, mock, or question official government decrees since it would ‘endanger the State’. Today, laws are being drafted that would equate simply questioning government decrees with domestic terrorism.
These past three years have been a trial run to condition people to accept the worst-case aspects of the biosecurity/technocratic state – to remove the Western notion of liberty of the self that has driven many societies in the West for the past couple of centuries. It normalizes, without any debate or discussion, the fundamental relation between State and the citizen. The nation State replaced with international technocracies – i.e. bodies such as the UN give way to the WHO/WEF, who can enforce masks, vx mandates, lockdowns, etc. Technocratic decree versus political or parliamentary debate. The idea of lockdowns is only based on China (as of Oct. China has 60 million people in lockdown, home and bank access have been restricted). The West may not need to go this far since we are not as populous, but the Western ideology of freedom (post 1945), will slowly be erased.
“But the mandates are over” people claim, as if to say we’re back to normal. The main goals of digital ID, CBDC, ESG, etc. are all still being implemented, as with facial ID, internet-of-bodies, etc.
Some other points made by Elmer on the social aspects behind public acceptance of the biosecurity state:
The criteria for ESG and sustainable development come from Blackrock – access to capital to control corporations. In more densely-populated China, strict population mobility control via vx passport lockdowns are used routinely. The West will use the ESG mandates for corporate control to ensure citizens behave via CBDC.
Fascism in history – Hannah Arendt. The behavior of German government fascism was not shocking – it was the citizens’ behavior that was. A sufficient majority immediately followed, without being forced. They regulated themselves to be in-line with the government decrees (‘with us or against us’). She described it as ‘moral collapse’ – people normalized totalitarian behavior to go along with the authorities. The West has had moral collapse for decades, via institutions being liberalized for almost 40 years. Recent woke ideology has normalized cancel culture, embraced by the ‘left’ woke. The ‘left’ normally would be criticizing and holding government to account, yet now they have joined in and cancelled any who question the narrative. Now, we have some people saying ‘I didn’t support lockdowns etc. or mandates’, yet no one admits to have behaved in a bad way, and so we are prepped for next ‘emergency’.
In addition to governments saying ‘don’t talk to your neighbours’ and smear campaigns against anyone who questions them, friends and family have self-censored. They have avoided talking about anything going on. Usually, people would discuss politics/policy as it affects their daily lives, but on mandates and rules by decree, there has been zero discussion. Friendships used to be based on discussing controversial topics, now nothing.
The next big step, digital ID uptake, may not need mandates but could involve some other event to again whip up public demand for the ‘convenience’ and ‘safety’ of the biosecurity system.
Another great interview and book, by Aaron Kheriaty, is summarized in this Geopolitics podcast here. Again, there are parallels to the rise of fascism in the 1930s Germany to tactics used in the past three years to accelerate the building of the biosecurity state. Some main points:
The USA is still in a rolling state of emergency, granting extra powers to the President and to State governors, allowing bypassing of constitutional laws. This is the same mechanism used in the 1930’s Germany by a democratically-elected government.
A major outcome after World War Two was the Nuremberg Code – establishing informed consent to reject treatments– bodily autonomy.
The merger of the public health apparatus (getting more militarized) has been accelerated with smart phone technology uptake to track/control data surveillance. Through essentially direct control of the main tech companies, the State has come to own all of this data.
The ‘track and trace’ data collection was done publicly in most jurisdictions ‘for your health only’. Canada did it secretly – no public consent. And the CDC also secretly took track + trace data without consent to monitor gatherings under the guise of public health. It was claimed to be ‘completely anonymous’ – but it is clearly easy to de-anonymize with existing technology.
Through the constant states of emergency, the status of ‘data only used for public health’ can mean anything the government wants, simply by changing the range and definition of what a health matter/emergency is. ‘Public Health’ can be anything. A small example was the protests against mandates – these were deemed unsafe and broken up mostly with State violence. Yet within the same months, BLM protests are deemed okay because ‘racism is a public health emergency’ So racism is decreed to be more deadly than COVID? Through anger and fear, people lost the ability to ignore the specific issue (‘those convoy truckers were all racists and noisy’) and look at what is being done with it as an excuse (invoking emergency measures act and seizing bank accounts). It sets us up for things like ‘climate change also being a public health emergency’ We need rolling lockdowns to fight climate change.
The biosecurity state doesn’t need prison camps or police. The central feature is digital censoring – no questioning or else you can be deplatformed. This merger of government and corporate technology together is something China perfected years ago. The public just cannot admit or see that the West is no different, or is on its way to being no different.
The next 2 phases of rollouts – digital IDs tied to biometrics (face scan, your background, maybe wearables – can glean emotional status). The State again will get public uptake via the convenience factor. Soon digital ID will tie to CBDC, and together they will have the ability to monitor behavior, mood, political views, and control money access.
The biosecurity state also touches on the religious aspect of transhumanism. Not all are who are building this system are transhumanists or eugenicists, but there is a lot of overlap within their ranks. The messaging is that the human body is a messy, outdated thing that needs perfecting via technology.
And again – we get the ‘We aren’t China – stop that comparison’ upon any questioning of this system. Why, then, did all the West drop their pandemic plans and go straight to lockdowns? Lockdowns came out of China ONLY (they were never part of any CDC/WHO pandemic plans). Italy copied, then models all across the West showed their ‘everyone will die’ charts on media, then adopted China’s policies. Real-world data now shows that masks, lockdowns, vx mandates, all have had zero correlation to better outcomes.
Finally, James Corbett has an interview here that highlights the steps moving from the Homeland Security post 9-11 to Biosecurity post C19. This interview also delves back in to the original desire and drive to have a technocratic control of people – population control does not mean just the quantity of people, but also the quality of people – how can we make them more compliant if there are too many of us? Some notes from his interview:
The precedent has been set – access to public places, or leaving home etc. – a right of mobility returned to the citizen as a privilege so long as you opt in to the State’s demands. C19 was all about making the precedent normal for what is coming next. Conditioning mainly aimed at younger generations.
The 2024 WHO treaty still upcoming, which can define a ‘PHEIC’ (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) with their own declaration and bypass nations’ processes for handling emergencies.
The background of the eugenics movements and the application of technocratic control – the science of social engineering – tracking all citizens’ transactions and energy consumption. Is it a coincidence that ESG scores seek to control/measure those exact metrics, now that we have almost full smart-phone uptake?
In October, 2019, the Milken Institute hosted a panel on CSPAN about the urgency of needing a universal flu vaccine. “We need a disrupter technology’ to tackle this faster than we are doing. Why are we still growing vaccines with 100 year-old technology using growth in eggs?” “We really need a sense of urgency to launch such a vaccine.” A new technology is needed, however the road block was it needed mass testing and funding, which would take decades. UNLESS the government mandates deployment in an emergency somehow to get the mass testing done and paid for. Voila – C19!
For an already-softened public, ANYTHING can be a scary emergency for control.
Is it any coincidence that predictions such as those by Huxley in “Brave New World” or Bertrand Russell’s “Impact of Science on Society“ more than 70 years ago are coming true? Both described pharmacological methods of creating a passive population, technologies not yet available in their times. Russell: “…Diet, injections, and injunctions…”
Is it also just pure coincidence that, during the biodiversity 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro, the main and initial “Sustainable Development Goals” (i.e. ESG) were to place biomedical and pharma industries as the leading stakes? As detailed by a review in the 1994 book ‘The Earth Brokers’, they highlighted the odd priority of the entire Development scheme – that biomedical and pharma were the main stake.
Page 43:
“To recap, the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity. In the case of the North, and the USA in particular, the major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries, which get their raw material from forests. In the case of the South, the concern was mostly ensuring that governments and industries could continue to exploit their own natural resources. Obviously, the convention is a compromise with considerable advantages for the North.”
And a further coincidence around the early 1990’s – this was period when, starting with the USA, governments around the world allowed direct and full funding of their Regulatory bodies to come from the very industries and companies those bodies are to regulate. The regulatory bodies till then were tax-payer funded. Ideally these bodies scrutinized the industry to keep people safe. According to author Maryanne Demasi in her BMJ article (also covered here by Dr. Campbell):
“Over the past decades, regulatory agencies have seen large proportions of their budgets funded by the industry they are sworn to regulate. In 1992, the US Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), allowing industry to fund the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly through “user fees” intended to support the cost of swiftly reviewing drug applications. With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer funded entity to one supplemented by industry money. Net PDUFA fees collected have increased 30 fold—from around $29m in 1993 to $884m in 2016. In Europe, industry fees funded 20% of the new EU-wide regulator, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in 1995. By 2010 that had risen to 75%; today it is 89%.”
Fast forward to the comments from Tal Zaks in 2017, then CMO at Moderna, during his TED Talk on mRNA technology. This new technology of course will be used for the benefit of mankind – we can maybe cure cancer or deliver faster influenza vaccines. Zaks: “We are actually hacking the software of life. We think about it as an operating system, so if you can change that line of code, or insert a line of code, that has profound implications.”
So, are all of these changes and developments over the past decades all for our safety and to benefit humankind? Or did Huxley’s and Russell’s predictions come true?
DBS
12 Sep, 2022
Blog
Took lots of time off there to enjoy the summer ‘relief’ from the narratives, although in the back of my mind there’s always that nagging thought that the relief only serves to make the coming winter feel that much worse.
In the background, I sometimes polled various people and family over the summer regarding jabs and boosters and their thoughts on what is going on. I estimate not much has changed in the proportions. I still see about 19 out of 20 adults going along with the narrative without much question. At most, I have encountered a small fraction who are in ‘what the F is going on here?’ mode but nowhere close to seeing this is all pre-scripted. To the question – ‘would you take yearly-mandated jabs in order to keep your QR code/mobile set to green=go (vx pass) without question’, I still see >90% ‘yes’. Some insist ‘well no because that’s all over’, to which I push ‘if/when it returns’ – still a ‘yes’. ‘You take a flu shot annually anyway, right?’ Any fence-sitters will be sufficiently pushed with the same fear tactics as 2021. The psychological ‘nudge’ units employed throughout the pseudopandemic have not gone away.
As predicted, they started ramping up the narrative again late August 2022, seeding the thoughts into people’s heads regarding ‘we better behave otherwise…’ Lots of well-placed grey propaganda at work across the media platforms. Carefully-chosen words and associations to evoke and equate pandemic fear, energy fear, and ‘do your part’ fear – all mixed together to blur the separation between each. These are all over the MSM:
Ashish Jha, COVID19 Response Coordinator, has been giving presentations on the ‘bivalent’ shots with software-like terms such as ‘upgrades’ and ‘resetting’ your status. The No Agenda media analysis show gives a short summary here. Basically, this sets the stage for some panic or coercion again this fall to simply update your app – something the majority more than happy to do and virtue signal.
Trudeau issued his threat as well. In true propaganda form, the language is very-carefully chosen to be divisive on purpose. I.e. if you don’t update you will cause the problem. It’s the same age-old tactic used in breaking down individuals – if one does not conform, you punish the whole group to create self-policing within the group. “If we are able to hit that 80%, 85%, 90% of Canadians up-to-date in their vaccinations, we’ll have a much better winter with much less need for the kind of restrictions and rules that were so problematic for everyone over the past years,” said Trudeau.
Canadian Liberal Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos compared getting a Covid-19 booster to recharging a phone battery during a press conference on Thursday, in which health authorities discussed the approval of the bivalent Moderna shot for the fall season. Of course, the great ‘recharging’ or updating is mentioned in the same sentence with protecting loved-ones (i.e. just like last time you’re selfish for not taking them):
“Vaccine protection is like a phone battery. It needs to be recharged from time to time. Recharging our protection after six months is important, otherwise, we are left without the power to protect ourselves and our loved ones,” said Duclos.
And still, without any real testing, these are declared safe and effective. ‘Effective’ now means that, even with 4 shots, you’ll still get COVID. If that’s the new definition of ‘effective’, what does the new definition of ‘safe’ mean? Data continues to emerge that the serious adverse event rates for the shots is about 0.1%, or at least 10 times worse than the typical rates for yearly flu vaccines. Here is the latest from the German health authority on adverse reaction events. (Rate is 0.3 per 1000 doses, so 0.6/1000 for 2, or 0.06%, 0.09% for three).
“The reporting rate of suspected cases for all vaccines together was 1.8 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses, for suspected cases of serious adverse reactions and vaccine complications 0.3 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.”
Which leads to the next points which are of course not anywhere in the MSM.
The continued rise of excess (non-Covid) deaths is occurring in most Western nations. EthicalSkeptic and elgato and others are tracking these. Figures for the USA and UK are more up to date than Canada, who typically has a 3 or 4 month lag in statistics. Generally, deaths should go down following pandemics (death deficit as less susceptible left to die) yet almost all Western states are the same or much worse. Zero news on this except ‘unknown cause of death’ – all normal, I guess. Lockdown effects and increase of despair deaths would account for some excess. But those still do not explain all the excess all-cause mortality increase over the past year and a half. Sure, there are some high vx uptake states with low ACM and some low vx with high ACM – you can always cherry pick some. But overall, everything is worse for ACM for most Western nations. Should there not be a dent or a bend in the signal if the jabs were helping?
And, even if there are still ‘deaths with C19’ occurring, the Medical Officer from LA County reminds us that the method of reporting deaths has not changed – any death for any reason with a positive PCR test (running past how many cycles?)
But again, none of this is in the news. It’s all normal according to them. Besides, the masses probably fully believe and will reply back with the familiar logical fallacy of ‘would have been worse’ MSM argument. This was well-laid out in June 2022 when the report came out that the jabs saved 20 million lives, end of story right? Let’s follow the sources again, and, ask yourself which version is more plausible given the dishonesty over the past 2.5 years.
Narrative:
June 23, 2022, Imperial College publishes medical paper showing that the vaccine initiative saved 19.2 million lives. “COVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally. However, inadequate access to vaccines in low-income countries has limited the impact in these settings, reinforcing the need for global vaccine equity and coverage.”
GAVI, one of the main funders, issued its press release:
“COVID-19 vaccines have saved 20 million lives so far, study estimates.”
“Deaths from COVID-19 were two-thirds lower than they otherwise could have been during the first year of the vaccination programme, mathematical modelling suggests.”
Queue news clips and sound bites “20 million saved” blasted all over the MSM in 30 second infomercial-dumbed-downed clips so as not to go beyond the average attention span of most adults.
Or, apply a cynical lens. ‘Cynical’ used to be normal due-diligence but anyway:
Source of paper? Hire the same group, Imperial College, that made all the original incorrect models of the Covid 19 death counts in the first place. The Imperial College models (by Neil Fergusson) were used at the outset to justify lockdowns. They assumed an IFR = 1% for almost all the world to initially use the ‘precautionary principle’ to lockdown like China did (except Sweden, whom Fergusson predicted would suffer 40,000-90,000 deaths, yet ended up having 1/10th of that and no increase in ACM). This group also supplied regular models to the UK Government over the pandemic lockdowns to continuously show more and harder lockdowns were needed. When others questioned their invalid model inputs and assumptions after the fact, governments still went ahead with lockdowns.
This same group is also funded by the vx-backers, as stated in their Funding statement:
“Funding:
Schmidt Science Fellowship in partnership with the Rhodes Trust; WHO; UK Medical Research Council; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; National Institute for Health Research; and Community Jameel.”
The same groups pushing mass jabs and lockdowns and those who fund the jab makers make a study that says everything is fine. Okay, benefit of the doubt.
Now to the claim – ‘would have been worse’. The HART Group did a short piece of analysis on this. The ‘would have been worse’ was again based on models alone, with, again, model inputs and assumptions that are wildly-off. Basically, the two graphs below from Hart interpret the data from Imperial to show hockey stick of death that the shots helped avoid, according to Imperial:
See, would have been worse. We saved the world from that hockey stick of death. No mentioning that the signal of ‘deaths with C19’ should have gone down from its trajectory if anything was happening. That’s easily explained too – ‘we stopped wearing masks!’, ‘we stopped distancing’, ‘we ended the lockdowns too soon’ and so on.
Somewhat related – the timing for the push for ‘updates’ coincides with many jurisdictions launching and/or promoting their emergency alert apps, ready for this October/November (how timely – just in time for some mysterious winter emergency?) These will be pushed on to mobiles without need of download, to ensure you can stay safe. You know, to help you not die from far-right trucker convoys or Dutch farmers who are out to overthrow the government with manure and tractors. The app will pinpoint various areas for alerts via the cell phone tower locations, and your mobile’s proximity. The same ‘alert’ siren similar to the amber alert sounds currently used will signal any emergency deemed fit by the government. Just a further Pavlovian conditioning for our young ones and millennials tied to the mobiles.
I’m sure the apps for emergency warnings will have future updates for energy use. That way the signaling public can ensure their profiles continuously show their ESG status for climate, jab status, political views, whatever.
“So, what we have to do is flatten the curve and avoid the peak (energy) demands. We will propose a mandatory target for reducing electricity use at peak hours and we will work very closely with the member states to achieve this.”
And finally, a daily reminder that the brutal war is ongoing in Ukraine – so having Zelensky ring the opening bell and give a remote speech at the New York Stock Exchange is all normal.
DBS
5 May, 2022
Blog
This was an obvious one I missed in the ‘new normal’ world. In my previous ‘Changes for Pandemics’ posting, I had highlighted some of the main points around science that were completely normal pre-2020, and what they are now changed to after C19. I.e. what is now normalized and accepted, not by scientific consensus, but by decree, mainly from the W.H.O. And recall it is the W.H.O. that is looking to ratify changes to the next pandemic response to be completely under their control, not any one country. They are doing this and have done this so as to set the new normal in the future for younger generations who won’t have the history or logic to apply first-principles in order to question this.
Full disclaimer of course. I am not taking any side on getting the mRNA injections. More than 70 or 80% of (eligible) people in North America already have done ‘their part’ and gotten up to 3 shots. Just like before 2020, I don’t care if you did or did not get shots for any disease with an IFR under 1 or 2% – it’s none of my business since these don’t kill or stop the virus, they only lessen symptoms. Take five shots for all I care. (By the way, more than 2 shots of anything is not a real treatment). One can take whatever they want to protect themselves from whatever they want, especially if those protections do not stop spread or infections. These mRNA therapy trials were only tested to confirm Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) of 0.8%, from 0.84% risk to 0.04% risk. (Note here the RRR relative reduction is 0.84 vs 0.04 = 95% reduction, yet the small ARR indicates that the absolute numbers are statistically insignificant). And, many studies are showing zero to negative effects on overall all-cause outcomes.
I am only asking/questioning, now that we are mid-trial(s), what used to be a fair risk-reward trade-off, what is it to be for the mRNA injections, and is this still fitting the term ‘safe end effective’ all over the promotions and news? Risk-reward is not the same across age groups due to IFR varying so widely for different diseases. Yet another accepted approach to health for society, risk versus reward, seems to have been thrown out, and/or radically-changed in terms of ratio. This is still a work-in-progress, since, as Obama commented last month (while chuckling at or with us?), we are all part of the experiment:
Obama laughs – you are part of the experiment
Don’t forget we are all still part of this experiment, and the trials are set to end in 2023. You could argue, via IFR levels, that the risk-reward trade-off for C19 may be there for those 50 or 60 years old and older. However, that still ignores the risk side of adverse events that are still being tallied. The majority ‘did their part’ based on the noble lie that these stopped spread and infections, which they do not.
Once the injections moved on the youth and kids, during the FDA hearings for injections on children, the response was literally ‘we’re never gonna know till we start injecting them’
It’s already widely-reported and known that the mRNA treatments have caused a 20 to 30-fold increase in myocarditis in young males. As Dr. Malcolm Kendrick explains, “To repeat, this does not mean that mRNA vaccines may not be entirely safe. However, it has become impossible to to claim that we have not seen significant adverse effects from the mRNA vaccines. Effects that were not picked up in any phase of the clinical trials. Here, from the Journal of the American Medical Association in February. One of the most highly cited medical journals in the world:
‘Based on passive surveillance reporting in the US, the risk of myocarditis after receiving mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines was increased across multiple age and sex strata and was highest after the second vaccination dose in adolescent males and young men.’”
Prior to 2020, we have always had a risk-reward trade off for diseases and their ‘cures’/vaccines/treatments. That is, the risk of adverse events versus the reward of saving a life. Take the regiment of typical vaccines for children, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, chicken pox, pertussis, etc. All of these have fatality ratios from 0.x % to up to 10% for children. Therefore, giving them treatments/vaccines that carry a very low-risk of adverse reaction (including death), and that have a very long-term safety profile, is a good thing. When we look at the fatality ratio for say, influenza as compared to C19, C19 among youth is actually less-fatal. (I’m not going to bother with the logical fallacy of ‘that’s because we locked down and used masks’ argument). Below are sources from the US CDC, the U.K. Government, and Statscan. All show that the fatality rate of C19 for 0-19 year-olds is about 0.001% or less. This, versus influenza (and sometimes influenza + pneumonia since they can go hand-in-hand as cause of death), which is below 0.01%.
You can even tinker with the STATSCAN site for relative risk to many other common causes of death. It doesn’t matter if they are not contagious viruses, this still is overall death risk, and public health before 2020 was about ALL risk of death. For the 1-to-19 year old grouping, influenza kills up to 30 per year. Compare to accidents (up to 250 per year), suicides (200 per year), and COVID 19 (33 over 2 years, ‘with a positive test’, not due directly to C19 but let’s be generous here).
Before 2020 I didn’t know anyone under 50, let alone under 19, who saw influenza as a relative risk high enough to be getting the yearly shot for it. Common sense was usually ‘I’d rather risk getting flu than getting sick from the shot’. I believe physicians would recommend them to the vulnerable and/or elderly, where the IFR for flu rises rapidly above 1%. And that’s with the stable, long-term safety profile for the flu shots. IFR for flu and C19 cross at about age 55 or so per the graph above.
So that’s for reward. And risk? It’s still an ongoing metric since the trials are not complete. We look to the US system for recording Vaccine Adverse Reaction, VAERS, for ‘signals’ of safety concerns. There are so many arguments on VAERS on both sides of this. “Anyone can make a false claim so it’s been over-blown” on the one hand, and on the other, “only 1/10 at most report adverse reactions, so there must be more than reported”. Typically, only treating doctors know about and use VAERS, and they take quite a lot of effort to enter reactions into the system. Even if we take VAERS at face-value, there are ‘signals’ over this past year.
‘OPENVAERS’ claims to sift through all the VAERS data and summarize versus other long-term vaccines. Their claim late last year was that 2021 saw more than 20,000 deaths after the C19 mRNA launch. Compared to less than 100 per year for all other vaccines back to 1990.
Post-vaccination deaths reported to the US VAERS system, 1990 to November 2021 (OpenVAERS)
This group does have a vested interest however, in that their own FAQ page states they are a group of vaccine-injured people. So, this would be a very difficult amount to confirm. Through April 22, 2022 they claim 1.25 million adverse reactions with 27,000 deaths. On the one hand you have one group saying ‘anyone can report to VAERS so this is inflated’, and on the other you have another group saying ‘only 5 or 10% of reactions get reported to this number is really 10x as much’. What if these two cancel, and the AEs are as shown? By the end of 2021, according to ‘Our World in Data’, around 250 million Americans had both doses. That’s a risk of about 0.01%. If true this would roughly jive with risk and reward being equal around age 60 for C19 mortality.
Ethical Skeptic has also been tracking VAERS data versus US States versus vx uptake. He shows a good correlation to uptake vs reported adverse reactions. Note in chart below, the yellow-highlighted States are off the chart due to some suspected reporting error, and so are not on the trend line. The blue highlights show where there is a lower injury rate vs vx uptake. His ratios of VAERS severe events ratios average about 0.14 per 1000, or 0.014%. These aren’t deaths, but ‘severe’ reaction events (usually meaning requiring hospitalizations).
In addition, he is tracking year-over-year increase in various all-cause mortality categories:
The VAERS system was mainly set up not so much to track accurate counts and exact, absolute figures. Rather, it is and was (in the ‘old normal’) a signal detector. Has something changed with vaccines such that a ‘signal’ sticks out from the ‘noise’ of the long-term average of adverse reports? If so, at the very least some investigation should occur to rule out issues. Similar to when all cause mortality (ACM) spikes, we should at least investigate.
And so on to another groups’ analysis of the ‘signal to noise’ of the mRNA injections, this time versus the common, yearly influenza injections. This comes from the group ‘Team Enigma’, no authors cited and so grain of salt as usual, since they don’t show source links and are anonymous. However, what do they have to gain aside from being censored? If you want the short video summary, Mike Yeadon is interviewed here on this study. (Disclaimer again – I am not endorsing Yeadon’s view that this is a depopulation scheme or death shot or ‘killing calibration’, the link is for the video summary of the report, slides below).
UK Column news also has a summary of this presentation as well as commentary from Yeadon:
“So, if you were treating a terminal cancer that had evaded surgery, current chemotherapy, radiotherapy and so on, then you might be willing to take a drug that might kill five or ten per cent of the people, if it might stretch your life out for many years—especially if you’re offered the chance of a cure.” But if you’re going to treat effectively everyone on the planet—and you shouldn’t do it anyway but that’s certainly the state of intent—you need “safety, safety, safety,” as Dr. Peter McCullough would say. That’s your first concern, even more than “Does it work?”: you need to make sure it’s very safe, because you’re going to be giving it potentially to billions of people. Just before we come on to that: normally, a vaccine that you administer to a person would be one dose, sometimes two. There’s never going to be a whole frame of them. [Yet] I’m seeing some countries already giving the fourth vaccine, and others have talked about an open-ended series! You need to know, vaccines are not like that. You do not need to be repeatedly dosed with something that would merit the title “vaccine”. One or two doses, at most, [should suffice]. So, if it’s more than that; it’s not public health. They’re being pushed on everyone, when—as I’ve argued—if you’re recovered, infected, you’re immune; if you’re a child, you’re not vulnerable to the virus; healthy young people [do not need it] and for pregnant women, we do not know that it’s safe, and we should not, on the precautionary principle, be administering it [to them]. And yet your governments are pushing these on you. it’s not a public health measure. If it was a public health measure, the three or four things I’ve just said would be true. It’s not a public health measure.” (Trials did not test on pregnant women and so no safety data).
The Team Enigma and Yeadon tried to come up with other plausible explanations for the data they found. Did some injections go directly into blood (not aspirated properly – it’s supposed to stay in the shoulder tissue)? Not a good explanation, which led them to check reactions versus batches.
The main points of the presentation starts out with risk/reward notes:
All other medical interventions and even vaccines have surpassed billions of doses over decades. C19 has surpassed the billion-dose count in just one year. Team Enigma summarized VAERS for the typical flu shots vs C19.
Their findings revealed that approximately 90% of the adverse events were associated with 10 per cent of the lots, NOT evenly-distributed across the lots.
First, the summary comparison of serious Adverse Events and deaths:
Notes:
Flu vaccine, >10 years of data/lots. Approx. 22k lots, typically 50k per lot = >1 billion doses. For the USA, this would be close to 100 million doses per year for 10 years, seems about right.
C19 mRNA, just under 1 year, 25k lots, if same 50k per lot = >1 billion doses. You can look to OWD and see that by first year (Dec. to Dec 2020-2021), >200 million had 2 doses (400 million doses), and 40 million had 1 dose, so around 440 million doses.
For similar dose counts, 8 times more deaths, and 5 times more AEs for RNA C19 versus flu.
Consistency of adverse reactions across Flu vx, across >10 years, 22k lots (approx. 1billion doses):
X-axis, batch code numbers (lots) used over last 10 years or more. Not really relevant. But still vs. time this is >1 billion doses over 10 years.
Y-axis, Serious AEs (not just a sore arm, but the kind you’d go to hospital for). Very consistent at average of about 4 per lot, (4/50,000 = 0.008%). Many don’t report, could be 10 times higher, still low even if at 0.08%. Either way, if influenza IFR were approximately 0.1%, this is still 10x reward vs risk. And IFR for influenza in elderly is even higher (up to 1%), so reward/risk is greater (100-fold).
Outliers – only 2 out of thousands of lots showed 20 to 37 serious adverse events per 50k, almost 10 times worse but still outliers and relatively low. (25/50k = 0.05%)
Very uniform (minus outliers), long-term trend established of about 4 serious adverse reactions per lot. Very low variability except for small minority of 2 lots.
Now compare to 1 year of C19 mRNA and DNA therapies:
USA only had J&J (Jansen), Moderna, Pfizer (DNA, mRNA, mRNA)
Average AEs is approx. 50-100, but variability is 0 to 600.
X axis lot #s (batches) over 1 year, not really important.
Y axis, serious adverse events. Orders of magnitude above the average for batches of flu, hundreds of times. The average is bad enough (50-100), but the variability is more concerning. This means these cannot be the same product, all must be different slightly.
Is this the new ‘safe and effective’ threshold and new risk-to-reward ratio that we are to accept? Is it really averaging about 100 Severe Adverse Events per lot? And if lot sizes are similar, does that imply a SAE rate of 0.2%, with high spikes of up to 500 or 600 (1%)? Many batches/lots are down below 10 AEs per lot, similar to the flu lots, and so would go unnoticed. But what is happening with the many lots that spike above 10, 50, 100 or 500 AEs per lot?
Again, I am not saying I agree with Yeadon’s view that ‘they’ are calibrating the death rate versus delivery here. But we are part of the live experiment for delivering mRNA gene-editing therapies for the first human trials. From my engineering background (where I don’t have to worry about my ‘trial products’ hurting people), we would definitely take advantage of mass trials with controls to try out many variables to see their effect versus the control groups. They tested dosage amounts, time between doses, even mixing different manufacturers, and even going to dose 3, 4, 5 and 6 (soon to be perpetual?) What else have they been testing, and where will their level of ‘acceptable’ reward-versus-risk end up? There is certainly a ‘signal’ here, and doctors or experts who question this or ask for more investigation seem to always be slandered, cancelled, denounced, or fired. This could have been due to the ‘noble lie’ to coerce the public into high vx uptake. But this kind of coercion is usually only done after trials and science have proven out a treatment’s overall long term safety, making the reward-risk very large.
And in the end, why do their own projections for mortality into the future seem to confirm a steady increase? By 2050 we are predicted to return to a 1% mortality rate, a 25% increase from the 0.8% low in the early 2000s. A 0.2% increase is small right, or is it a 25% increase?
This started as notes on the parallels between 2020-2030 and the 1970s, but morphed into yet another big-picture analysis on the culture of the West, or rather lack of culture. Since ‘the planners’ think in terms of decades and centuries, it is hard for any one generation to think they are not unique. Planners know that they can change entire cultures in just a generation or two, especially if the culture is already weakened to begin with. This is why this current ‘great reset’ is mainly aimed at the youth, under 30’s, who by 2030 will have almost half their life in this new normal.
After the World Wars, the culture of the Western nations was still largely intact based on Judeo-Christian values, the family unit, communities, etc. This held through to the 1960s and early 1970s, until the ‘The Great Inflation’ shifted the culture into a new paradigm. (I like how each generation has to be given a ‘Great’ disaster to define a source of blame to something. ‘The Great Financial Crisis’, ‘The Great Depression’. Each one gives a generation the ‘well I lived through the Great xyz, and so…’ anchor in life).
Resetting to the 1970s
“Inflation is a policy” according to Ludwig von Mises, not some sort of biproduct of policy. Governments always blame inflation on some outside source so that the masses will direct their frustrations away and on to some thing they cannot control. The high-inflation period after the 1960s saw most of the Western nations pushed in to a culture of debt and energy (oil) dependency, just before the Third Industrial Revolution was to take place.
By their own description: “While economists debate the relative importance of the factors that motivated and perpetuated inflation for more than a decade, there is little debate about its source. The origins of the ‘The Great Inflation’ were policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money—Federal Reserve policies”. At least they didn’t overtly blame some boogie-man like today.
The narrative was dominated by the “Phillips Curve”, that the government was dutifully trying to balance unemployment against inflation. Federal Reserve historians have provided a brief excuse that the abandoning of the Bretton-Woods system post WWII was partly to blame. With Bretton-Woods, the WWII ‘winner’ nations and others agreed to a fixed exchange rate fixed to the USD, with the USD backed by gold. As inflation and US debt started going higher late 1960s, foreign governments began converting their dollars to gold as a sign of distrust, until Nixon halted this for foreign central banks, essentially permanently removing the US from the gold standard. The narrative continued that, with the abandonment of the gold standard, most of the world’s currencies were ‘unanchored’. To me, this was a way to start the entire Western debt-based economy, with the US strong-arming all oil-producing nations to use the USD for transactions – the ‘petrodollar’. The following decade, 1973 to 1983, saw record spikes in inflation and oil prices.
Inflation peaked in 1973-1974 and again in 1980 at close to 15 percent. In 1983, the percentage change from a year ago settled back to pre-Great Inflation levels of 0 to 5 percent. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED; graph created by Sam Marshall, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond)
If we use the same 1980’s method for calculation (as ‘Shadowstats’ does), then now in 2022, we are already at the 15% peak seen similarly in the 1973-1974 and in the 1981/1982 peaks.
Source: shadowstats.com
Aside from ‘never seen in our generation’ inflation of 10 to 15%, other 1973/1983 and 2020/2030 parallels are seen:
The narrative that our money system was in crisis, ‘what can we do?’ In the 1970s, the major shift in monetary supply was removing gold standard, shifting the population to dependency on the debt-system of the petrodollar (energy and debt, one in the same). In the 2020s, printing trillions to ‘save us from COVID’, shifting the population to dependency on the CBDC and (possibly) UBI (note again the prediction that (digital) money ‘printing’ will continue rising rapidly after 2030).
In the 1970s, multiple oil embargos, as Arab nations, seeing the USD devalued after leaving the gold standard, demanded higher real prices and created energy shocks via embargos. In 2022, Russia – oil already inflated before this, but sanctions supposedly meant to punish Russia accelerated domestic prices. Joe Sixpack is told to hate Putin as the cause. In the 1970’s Westerners flocked to tiny little Japanese import cars with 4-cylinder engines to ‘do their part’ and conserve. In the 2020’s Tesla virtue-signaling is through the roof.
In the 1970s, double recessions, 1973 and 1981, talk of ‘stagflation’. In the 2020’s, talk of a ‘full blown crisis which is even more disorderly’. (NY Times April 24 ‘Full Blown Crisis’). I still predict we have yet to see both a major market crash (real estate and stock) before 2024, followed by a second, even larger collapse after 2025, which will have the masses begging for the CBDC solution.
Mortality in the 1970s was approximately at a rate of 1.1%. The UN prediction is to return to these levels (a 30% increase from the low of 0.8%) by the mid-century.
In the 1970s, the World Economic Forum was founded, and in the 2020s, they overtly showed us they pretty much run the show.
By the time the 1970s were over, Western nations were on the path to a debt-based culture, borrowing forever (like their governments), and piling debt into the future. The religion of consumption and affluence rose as the real religions of spirituality, family, and community fell. The discipline of the self, autonomy derived from hard work, ritual, and sacrifice (going without – delayed gratification), were easily-replace with quick satisfaction, empty consumption, and shallow materialism.
Dependency on oil and energy had now created an entire Western economy and way of living that saw (or helped) the price of oil go from a steady, sub- $2 range, to quadrupling in 1973, then tripling in 1980, then spent the next decade or so at $20 per barrel.
US Crude Oil, $ per barrel, source Statista.com
The 1970s also saw the opening and support of China via Kissinger, Nixon, and Brzezinski (“He envisioned the emergence of a globalized society in which cultural values, knowledge, and economic interdependence would be tightly interlinked”) The decades that followed saw the West grow rich through the debt-based petrodollar system of consumption while they gave away all their manufacturing middle class jobs. Starting in the 1980s, the West began its rapid transfer of middle-class-generating manufacturing to Asia, enabling Deng_Xiaoping to insert ‘Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics’ to raise their peasantry to just above the poverty line. That peasantry in 2017 was then subjected to the ‘health pass’ via QR code system for mobility and financial control.
The 1970s ‘reset’ shifted Western societies further away from self-dependency based on community, religion, and family, on to the path of consumerism, materialism, and debt. Many in the 1980s and later would highlight how damaging this was for society and humans, but the majority embraced the new ‘religion’ of affluence. I feel the 2020-2030 ‘reset’ is similar – way worse of course, but similar. Way worse due to the likelihood that we may all be on a regiment of perpetual vaccine subscription updates. This reset is to remove, as much as possible, the remaining human aspects that drove us in the past. Again, controlling our consumption, behavior, and movement for our own good.
One last parallel to the 1970s and this ‘great reset’ (there are many more not listed here). After each major upheaval of society (again, Western societies specifically), some small percentage of people feel an emptiness or that something is wrong or missing. Throughout the 1900’s, these shifts have caused varying degrees of ‘Back to the Land’ resurgences. These occur after major changes to humanity, such as after the two world wars, where some small percentage of people recognize the emptiness of modern life and seek to go back to basics of life. The back to the land movement of the 1970s was one of the most significant in size (proportion of youth at that time).
“…many people had recognized that, leaving their city or suburban lives, they completely lacked any familiarity with such basics of life as food sources..” “…the movement could also have been fueled by the negatives of modern life: rampant consumerism, the failings of government and society, including the Vietnam War, and a perceived general urban deterioration.”
People at this time were just in the beginning stages of consumerism and debt as their new religion. Entire generations for the past 50 years have lived under the petrodollar society of debt accumulation for happiness, made worse decade by decade by advertising, television, and then by the internet and finally social media. By the 1980’s many social analysts recognized the effects of this modern way of life. For example, Neil Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death” highlighted in the 1980s how television was degrading culture:
“Postman introduces his basic ‘hook” right away – dystopia and cultural degradation can come either through state tyranny, or through more insidious means that the public does not even identify. He suggests that television works according to this second model, and that our public is losing its autonomy, maturity and history without even realizing it.’
That was one analysis just based on television, and now with the internet and even moreso with social media, via two-way algorithms, the degradation and control is even further honed.
Each major industrial revolution shifts societies and moves them on to a new way of life without their say. The first one moved societies out of their agrarian, rural lifestyles into the cities and factories. The second revolution moved societies on to lives based on electricity, mobility, and factory life. The third revolution brought in digitization and automation with computers and the internet. I assume the third revolution ended with the perfection of social media and mass-uptake of platforms such as facebook, twitter, etc.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution promises even more ‘great’ advances for humanity based on technology. The World Economic Forum’s own description states “These advances are merging the physical, digital and biological worlds in ways that create both huge promise and potential peril. The speed, breadth and depth of this revolution is forcing us to rethink how countries develop, how organisations create value and even what it means to be human.” In other words, they are going to merge humanity and technology and they are the ones to make sure it’s done in a ‘safe’ way. We are not asked if we want this fourth revolution, but as with other ones, they build the system around you, get you hooked on it for its conveniences (read: laziness), then you cannot live without it. Think of each generation: “what did we do before electricity?”, “how did we live before the computer?”, “what was life like without social media?”. And in another decade, “how did people live before 2020?”
(Keep in mind that platforms such as facebook started out as government programs post-9/11 for human surveillance. The two programs ‘TIA – Total Information Awareness’, and ‘LifeLog’ were DARPA and CIA programs for tracking citizens, and were only ‘shut down’ after public outcry mainly from the ACLU. They were simply re-branded ‘facebook’ at it’s launch time, where the masses gladly gave up all privacy for the convenience).
I’m not saying everyone should drop their lives and return to the land and reject all modern conveniences and technologies. But at least recognize with each major cultural reset, we are and have been trading away our autonomy of body, mind, and spirit for a little bit of convenience, fun, and laziness. You know you see it all around, dumbed down schools, less competitive sports, lack of focus, lack of spirituality, ever-increasing ‘bullshit jobs’ lacking real meaning, increased anxiety, increased obesity, young kids on pharmaceuticals, etc. We are only offered quick-fixes to numb the pain – a drug to snap oneself back to ‘normal’. How many times over the past 20 years have you gone to a restaurant, and seen adults both with their heads down in their phones? Humans are the only animals that desire to eat meals in front of each other while making eye contact, and it’s no coincidence that each and every modern change they throw at us ends up killing aspects of humanity such as this example.
I wonder what percentage of people will reject this next reset, and, it doesn’t need rejecting so much for us (the adults), but as an example for our kids’ and their future. Many of them already see and believe that having your entire life online is more important than real life (don’t they call that “IRL” now?) Aspects of the fourth industrial revolution are openly-stated as ‘transhuman’ – merging of biology and technology. As Whitney Webb points out, why, again, are former and current Google and Facebook leaders, and government groups such as DARPA, involved with these programs, together with groups working on mRNA gene-editing technologies and the World Economic Forum? What are they building for our kids to live in?
DBS
4 May, 2022
Blog
Disclaimer up front. I am not supporting/agreeing with the ‘Limits to Growth’ theories here. I believe these are their excuses and what they feel make a good enough ‘noble lie’ to gain support from the managerial classes, who in turn feel superior to the masses and so will go along.
I assume the control aspect they are implementing is still utilizing the same old ‘limits to growth’ excuse. ‘Limits to Growth’ was the original Club of Rome think-tank synopsis from 1972 that claimed to predict the world’s status or outcome to the year 2100 based on energy (resources), population, pollution, food, and industrial output. The model for this was the “World3” model. In that model the ‘reference run’ was the 1972 prediction that there would be certain dates where major shifts would occur.
“World population.. peaks at seven billion in 2030. After that population declines because of an increased death rate.”
(Note- the model chart below show population peaking in 2050 not 2030. And, we should hit just over 8 billion by 2030, over 9 billion by 2050. Also, they cite declines will be caused by an ‘increased death rate’, from what?)
“In 2015, both industrial output per capita and food per capita peak at US$375 per person (1970s dollars, about $2,430 in year 2000 dollars) and 500 vegetable-equivalent kilograms/person.”
“Persistent pollution peaks in the year 2035 at 11 times 1970s levels”
The WORLD3 Model Reference Run
I don’t see any detailed explanations on why they state population will decrease (around 2050) ‘because of an increased death rate’. But it is interesting that by the UN’s own projections, they already show this is happening. That is, the chart below shows mortality increasing by almost 30% from its low of 0.8% in the 2010’s to around 1.1% after 2050 (levels seen last in the 1970’s and earlier).
Bring out our favorite eugenicists’ sentiments again from decades ago, this one from Bertrand Russell around 1952:
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing,” wrote Russell in The Impact of Science on Society. “War so far has had no great effect on this increase . . . perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full . . . the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of other people’s.”
…and…
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study, and so far its professors have not been in universities: they have been advertisers, politicians, and, above all, dictators. This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government.”
Aldous Huxley in both Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited describes pharmacological societal control as an important aspect. The effects and nature of perpetual injections we are normalizing this decade seem to be a perfect fit for this – SOMA -to dehumanize the masses. Or rather, ‘transhumanize’ them. (I don’t believe this is a direct quote from Huxley yet it circulates as a paraphrased summary):
“There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.”
Even by the mid 1950’s when he wrote ‘Revisited’ to update where he saw humanity heading, Huxley was concerned at the population levels then. His analysis of population quantity versus quality of course pointed to needing interventions:
“In this second half of the twentieth century we do nothing systematic about our breeding; but in our random and unregulated way we are not only over-populating our planet, we are also, it would seem, making sure that these greater numbers shall be of biologically poorer quality.”
I bring up Huxley and Russell only to point out the thinking very common to the early and mid 1900’s. These ideas of ‘eugenics and dysgenics’ (Huxley), didn’t just go away, they just changed messaging and delivery. The managerial classes, feeling superior to the ‘unwashed masses’, study these topics in depth, and help parrot or repeat the sentiments of ‘we’re doing this for the good of future humanity’. Huxley’s “Revisited” is a must-read.
The societal changes they feel are needed to keep the population reducing after 2050, peaking at just under 10 billion then going down. The main population projections from the UN and others show sort of what ‘they’ want us to believe, that ‘if we do a really good job with vaccines (Gates)…’ the population will peak at 2050 then trend back down towards 8 billion+. They seem to be shooting for the lowest of the projection below. Not surprisingly, the lower projection is from IHME (Bill Gates-funded). They have already projected we will meet this lowering at least with the mortality side (it will increase by 30%, back to >1%, levels of the 1970s).
IHME vs UN Population Projections
One main curve or metric not on the World3 chart is “Societal Control”. That is, they have always controlled resources and output for their own gain, but the main dividend is and always has been social control (control energy and money and you control humans). Climate changes have and will always be used to scare us, and, reinforce the notion that ‘humans are the cancer’ of the Earth, which further pushes the communitarianism behavior down to the masses – we self-police out of guilt and fear.
It is interesting to note that Technocracy, pushed mainly starting in the 1930’s, had an end goal of recording and tracking every person’s energy consumption almost real-time. There was no way of doing this at that time, and there still was no way of doing this in the 1970’s when Technocracy gained momentum again, detailed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who termed it ‘the technetronic era’ *.
All the tools needed for tracking and controlling of consumption have fallen in to place in the 50 years since the 1970s. And now, it is interesting that ‘they’ want to see the West return to 1970s’ levels of consumption and mortality (see below) by way of this technocratic control. In their models, the variables must all be under their control and targets, meaning drastic reduction of Western lifestyles. Their balance of energy, resources, population quantity, population quality, and social control has this hard target for what they foresee by year 2100.
UN Projections for World Mortality
Authors and contributors to “Limits to Growth”, as with many others with eugenicist agendas, may just be ‘useful idiots’ to help create the societal panic and fear. Author Dennis Meadows readily admits that to maintain Western levels of freedom, democracy, and consumption, the world would need to be limited to 2 billion people. Implying that the opposite is also true, if we want to ‘allow’ the world to hit and stay above 8 billion, then freedoms and consumption must then be drastically-reduced. Again it reinforces the quality versus quantity per Huxley. The target of this ‘quality reduction’ (in both wealth and independence), is the West. They are clearly pushing the West downwards over the 2020-2030 period, most likely down to average levels most of the developing world currently lives in.
Pushing the West downwards is continuously reinforced as a good thing for communitarianism by these leaders. Hence the push by the WHO to mandate all nations’ pandemic responses to be handled by them and not any one nation. (Tedros – ‘our freedoms got in way of the response, but China did well’) and Trudeau ‘I admire China’s efficiency’.
As Terence Corcoran noted in his article on science versus politics, one contributor to the ‘Limits to Growth’ group claimed: “There are two possible approaches: One is to try to build up an ethic which substitutes satisfaction for material reward. The other is to frighten people to the point where they will make sacrifices in order to avoid catastrophe. Both methods must be attempted.”
This ‘reset’ from 2020-2030, as Patrick Wood said of technocracy, is partly due to the fact we weren’t scared enough by climate change fear, and so ‘pandemics’ can and will be whipped up any time they are needed. Since the WHO now defines pandemics as whatever they want, whenever, and they are seeking to control all nations’ responses, they will have control of the masses.
Regardless whether ‘limits to growth’ is valid or not, ‘they’ have decided on this balance of resources, population, consumption, etc. for what they perceive is our own good. Of course, along the way they will always control and maximize their profits while they are at it (farmland, drugs/jabs, etc.), but that’s a side-benefit.
It seems like a long, ongoing differing of views – those who feel we would do just fine at 15 billion, 20 billion or higher, versus the status quo and the WEF vision pushed by Limits to Growth – even as low as 2 billion per Meadows. Many are optimistic that we will keep making ever-increasing efficiencies in agriculture, fertilizers, energy, etc. – even switch to all-nuclear for power as we move away from fossil fuels.
Jordan Peterson: “We’ll peak re population at ~9.5 billion and there’s no reason that can’t be sustainable and prosperous in a well-maintained world. If that’s what we decide. So, decide!”
But the missing piece of this optimistic view for ‘them’ is societal control. They only want the type of prosperity and flourishing for humanity that gives them total control of the masses and their consumption.
DBS
23 Mar, 2022
Blog
An additional piece to the ‘Digital Passports’ posting. Again, as with the governance systems of the world, it is best to walk backwards for this topic. That is, it is too much of a leap for people to simply state that the vaccine passport is just a societal control tool to condition people into digital ID acceptance (which sounded conspiratorial in late 2020). Rather, it is more convincing to illustrate the plans already in place a few years ago for the digital ID and its control features. These are the systems and technologies they already have in place or for which they have plans. Of course, all these plans espouse the ‘convenience’ and ‘benefits’ of using the digital IDs – a good argument. But ask, if ‘they’ tried to launch these in 2019 or earlier, there would be tremendous public pushback due to privacy concerns. Now, with a public sufficiently-frightened by C19, the majority of people like and even demand the passport system.
‘They’ have been working on these plans for some time. Even those groups who only just popped up post-2020 could not have suddenly had these plans due to the pandemic. These setups take years of planning. I may be especially suspicious (or as someone labelled me – ‘cynical’) since I saw the health pass system and digital ID in action in Shenzhen in 2017.
A small list of what ‘they’ are doing:
The European Commission, via the Public Health branch, has had rollout plans for digital passports back in 2018 (screenshots at end of article).
For North America and the U.K., the “VCI” Vaccination Credential Initiative provides ‘voluntary’ uptake of their digital ID systems, promoting convenience and benefits. Their partners are the big tech usuals – Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, the Mayo Clinic and other health and tech heavyweights.
Canada has partnered with the World Economic Forum (WEF) to form the KTDI (Known Traveller Digital ID). This may explain why Canada remains the only country left mandating vaccine passports for air and rail international travel (as of early 2022).
The World Economic Forum has its digital ID plan outlined here.
Those are just a few of the digital ID plans already out there, not from conspiracy sites, from their own groups’ plans. You also probably noticed many States, Provinces, and EU countries have announced or launched their own digital ID plans. So, this sets the goal – where they want humanity to be from the top down. Now work back to before the start of the pandemic, when such passport systems were out of the question due to rights and freedoms conflicts (in Western nations).
The system of passports for vaccines was/is mainly for coercion and control. Over the past year (2021-2022), many public health and government officials have stated this almost openly. There have been ‘off-camera leaks’ of the PHO in Israel as well as BC making statements to the effect of ‘well, the passports are more to increase vaccine uptake, that’s all’. It is known and discussed that the current round of C19 mRNA shots do not stop transmission or infection, and so the step to passports to stop spread fails basic logic. Topic for another essay – this one will concentrate on the passports and ID themselves.
‘But the mandates are being lifted and most countries don’t require passports anymore’ (as of early-mid 2022). This does not hold as an argument, because the framework is in place, tested, conformed-to in a wide range, and ready to be enabled any time. If they never get used again, great, entire essay here is moot – yay freedoms and rights. My bet is they are already planning on deploying this, hence these details below.
As of the end of 2021, most Western nations have successfully measured the uptake of the digital vaccine passport, and in most places, it is higher than 80%. The connection between the two (digital ID and vaccine passports) should be obvious and direct. Below you can see the timelines and rollout plans of digital ID systems before and during the C19 pandemic from the government’s own information, as well as the WEF, which essentially provides governance mandates down to the nation states.
A reminder first that the public’s short attention spans regarding privacy, bodily autonomy, and other rights pretty much were brushed aside by most governments. The public, sufficiently numbed by fear in the daily media, capitulated quite easily to the classic ‘giving up liberty for some perceived safety’ trap. Early in 2021 when ‘vaccines’ rolled out, many started asking about the plans for vaccine passports. Most Western leaders responded with a combination of replies: “No plans for them”; “No way we could do this due to inequality issues” etc. Many media analysts (i.e. the cynical ones not in the MSM) rightly pointed out that these mainly planted, pre-canned questions and answers typically serve to get the ideas floating in the public sphere, so that if they get enacted, people are at least used to the idea.
Two small examples of this were from Bonnie Henry and in the U.K., Nadhim Zahawi (Minister of Education). Both said publicly ‘we have no plans for’ (passports), then months later implemented them anyway without debated data or justification.
And Bonnie Henry suddenly brushing aside ‘obvious inequality issues’ and doing an about-face:
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone And if your breath to you is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin' -Bob Dylan pic.twitter.com/UK5N32awHx
It’s entirely possible that this is but one small example of her statement to the effect of ‘if I didn’t go along with the official direction of C19 measures I could be fired’ in her recent book:
“Just like every other chief medical officer of health across the country. I had a mandate and the legal authority to speak to the public about the issues related to health. I was fully aware, however, that if I were wildly off side with what the provincial health minister and government believed, it could make my position challenging, and that if I was too far off the mark too often, the government could render me ineffective or fire me all together.” Bonnie Henry, page 40-41 of “Be Kind, Be Calm, Be Safe: Four Weeks That Shaped a Pandemic.
All of these changes and ignoring scrutiny and review was and is aimed at gradually erasing the Western notion of bodily autonomy and liberties of the individual, in favor of shifting the public to a more collectivist society already in place in much of the East.
In addition to this, don’t forget the propaganda and coercion techniques directly applied by governments. Before 2020 these were the hallmarks of what the Nuremberg Trial outcomes intended to guard against. The same people who said passports were a conspiracy now say ‘what’s the big deal, quit being so selfish’:
Almost all nations barred citizens from entering public spaces, events, restaurants and other venues without a passport.
Many leaders labelled those without passports as ‘selfish’ and those with passports as ‘good citizens deserving their freedoms’. When a ‘freedom’ is only obtained with coercion and then granted back to you, it becomes a ‘privilege’.
Most countries allowed and enforced the firing of employees who did not show their passport status. This includes people who 100% work from home and/or had natural immunity from prior infection.
Many regions like Austria, Quebec and others implemented or threatened fines for people who did not take the vaccines/get their passports. Again, this is direct coercion previously unheard of.
Israel took the lead in moving the status of ‘vaccinated’. The passport system there was set to show ‘fully vaccinated’ as 2 doses. It then moved to 3 doses, and now has hit 4 doses. It is no coincidence that many leaders now refer to your status as being ‘up to date’, which is endless.
In a BC Parks and Recreation transcript, it was remarked: “Remember, the purpose of the PoV card is to incentivize residents to be vaccinated, not to control the spread of the virus.” “This is an important shift to keep aware of for your decision-making; the province has shifted from actions that provide a COVID-safe environment to actions that provide discretionary services to the vaccinated.” “The vaccine passport requires people to be vaccinated to do certain discretionary activities such as go to restaurants, movies, gyms, not because these places are high risk. We are not actually seeing covid transmission in these settings. “It really is to create an incentive to improve our vaccination coverage…. The vaccine passport is for non-essential opportunities, and it’s really to create an incentive to get higher vaccination rates.” – Patricia Daly, Chief Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, Oct. 2021.
Even a letter to UBC from the Coastal Health Office to UBC, regarding UBC requirement for students (even remote) to show proof of vaccine passports else be ejected supports this:
Full letter source here.
You could argue this is again the ‘noble lie’. Tricking the public into doing what someone else has deemed for your own good without you knowing it. Such ‘noble lies’ in public health are usually done with well-proven therapies with long-term safety and efficacy profiles. Something the mRNA treatments have none of.
The more important aspect of this rollout was that this acted as a referendum of sorts for the Western populations. The masses voted, with their behavior and compliance, that they agree to have what used to be basic inalienable rights (movement, assembly, etc.) revoked by a government (who does not own these rights in the first place), and only granted back to them as privileges, provided people give up privacy and, in this case, take an injection (or 2 or 4 or who knows?)
Many also point out that almost all nations have ended their vaccine passport requirements for freedom of movement. And some further point out that many of the ‘Red States’ in the USA never even had them. Again, the important aspect is that the framework is in place, tested, and ready to roll out. Add to this, the multiple, national-level digital ID plans already there as noted above.
The USA rollout, for example, builds a national network regardless of the State-level ones. And many ‘Red States’ that refused vaccine passport controls are signed on to this national agreement.
Another aspect of mandates on kids and young adults is to normalize government interventions as a default mode for an entire generation. Kids as young as 5 years old now will, by the year 2030, never have known any other world other than the one where the government is their savior and holds their safety and lives in their hands. It is almost normalized now that kids as young as 12 years old cannot even participate in society without a mobile phone.
To conclude, the digital ID, via the vaccine passport system already widely-accepted, serves to gradually move entire next generations away from the notion of bodily autonomy and liberty of the individual, towards a digital collectivist society. Reaching this point over 2 years via fear campaigns and demonizing unvaccinated as ‘others’ and ‘selfish’, makes it too difficult for younger people to stick with the principles many in the West used to cherish. It is easier to stay in the ‘group’, signal your adherence via the literal ‘green = go’ status on your phone, and stick with the narrative. It’s not the total social credit system as tested and deployed in China, but it is certainly many steps towards it. It reflects a ‘leveling-down’ of Western societal traits that allowed one to excel based on their ability and experience.
The digital ID ties directly to the next steps towards 2030 – the programmable digital currency tied to your ID and your ‘health status’ via QR code status on your mobile. In parallel, it accelerates and enhances the push to move more of our lives online to the virtual world – where aspects of transhumanism are ushered in. The common connection, again, is that these systems allow for much greater control of people. Control for some ‘greater good’ that is either all about climate catastrophes, pandemics, or something else?
Excerpt from the European Commission Health Branch on digital ID and vaccine status, from 2018:
“SMART HEALTHCARD” uptake as of 2022 (from the Vaccine Initiative):
DBS
22 Jan, 2022
Blog
By now (October 2021) there will have been thousands of articles, books, opinions, arguments, papers, blogs, videos and podcasts made to explain COVID19 and the pandemic that was declared in March 2020. This booklet is an attempt by me to summarize what I saw, read, witnessed during the last two years. Any of the points being made here can easily be argued against or for, data can support or negate the claims, and ‘history’ can also either support or negate these claims/thoughts. Point is we (you) won’t know what history is within the next few years let alone decade. By then the C19 pandemic will be written as a deadly outbreak justifying all the measures taken by governments. In reality, it was about the same as the 1957 and 1968 outbreaks. The reaction worldwide was completely out of proportion and the reasons behind that are more important than the ‘pandemic’ itself. If you want to stick with the official ‘this is the worst virus in our lifetime and we need to alter society’, and believe this is so deadly, do not read on from here. That is the safest, easiest way to get through this. Just sit back in the government narrative and go along with everything they and the ‘experts’ say. You will be fine most of the time, but there will always be a feeling that your common sense says something just doesn’t feel right. You will also not be mentally-prepared for the ongoing cycles of crises expected to 2030.
On the other hand, if you sense there’s something more than what the government and media are saying, and you sense something else is going on, read on.
We will soon have a society where all are surveyed/controlled via QR-code-tracking social credit system. COVID19 was a needed crisis used to push through societal control measures mainly on Western liberal free-market democracies, to bring them more in line with the society that, for example, China has already created, which can be perfectly described as a ‘technocracy’. The point is not to look at the pandemic numbers and data or graphs and charts, since this is ‘noise’ or daily distractions supplied by both the government and media (funded by the government). Rather, look to what was and is being implemented and done in a broader response on a societal level. Regardless of how deadly COVID19 was made out to be, the main outcomes will and have been about control of peoples’ behavior and movement, control of capital markets, and pushing people on to a digital passport system tied to smart phones via QR code scanning, a system already in place in China as of 2015 or 2016*.
If in late 2019 you read the crazy prediction about this, you would be labelled a nutjob, conspiracy crackpot. If you believed at some point our governments would push us all into a digital passport/ID system, tied to your smartphones via QR codes for tracking everything (movement, money, social media posts, comments, lifestyle), you would say no way, not in our free Western liberal democracies. Clearly this would violate most of any nations’ Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Civil liberties, Universal Human Rights (from the UN). These are freedom of movement, assembly, speech, mobility for seeking jobs, protesting, everything. Indeed, most western leaders said publicly we cannot implement vaccine passports due to these rights issues, then they suddenly did with no justification.
If governments had a crisis to blame, then they could do these in small steps. Each step would be slightly shocking, but just small enough to not be too intrusive (the boiling frog scenario). Had they gone straight out and said digital ID passports for all right now, the world would riot in the streets (polls previous to 2019 prove this out). By doing it over two years (or more), the slight ratcheting of steps goes almost unnoticed. Stay in your home, wear a mask, don’t wear a mask, don’t visit your family, don’t talk to friends or neighbors, okay now you can go outside but stay in your health area, okay you can go to a restaurant but wear a mask, back to winter lockdown, freedom with a vaccine, back to lockdown even with a vaccine, free again if you just download this digital vaccine passport, free each 6 months so long as you update your vaccines and passport.
After 2 years of this psychological stressing, a majority of us would gladly take a QR code digital passport to ‘gain our freedoms back’, which were never the governments right to take in the first place.
DBS
21 Jan, 2022
Blog
There are of course many detailed accounts and reports on the COVID19 timeline, both the official mainstream media (MSM) accounts and the lesser-known accounts that show a more realistic timeline.
In short, the MSM ‘narrative’ is that a novel corona virus ‘broke out’ in Wuhan China January 2020 from an accidental virus ‘jump’ from a bat to a pangolin (most corona viruses escape animal reservoirs and jump to humans this way). Videos of people dropping dead in the street in China emerged (later revealed to be obvious fakes – that’s not how people would die). The WHO estimated a case-fatality rate (CFR) of 3%. China tried to contain the outbreak with authoritarian lockdowns and it appeared to succeed – cases dropped a couple of months later. The virus ‘spread’ to the West in March 2020. Italy became the next ‘disaster’, with images and videos of people dying on ventilators. Morticians in Bergamo were ordered to ‘stand down’, and allow the Army to use trucks to cart away the dead. Later it was revealed that the amount of dead was not anything above normal but the imagery was frightening. This ‘allowed’ the West to utilize Chinese style lockdowns, and we employed various lockdowns to control the spread as well, continuously, off and on for 2 years, each time claiming the lockdowns (and masks) worked. All the while everyone was scared that this was the next bubonic plague similar to 1918, and 2 years of masks, lockdowns, fear, panic ensued.
Before C19 hit, back in October 2019, an event called Event 201 was held, mimicking what world governments should do and how they should react in a coordinated effort, should a new pandemic arise. This was all funded and hosted by the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
For COVID19, in reality, the details gradually came out over the next months and year(s):
The outbreak was discovered to have started mid 2019 or even earlier, not 2020. This based on blood doner sampling in North America showing unique C19 antibodies back to late 2019, and sewage samples from Europe showing the same.
Prior to March 2020, most Western Health Officers were emphasizing this was a low-mortality disease. The UK Health Authority even removed C19 from its High Consequence Infectious Disease list in March 2020, citing ‘low death rate overall’. Their Chief officer, Chris Whitty, gave a televised presentation emphasizing the low risk: ‘Of those who get it, few will notice, fewer still will be ill, fewer of those will need treatment, even fewer will be critically ill, and sadly a vanishingly small number will die’…
Somehow, with only one day of WHO review, the PCR test to detect SARSCOV2 virus in people was accepted and launched (Drosten et al). Normally such a launch would need a minimum of 5 to 20 days of WHO review. The PCR test to this point was a useful tool to confirm a disease alongside symptomatic confirmation. The PCR test amplifies patient samples using up to 25 amplification cycles to confirm which virus is present. The world used CT cycles of up to 45. Beyond 30 cycles, all experts agreed (before 2020) that the PCR test would find anything and signal it SARSCOV2 (it would signal anything you set it to). This is key since all PCR tests were used to drive the entire ‘pandemic’ numbers, cases, ‘with COVID’ etc., even in people who weren’t sick. The PCR test essentially became a tool that allowed you to ‘find’ COVID19 ‘cases’ anywhere you looked, even though you were really finding dead virus fragments.
Another ‘leaked hypothesis’ – The outbreak was eventually tied to a lab leak, funded in part by both USA and China (Wuhan Institute of Virology). The USA funded this research, which is described as ‘gain of function’. This alters aspects of viruses to ‘weaponize’ them for whatever reason. That is, for example, taking a Coronavirus (related to the common cold and rinoviruses), which has high transmissibility, and ‘gain’ its function of lethality similar to influenza (low transmissibility). The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a joint US/China lab, funded via the CDC and Fauci, is the cause of this leak. The components and DNA makeup of SARSCOV2 virus have patents on its components going back to 2005.
The mortality rate, confirmed by multiple outbreak samples, was settling down to more like 0.1 to 0.2%, not 3%. The WHO mixed messages with case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR). CFR being actual sick people who report to hospital, then pass away from C19 (the disease caused by SARSCOV2). IFR being deaths divided by the estimated total of all who got the virus (SARSCOV2), including those who got sick and those who didn’t. (See IFR appendix). It has yet again been revised down to 0.1% having gone endemic (per John Iaonnidis papers).
The spread factor (“R”) was all over the place. First, it’s droplet based – low “R”, wipe down surfaces etc. Then it was discovered it was aerosolized – high “R” – even cheap cloth masks did nothing.
Government health experts, who first said this is a mild disease, masks won’t help, small minority of infected will go to hospital, smaller fraction of that will die, suddenly said ‘everyone is at risk.’ Modelers were brought out (most famous was Niell Fergusson of the UK), indicated 500,000 will die in the UK, 3 million in the USA, and 90,000 in Sweden ‘unless we lockdown like China did’. For some reason the West suddenly trusted news and videos from China as truth, something they never usually do.
The government measures – masks, lockdowns, distancing, closures, etc. initially intuitively felt like they did something. ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ – ‘since we did action “A”, and “B” happened, therefore action “A” caused B. E.g. we locked down and wore masks and didn’t have lots of death.
Slowly, the opposite happened. That is, places that had hard lockdowns and mask use had same death levels as those that didn’t. (See Lockdown appendix) This has lasted for almost 2 years now (winter 2020 to winter 2022).
Some jurisdictions, like Sweden, Florida, Texas, etc. decided to not lock down anymore, and after about a year, they had no worse outcomes than any other locked down area.
The same modelers who said Sweden would see 90,000 deaths continued to put out such models. Even after Sweden, using their old/existing pandemic plan, ended up with 1/10th the amount of deaths. The plans almost all Western nations had, even for a 3% IFR, was to isolate those sick/vulnerable to the disease, and let rest of society continue as normal. This is because stopping society’s healthy non-at-risk people causes too many other deaths (poverty, job loss, suicides etc.) (See pandemic plans prior to 2020 appendix.)
By the mid-point of the outbreak, approximately in October 2020, the WHO estimated 10% of the world had the infection, and at that time 1.5 million had died, yielding an IFR of 1.5/750 = 0.2%. These rough figures continued into 2021, with up to 4.5 million deaths ‘with C19’ not of, over an estimated global infection total of half the world (4.5/3750) million = 0.12%. In the same timeframe where 4.5 million died ‘with C19’, up to 85 million people died worldwide of all other causes.
Despite data showing the IFR was lower than first thought, and despite models continuing to fail, governments continued shut downs, masks, and closures all of 2020 and 2021. Keep in mind health responses even for ‘pandemics’ up to 2020 would include all health issues causing death of illness, not just any one issue. For C19, varying from country to country, the deaths ‘with C19’ were anywhere from 0% of all-cause deaths, up to 10% of all-cause deaths. E.g. Canada, at end of 2020, approximately 25,000 died ‘with C19’, while approximately 290,000 Canadians die each year. All government responses were to act as though C19 was the only deadly issue anywhere, relying on ‘well would have been 10 times worse if not for masks or lockdowns’. Again false post hoc propter hoc, disproven by places like Sweden, who used the ‘old’ pandemic plan and did just as well/poor as any other EU country. To remove ‘with’ vs ‘of’ ambiguity, appendix below shows the summary of excess all-cause mortality for major countries.
Vaccines rolled out in early 2021 and throughout the year. Deaths and cases did not go down, they went up in both counts. This was blamed on the new ‘delta’ variant even though there are 300,000 variants, and even though delta CFR is lower (spreads more). By late Fall 2021 (October), many countries with high vaccinations rates began to see no difference in cases or hospitalizations between vaccinated or unvaccinated people. See ‘U.K. cases vs vaccination’ Appendix.
The measures taken not only seem to not correlate to better outcomes, they seem to show that they make everything worse and extend the pandemic. Lockdown strictness is correlated to worse deaths/per million outcomes, putting ineffective masks on people for an air-borne (aerosolized) virus enabled people to be closer to one another with a false sense of security, and multiple vaccine shots during the pandemic seems to correlate to increases in cases. All fundamental pandemic plans were reversed (isolate healthy and use universal lockdowns), and to date have killed >25 million people compared to the 5 million ‘with C19 +ve test’.
As of Oct. 2021, the narrative now is ‘the hospitals are again going to be overwhelmed’, this time due to the unvaccinated. Governments promised to add capacity over the last year, but did not. Updated data shows the hospitals are at usual levels – typically 100 to 110% capacity like all other years.
The constant media messaging for months (after mass vaccination launch from Jan. to Oct. 2021), is preparing us for a winter of fear and anxiety, even more-so than the initial C19 fear of the past 18 months.
The ‘delta’ variant is new and more virulent and will cause more deaths than before. This in spite of the data from the UK that shows it spreads more, but has a CFR that is 1/10th that of original variants. This is normal for mutations to keep a virus going. There starts to emerge a correlation (not necessarily causation) of increased spread with increased vaccine uptake. This again will be blamed on the shrinking minority of the unvaccinated. The purge and shaming of the unvaccinated will escalate to almost violent levels.
Even though more people at this time (August to Oct) are getting C19 and dying compared to Aug-Oct 2020, the narrative is this is now caused by the unvaccinated somehow. If the vaccine should do anything, cases and deaths should have been less than same time last year. “Okay then it’s because of Delta!”
Media and government will continue to use the same techniques as 2020. When deaths are low, they focus on ‘cases’. When ‘cases’ plummet (as they have this past week), they switch back to deaths. When both cases & deaths fall, they produce dire predictions of what ‘might’ happen in the future, and will continue to use models (as with 2020) that they can manipulate to show any outcome they choose.
Countries and provinces that promised to add ICU and hospital capacity more than a year ago, did not. This will be used to let the hospitals again get to 100 or 110% capacity (as they are every winter), and blame the unvaccinated. The fear promotion on the news will be so relentless that people will resort to vigilante type behavior to name and shame the unvaccinated, very predictable mob mentality.
Further ‘crises’ will be either manufactured or encouraged, mainly tied to ‘selfish, stupid’ people who refuse the vaccine. I.e. worker shortages (already with nurses), delays, supply chain disruptions etc. The key crises will involve the basic human needs – fuel and food security. These aspects of life make us human animals most survivalist and extreme – providing food and security to our families, and so psychologically they know these are the crises most likely to generate fear and anxiety, and, compliance.
Rolling power blackouts and internet shutdowns will occur. Even short outages cause fear in media-dependent, short-attention span masses who need constant online feedback and social connection. The outages also double to censor any and all protests against government – the media will continue to blackout these events (no coverage).
New bioweapon events and/or virus outbreaks will occur, necessitating further government lockdowns.
Inflation will continue to increase, directly experienced by common people buying basic goods, but constantly down-played by media and governments. Expect levels to increase from 4 or 5% to an actual level of 10% (currently societies in the West are used to 1-3% inflation levels). Higher inflation benefits the governments in a low-interest rate environment since it allows them to pass debt on to the masses undetected. The masses see their savings levels constant, but rising prices eats away at their nominal dollars.
MSM will continue to connect and associate C19 fear with climate change fear – interchangeable. Anyone or group against the narrative will still be labelled racist, far right etc. but even moreso, they will start labelling dissent as ‘domestic terrorism’, and take appropriate action (i.e. same as the Capitol ‘insurrection’) This will also include censorship efforts being ramped up. The main platforms (youtube, facebook etc.) will actively remove any media discussing vaccines, climate change denial, or anything similar. For example, on Oct.6 2021 a facebook ‘whistleblower’ begged for more censorship due to social media algorithms being harmful to young girls. The ‘whistleblower’ was hired by the government (Democrats at this time) and was given a new twitter account with a blue check and 10’s of thousands of followers.
Any and all measures pushed by government and media will continue to have the opposite effect of what they claim will happen, data will support this, and yet the masses will still follow regardless of data (it’s just how people feel vs hard data). That is, each time a large counter measure is imposed (masks, lockdowns, vaccines), it would intuitively make sense that some measurable aspect of the pandemic would change (get better). In fact, there has been complete lack of correlation between any measure and improved outcomes (hospitalizations, deaths, etc.)
Over the winter months, COVID19 fearmongering will be merged and connected with climate change emergencies. Climate change will be interchangeable as a ‘health crisis’ so as to confuse the public yet again to not be able to differentiate between the two.
Lockdowns and population movement control will be connected to ‘saving’ us from C19 and climate change. The difference being now the governments messaging will be ‘we need to lockdown faster and harder’ than before because it worked so well last time (in 2020).
Massive cyber attack, planned or managed, similar in fear level as 9/11. Will complete the internet censorship. This will lead to a digital ID ‘license’ to go on the internet. Scan identity to access.
Never was about public health. All actions are exploiting fear of public health to do bigger picture changes, passports. Digital ID, CBDC, and 4th industrial revolution transhumanism control. Need majority accustomed to ID and CBDC first, then can collapse economy so masses will scramble to embrace new system to save whatever they have left.
Beyond 2022, there will be larger stages of societal rollouts, similar to the scale and timeframe outlined by Bezmenov’s ‘subversion’ stages (see above).
STAGE 1: The current stage – virus panic, pandemic fear deathcounts, vaccine mandates
STAGE 2: Planned destruction and continued erosion of current societies and systems.
STAGE 3: The ‘Saviour’ stage – rollout of a new set of societies and systems upon an exhausted, demoralized, and frightened public who will be begging for salvation and safety. The final relinquishment of individual liberties will be a given for a public who will not ever want to return to the messy ‘old normal’.
The timeline and amount of changes they manage to get through depends on the obedience, compliance, and acceptance of the measures. Obtaining the vaccine and the vaccine passport uptake past 70 or 80% was a major goal. Places that missed this were hit with harsher measures. ‘Tweaking’ of measures over time will depend on how far along the other goals go. These include central bank digital currencies, digital ID uptake (morphed from vaccine passports), ‘going direct’ banking system (removing the role of national banks buffering people from the central bank), and tying this together with the programmable aspect of the social credit scoring system similar to China’s.
‘Menticide’ cycles. Waves of fear and relief with pre-planned crises to psychologically prepare the masses.
DBS
19 Jan, 2022
Blog
Many aspects of ‘pandemics’ changed for COVID19, when comparing to what was done before for other pandemics and compared to our plans already in place. None of these topics were discussed as to why they changed, governments (except Sweden) just made the change without explanation or data.
Pandemic planning. Prior to 2020, most Western nations had pandemic plans in place for high IRF diseases. These were mainly for influenza outbreaks ‘or similar death-rate diseases. The basics of the plan were similar to the Great Barrington Declaration. Find out who the disease targets for death, isolate these groups and the sick, and basically let the rest of society function as normal. Above all, keep the public calm and respectful. Societal breakdown (lockdowns, closures, etc.) have long been known to cause more harm than the disease due to poverty, suicides, despair deaths etc. The use of complete lockdowns could be argued as needed for initial C19 waves due to the precautionary principle (i.e. until we get more data on IFR), but after that, with IFR data in-hand and knowing it affects the elderly with health issues, we should have re-evaluated. This never happened and no explanation was given by any government as to why we can’t discuss this, it was only perpetual lockdowns, until a vaccine arrives.
Definition of ‘pandemic’. Prior to 2009, the WHO would declare a pandemic for any new virus that emerged that came with high cases and high death rates. After 2009, the qualifier of ‘with high death rate’ was removed. In addition, as of April 2020 (just during the first wave in the UK), the UK government removed C19 from its list of ‘diseases of high consequence’ list.
PCR test cycles. The PCR test is/was a useful tool to detect a virus in a patient if the patient is presenting specific symptoms of a disease. For example, if a patient shows typical flu symptoms (nausea headache fever) and influenza is suspected, the PCR tool is used to take a sample, and can be set to detect typical influenza viruses by amplifying the patient sample up to a maximum of 25 cycles (cycle meaning ‘to the power of’ – exponentially increases per cycle). If no virus is found within 25 cycles, then the test is negative. Experts all agreed (even Fauci Drosten etc.) that beyond 25 cycles, if the virus is detected, it is either false ‘noise’, or the virus is dead or fragmented, which means it can’t be causing illness anymore. For the worldwide rollout of C19 testing, the PCR CT was set to 38 to 45 is almost all countries, making it meaningless. The entire world used this PCR test method to allow the WHO to declare C19 a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ – acronym pronounced ‘fake’.
Asymptomatic spread. Prior to 2020, experts (again Fauci and many others) continuously said asymptomatic spread is possible but very rare, so rare versus symptomatic spread that even Fauci clarified ‘asymptomatic spread is NEVER the driver of an epidemic.’ For C19, the flipped this and said ‘everyone can spread’, which was justification in their plan to lock away healthy people.
Masks. Same experts right before C19 said masks don’t do anything for respiratory disease spread that is aerosolized (as with C19). There are/were countless videos of almost all health experts stating ‘masks do nothing on healthy people for respiratory viruses. If you’re sick, go ahead and use one’. But they made everyone wear them anyway after March 2020. All throughout 2020 and 2021, data was shown that masks and/or mask mandates made zero dent or change to any traceable signal – C19 deaths, hospitalizations, ICU levels, cases – there was zero correlation among multiple countries/states with or without mask use.
Lockdowns. Same experts right before C19 said there is no reason to lock down healthy people, only isolate sick and vulnerable. In addition, leaders and health experts said ‘we can’t use lockdowns in a free democracy’. Niell Fergusson said ‘we thought we couldn’t use lockdowns, until we saw we could.’ (speaking of using them first in China, then Italy.) Then, March 2020, they said lockdowns for all. But just 3 weeks. It’s been 2 years now of waves of lockdowns with no explanation. Health experts go on TV during government updates, right as the number of cases/deaths starts to naturally decline, and take credit – ‘see, our lockdown worked’. Never admitting that the cases/deaths were coming down days or weeks before the lockdown anyway. And, also never acknowledging that places like Sweden or Florida also saw cases/deaths come down in the same fashion (called the Gompertz curve, or Farr’s Law), even though they did not use harsh lockdowns. Appendix shows how after 2 years, there is NO correlation to lockdown use and reduced C19 deaths).
The measures taken that were never in any pandemic plans will become normalized and accepted as effective measures. Masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates all have been correlated to either worse or no different outcomes for spread. Regardless – government committees and analysis has already been set to show that they are now the best tools and they worked well. This sets the precedent for them to be default responses for any future emergency – climate issues included.
Dying ‘with’ versus ‘of’ COVID19. For new diseases, deaths ‘with’ the disease are counted regardless of any underlying condition. That is, if someone has heart issues, diabetes, and gets flu/pneumonia and dies, the cause of death would be heart failure brought on by… For C19, for that same example person, C19 would be the cause of death. In the UK, a C19 death is ‘any death for any reason within 28 days of a positive PCR test for C19.’ This guidance came from the WHO, and was abused in places like the UK and the USA, where incentives were given to mark deaths ‘with’ as ‘of’ C19 to get more hospital funding per patient.
Definition of ‘immunity’. The CDC and WHO at one point changed the immunity definition from ‘immunity from either natural infection or vaccination’ to just ‘immunity from vaccination’ without explanation.
The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” Furthermore, Fauci then updated what ‘fully vaccinated’ meant: “We’re using the terminology now ‘keeping your vaccinations up to date,’ rather than what ‘fully vaccinated’ means. Right now, optimal protection is with a third shot of an mRNA or a second shot of a J&J.” This sets one up psychologically to accept a ‘subscription’ service to your health.
In early to mid 2021, during the aggressive vaccine rollouts, both President Biden and CDC Director Wallensky said on live TV that those who have the vaccine will not get COVID and are protected from getting the virus. They slowly backtracked later to admit the opposite. It was implied by comparing to measles, polio, and small pox that the mRNA therapies were ‘sterilizing’ – they kill and stop the virus – when in fact they are somewhat protective for a limited time – reduce C19 illness (as their trials tried to show).
The moral case for using ‘the noble lie’ against the public. In many areas of life, the public necessarily needs to be led or tricked into doing one action, in order to obtain a separate outcome for their own good or the good of society. This could be used for example to hide some negative aspects of certain vaccines, that are very rare, in order to ensure high uptake for the sake of protecting others. This occurs with vaccines for measles, smallpox, polio, etc. Those diseases kill young people at a very high rate, and, because a normal society values younger lives more than elderly due to potential ‘years of life lost’, it is worth it to supress any bad side effects from such vaccines so that the majority take them, and protect others. This is the case for ‘sterilizing’ vaccines – they kill the virus and completely halt transmission and spread, which almost guarantees herd immunity. The safety of these vaccines have decades of data in their profiles – the risk of adverse effects is known to far outweigh the risks of an outbreak. And so since the science on these is settled (high efficacy, stops transmission, very low adverse reaction rates), ‘tricking’ the public into taking them is justified. The opposite is true for C19 vaccines. Safety is not yet known, the adverse reaction rate is high (approximately 50 to 100 times higher than existing vaccines), there is no long-term safety information, and, it only reduces symptoms – does not prevent spread. Therefore, there is no trade off for justifying the ‘noble lie’ to coerce the public to taking it. This is especially true for people under 30.
Focused vaccination on the vulnerable. This used to be the norm- identify the at-risk group, in this case the elderly and those with co-morbidities, and prioritize them for protective vaccines. Today, the message is, even if not at risk, get your shot. This is never done unless the vaccine is sterilizing (kills the virus and transmission). If young and healthy, a protective vaccine adds nothing to building herd immunity.
Prioritizing the young over the old. All animal species disproportionately protect their young at the expense of the older and weaker. This is a natural survival instinct – we value the potential of the young to continue the species and family line. This is also done with immunization programs. Small pox, measles, polio – these all affect and kill the young at a much higher rate than C19 (C19 is even less fatal than flu for those under 30). And so due to ‘life-years-lost’ of our youth compared to the elderly, we concentrate on them. Quite the opposite for C19, through media campaigns of fear, we are shaming the young and enraging the public to ‘get them all vaccinated’ even though children have next to zero risk from C19, and the vaccines do not stop spread. We have scared the public into thinking it’s okay to sacrifice healthy children (masks, missed school, depression, suicides), for a false sense of protecting the elderly.
From Jeffrey A Tucker (AIER.org). How to create society-destroying mass panic in five claims:
1) there’s a killer virus loose (the public still thinks death rate is 10-20 times higher than actual)
2) everyone is equally susceptible (95% of vulnerable are 65 old or older with health issues)
3) not sure if natural immunity works (it does, studies show it’s better than vaccines)
4) it spreads without symptoms (very rarely, 20 time less likely than with symptoms)
5) even if you don’t die, you suffer forever if you get it. (rare- happens with flu as well)
6) suppress anything or anyone who doesn’t believe 1-5.
Many jurisdictions’ Health Offices warned against using lockdowns and NPIs. Following established pandemic planning science, keeping societal health as normal as possible is paramount so as to avoid other worse outcomes. As an example, via freedom of information act, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association obtained Montreal Public Health’s warnings about using lockdowns. They know/knew these would result in much worse outcomes as opposed to just protecting the at-risk (elderly, infirm, known by as early as April 2020).
Quebec implemented its 2nd curfew knowing it had zero scientific basis, and did it against ethical advice AND against a strongly-worded email from Montreal Public Health, which listed many serious reasons not to have another curfew. Following this, the QC public health director resigned.
Montreal Public Health’s reasons not to have curfew:
No evidence it works.
Uncertainty about duration.
Pandemic fatigue of population.
Collateral impacts, many of them tragic, disproportionately affecting fragile populations.
The death of a homeless person during the last curfew, following which the curfew was ended.
Domestic violence.
Increase in social isolation.
Exposure of children and teens to domestic violence.
Increased difficulty of accessing housing services.
Some workers in precarious situations sleeping at the workplace to avoid being arrested by police due to the curfew.
Decrease in access to services for monitored drug use and increased risk of overdose.
Increase in social tension and negative interactions between police and the population.
A rigorous, transparent ethical examination is required in order to promote public confidence in such decisions.
Since the effects on societal health are well-known, and the IFR and age-risk of the vulnerable was already well-known, it is either that these governments were inept or did this on purpose. Almost ALL Western nations did this, so the explanation of ineptitude is naïve.
All of this was done on purpose by all governments, at the behest of orders higher up, to the WHO, UN, and WEF. It is clear now that the WEF and WHO have even started legislation to bypass sovereign nations’ Constitutional laws in order to enact pandemic plans directly on all countries.
DBS
18 Jan, 2022
Blog
From the start of the first lockdowns (March 2020), till today (2022), there has yet to be any discussion on data or metrics listed below with any government. Instead, each official (usually the Health Officer) makes statements with false models (proven false time and again each time what they predict does not happen), issues decrees (lockdowns or masks), and show zero real data, all while not allowing any counter evidence or questioning. In a normal democracy, debate, questioning, data, and discussion is paramount and normal. Almost all governments resorted to whichever loophole they had at their disposal to bypass rules against the suspension of rights and civil liberties. They easiest form of this was to simply declare a ‘state of emergency’ without evidence and plow their mandates through. In most countries/States/Provinces, there were already continuous states of emergency due to wildfires or other issues. This allows for running government ‘by decree’, no oversight or parliamentary oversight. The state of emergency for C19 has lasted going on 2 years now. ‘If the government can violate rights during an emergency, they’ll invent an emergency to violate your rights’. Specifically in the U.K. on more than one occasion, the government modelling (presented by their SAGE group), would be off by a factor of 10, they would implement masking or lockdown measures to ‘prevent’ this disaster outcome, then the following days, external scientists would analyze the models, conclusively point out errors and input mistakes that would result in the model by being off by factors of 10 to 20 (C19 deaths/cases), and the government would simply respond ‘we’re going ahead with lockdowns anyway’.
DBS
17 Jan, 2022
Blog
The best source for this section is covered in “A State of Fear” by Laura Dodsworth. This is for the UK but the same tactics and coercion techniques were applied in similar fashion on all Western nations. In ‘State of Fear’ Dodsworth outlines specific government departments made up of sociologists and psychologists, whose main function was to ‘elevate the public sense of fear beyond they actual risk of C19’. You could argue this is a necessary or ‘noble’ lie to ensure the public behaves at first (precautionary principle). However for a new disease with a fatality rate ten times below the last true ‘plague’ (1918 – see IFR appendix), there was no need for this.
The UK government was shown and admitted to using groups such as SPIB, ‘nudge units’, and other psychological groups to ensure fear was continuously messaged to the people. This comes down to politician speeches, signage and markings on floors/roads to stay safe, the colors of media to ensure ‘danger’ is always on display, and constant media messaging guidance to the main media outlets (BBC, CBC, ABC, all Western government media arms). In the UK they have a group of media guidance called “OFCOM”, to be specific.
Death – tickers. All governments through the media ensured all news outlets constantly drummed out ‘death tickers’ 24 hours a day. For any other major health issue or emergency, governments always ensure the public is kept calm and treated with respect. We don’t turn on the news in BC and start with “one hundred and ten people died today!” (which is the approximate daily death rate in BC), but we do start every news day with “8 more people died from C19 this weekend!” For all other issues in our daily lives, the government decides which ones to suppress (like daily car deaths, higher than C19 deaths), or highlight, knowing that fear of death works. For almost 2 years, we have had nothing but fear, fear, death 24-7 in the news. This should make one suspicious that something else is being done rather than just fighting a new disease. Governments in Canada, New Zealand and Australia even told their citizens to ‘not go out and mingle – if you see a friend or neighbor, do not stop to talk to them’, and ‘do not listen to any other sources of information – we the government are the only experts you should listen to’. (Jacinda Ardern of NZ).
Governments and big tech ramped up their censorship and online cancelling. Many health experts and others who questioned the official narrative and/or data were suspended from Twitter, youtube, Facebook, etc. ‘Fact checkers’ were inserted to any post questioning or not fitting the official government position. Even official Parliamentary discussions (or congress hearings in the US) were deleted off social media if they didn’t match the government position, even though these are public hearings that all citizens are entitled to view/hear. “Fact check” organizations, if you dig a few layers into their foundations, ultimately end up being owned/controlled by the same entities that own/control all social media platforms in the first place. E.g. multiple ‘fact check’ companies are owned/supported by ‘The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’ and/or the George Soros ‘Open Society’ foundation.
Government control of the traditional media (“MSM” or mainstream media) expanded dramatically prior to and during the pandemic. Via the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI), millions of dollars have been funneled in to multiple state media source around the world to ‘combat disinformation’. The CBC, for example, signed on to the TNI just before the pandemic, Sept. 2019. Digging deeper into the source of funding for the TNI, it is revealed the same players behind the pharmaceutical and financial companies are involved. It was already under some control given the amount of pro-‘woke’ narratives that were pushed, and the amount of so-called conservative viewpoints being suppressed. The bias towards woke issues only helped accelerate and ease in to the narrative needed for the pandemic. Any and all widespread protests against government mandates were minimally-covered, and if anything, were always described as being bunches of right-wing, racist, anti-vax, conspiracy flat-earthers, and their numbers, even if they were truly in the tens of thousands, were always described as ‘just a few’. In many instances, protests were simply never reported. The MSM in most Western nations all had funding and guidance as to what was ‘allowed’ to be covered and how, in specific, bodies such as OFCOM in the UK (and other equivalents in the West), all provided funding to and guidance for ‘proper’ coverage. There was essentially zero air time given to any sceptical views or debate. Omnicom funds Omnigov and Ofcom, government became the biggest funder of media. SAGE used fear beyond actual risk. Leaders were directed to have a ‘single point of info’, usually a Public Health Officer. All countries same delivery. If C19 was so deadly, there would be bodies everywhere and no need to incite fear, but they did anyway. In parallel governments enacted legislation by decree granting abnormal powers under guise of ‘safety’ acts.
Again, this is an idea that most Westerners cannot entertain, that their media is completely state controlled and funded. Those in the West always assume state propaganda only happens in other countries, not here. With the amount of money and influence being pushed from the top layers (WEF and the UN), it is obvious we do not have a free and independent press. If there were, hard questions would be allowed and encouraged at all political briefings, but they never are.
As Iain Davis from in-this-together.com outlined further media and government control similar to Dodsworth. This is for the UK again but all Western governments used similar tactics:
SAGE and “SPIB” – March 2020 ‘objective is to increase fear levels in public’ = terrorize population, ‘will use media to do this’.
Omnicom, Omnigov, US company contracted to UK Gov for media buy-in. Govt has become MSM main source of income- how is this independent? Regulatory = OFCOM.
‘Online safety act’ against ‘domestic terrorism. (based on MP that was killed in the UK).
Belgium PHO Marcus Van Randt in 2019 gave media presentation on how to control media, deaths out of context etc. Make yourself single point of info, others will follow – all to increase fear.
If real pandemic, fear would occur by itself and would not need a coordinated media campaign.
Now we have dictatorial acts – ‘Criminal Intelligence Act’ – gives govt agencies power to violate basic rights without recourse. Australia passing motion to not need any specific emergency to have emergency state powers.
‘Could not be all coordinated – conspiracy theory’. This is how large-scale operations always happen, like NATO, GAVI – all have coordination structures in place.
World leaders increased their divisive language in interviews – signaling to the public that the unvaccinated are not worthy people:
French leader Macron similarly indicated that the unvaccinated should not be treated as true citizens.
DBS
16 Jan, 2022
Blog
It is important to note when and where propaganda is being utilized, especially so since a majority of populations in the West have only lived through and with ‘free democratic’ societies. Even moreso, since the end of the Cold War, with the West ‘winning’ against Communism and the evil Russian systems, we have been programmed to believe that propaganda only occurs in ‘those other places’. In ‘those other places’, populations have become so distrustful and cynical against their governments due to constant lies and propaganda – they can clearly see how the West lives and advertises its culture even though their governments continuously state how bad and evil the West is. The very term ‘politically correct’ is believed to originate from the communist Soviet culture – people in private discuss the actual correct truths and facts, and differentiate these from what they are told are the accepted facts from government. Something obvious in private conversation is considered ‘correct’, versus the allowed version, or the ‘politically-correct’ version of truth – the version they are supposed to believe for show since it’s expedient to go along with the government, else risk being caught.
Propaganda is very old, and has been used throughout time. For Westerners, it is said that the two World Wars were peak times for use of propaganda, in which the enemy (Germany at those times) was portrayed as evil, subhuman murderers. It could be argued this is ‘good’ propaganda. It was a campaign of lies and fear, to enrage a passive public into supporting the fight against an aggressor. The ends justify the means since ‘we’ won and preserved world order and peace (arguably of course). Propaganda is and has been used in democracies in its ‘good’ form as a necessity, to guide ‘the bewildered herd’ to do and vote for what is good for the greater portion of societies. Propaganda campaigns can use cherry-picked facts or data that may not be one hundred percent true, but if the end result is beneficial, then the ‘ends justify the means’. ‘Good’ propaganda in democracies could coerce the masses to end littering, reduce child or partner abuse, eliminate racism, etc. If information used is not exactly accurate or even true, but the end result is for a better society, then this fits the description of ‘the Noble Lie’.
Propaganda for other purposes however, is quite a separate topic. This can go beyond just Machiavellianism.
To recognize if/when propaganda is being utilized in a bad way (anti-democratic), there are easy signs to track (source – Mark Crispin Miller, who previously had a Propaganda 101 course):
Propaganda repeats messaging ad-nauseam. Mantras, catch-phrases, alliteration, and childish rhymes are used.
Fear tactics and any means to anger, rile up, divide the public are repeatedly used. This instead of the opposite – appealing to calm, rational thought, avoiding negative and fearful messages, and using cooperative, uniting messaging.
Propaganda avoids at all costs arguments, debates, questions, rational discourse. It will slander, muck-rake opponents and never confront them or allow data to argue with. No dissenting voice will be given any chance to address the statements.
Propaganda is always in the form of speeches, dictates, rules, and decrees to sway people. To put the thoughts into the publics’ head passively which is why television and SM ideal.
Propaganda is coordinated and rehearsed to ensure consistent messaging. It is the opposite of discourse – science is questioning, engaging debate, encouraging dissent and analysis. Propaganda never does or wants this, it only wants to dictate and state authority. Does not want people thinking, which is why fear and anger is the first choice. Fear paralyzes people’s thoughts and makes them receptive to guidance and control.
As with counter-terror surveillance and laws passed post-9/11, C19 laws under emergency state also have not stopped or helped with virus. Both are about expanding state powers and control, neither are for the states purpose of safety. The same fear tactics allowed these measures to be put in place permanently. As in indirect benefit for the State, these pointless measures also serve as a symbolic means to humiliate people, who know that checking their vaccine passport at a restaurant is subversive and saves no one, but they are forced to do the theatre anyway.
DBS
15 Jan, 2022
Blog
All throughout 2020 and 2021, many Western governments behaved in an authoritarian fashion and/or made reforms to their legal systems against basic charters of rights and freedoms. Each time, the justifications were always because ‘we’re in an emergency’, or, if decided by the judiciary, ‘the pandemic justifies this’. Some main points noted in various regions:
From the start, March 2020, the majority of Western nations’ people supported restrictions of freedoms due to the ‘emergency’, some as high as 80% support. This has continued for more than 18 months, with many now still continuing to agree with issues such as limiting people’s rights and freedoms based on their vaccine passport status. Even though the vaccine does little to stop you getting the virus or transmitting it.
Many Western publications – including The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and National Review – have mused that China’s onerous clampdown on its citizenry might be the most effective response to COVID-19. Professor Neil Ferguson, a controversial former adviser to 10 Downing St. in its response to the pandemic, told the British newspaper The Times that he initially didn’t think it would be possible to follow the Chinese model of a stringent lockdown: “It’s a communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought. … And then Italy did it. And we realized we could.”
By December 2020, many EU countries quietly enacted laws that made lockdowns permanent features of pandemic responses. In Germany, for example, Angela Merkel’s party enacted lockdowns as ‘law’, based on one scientific paper claiming they worked, with zero debate allowed and no opposition. In the enactment, Merkel claimed that this single scientific paper shows that lockdowns are a scientific certainty, the same as gravity. You cannot argue against gravity since science proved it, and so the same now goes for lockdowns as a scientific certainty. (Note that there is no such thing as a scientific certainty. Science is all about debate, falsifying and testing claims, not about absolute facts).U.K.: Reform bills passed to outlaw ‘protesting loudly’ in public areas.
U.K.: Rule by decree. As laid out by Lord Sumption (former Supreme Court justice), the governments of the West essentially ruled by decree. There were many months where there were no parliamentary debates, no questions allowed, and no judicial oversight. In addition, the government took control and ordered the police to enforce rules, rather than the police following the law. See Appendix on Sumption.
In the USA and other countries, government bills and laws in are in the works to categorize protests and assembly rights against government measures (such as COVID mandates, lockdowns, or climate change issues), as ‘domestic terrorism’. The US Department of Homeland Security issued a Terrorism Bulletin that ‘democracy remains under imminent threat from ideologically-motivated violent extremists’, including groups ‘angered over COVID 19 restrictions.
In Germany, German Intelligence was authorized to put ‘deniers’ under surveillance without warrants. The German Interior Ministry also explained that ‘extremists encourage supporters to ignore official orders and challenge the state monopoly on the use of force’. Germany also passed the ‘Infection Protection Act’ which formallygrants the government the authority to issue whatever edicts it wants under the guise of protecting the public health. The government has been doing this anyway — ordering lockdowns, curfews, travel bans, banning demonstrations, raiding homes and businesses, ordering everyone to wear medical masks, harassing and arresting dissidents, etc. — but now it has been “legitimized” by the Bundestag.
Many EU countries, as well as Australia, moved to criminalize peaceful protest – a fundamental right in any western nation. Peaceful protesters were met actively with tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets.
The Canadian military acknowledged that they used propaganda techniques against their population, which is usually only done by totalitarian regimes.
On Oct.19, 2021, the UK ‘Parliament’ extended the Coronavirus Act which continues to gives government ‘temporary’ emergency-measure powers indefinitely, without a vote, all the while literally laughing at the motion passing as if laughing at the sham of the democratic process – no oversight, no objection, no discussion. “If the ’emergency’ legislation can be casually extended with a hearty guffaw in a ‘democratic’ society, it’s neither an emergency, or a democracy.” (Quote Tweet SELF₿ANKT & SOVEREIGN, @selfbankt).
House of Commons Deputy Speaker @eleanor4epping decides a vote to extend UK #CoronavirusAct 6mnths is NOT necessary saying “It’s not the mood of the House to vote on the issue.” It passes with a laugh & ridicule. @UKParliament is a shitshow & not fit for purpose. Democracy?”
Further notes:
Suspension of basic rights, per Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfounland, and the last surviving author of the 12 premiers/leaders who formed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was added to and on top of the Bill of Rights, only it solidifies the process so that no single federal leader can usurp the rights within Provinces. Section 2, 6, 7, and 15 are all in states of permanent violation. These include rights to assembly, association, movement/mobility, job-seeking/employment. These are all suspended under the clause in section 1, which allows for a provision of temporary suspension ‘if the government shows demonstrable justification’ (or emergency). No government has demonstrated this, no data, no ‘discovery’ of information to show a state of emergency, no debate, no counter-argument, no discussion among MPs. Political leaders are beholden to the citizens to take the public health issues into consideration along with all other public issues, not just health. Debate should occur, and elected MPs should decide. Instead, we have had 2 years of non-elected employees (Public Health Officers), who are NOT allowed to address Parliament, controlling our government and democracy. Only MPs/MLAs, elected representatives of the people, are legally allowed to speak/address issues at Parliament.
Throughout 2020 and 2021, almost all legal challenges showing how lockdowns, vx mandates, and other government measures violate the charter of rights (basic UN human rights, constitutional freedoms, etc.) were thrown out basically with the judgement ‘we should believe our health officers that we are in a deadly pandemic’. One case in Alberta even had evidence accepted by the Provincial Health Officer, in that they agreed the PCR test was flawed, and does not test for a true case, but rather fragments of virus in healthy people. Still, verdict was ‘we should not be second-guessing our experts during a deadly pandemic’.
Vaccine mandates. Most leaders and health officers publicly confirmed in Summer of 2021 that vaccine mandates and vaccine passport systems would ‘have too many constitutional and human rights issues’, ‘in a democracy’. Suddenly by fall 2021, they all implemented mandates and passport systems with no explanation on the human rights aspect.
DBS
14 Jan, 2022
Blog
Further to the mechanisms employed by governments as described in the Media topics above, the same bodies that launched fear campaigns also know how to keep an entire population in a state of hypnosis, whereas hypnosis is directed at an individual, the same techniques applied to a population is called ‘mass formation’. These steps and descriptions were best explained by Professor Matias Desmet.
Populations must first be in a state of isolation, loneliness, and social disconnection. This was in the background already for years due to social media, and accelerated by the pandemic – shutting people in homes, ‘stay apart’, ‘don’t talk to neighbors or friends’ etc.
The population first needs to be at a high level of anxiety, specifically ‘free-floating’ anxiety, in that the public feels anxious or a lack of control it their lives, but cannot pinpoint a specific cause to remedy this. For the past few years, 2010 till present, this has been true in aspects of social media making people withdrawn and ‘triggered’, adults with ‘bullshit jobs’ that they feel are meaningless, and constant media messaging about climate change, society problems, racism, all sorts of phobias – all of which cannot be solved directly. These make people anxious, especially young people, made all the more troubling because one cannot do anything to fix the cause of the anxiety – it’s ‘free floating’.
The population must have a lack of sense-making. They are bombarded with misinformation daily on SM or MSM, and cannot step outside this realm to use their own common sense to analyze what is going on.
Multiple crises will further the sense of anxiety. Humans can only handle 1 or 2 major crises at once, i.e. climate catastrophes and maybe a deadly pandemic. For 2 years (2020-2022) the MSM has purposely pumped out all negative news, exaggerating death and destruction stories as a priority. Climate disasters, COVID19 death counters, murders, police murdering black people, racist countries oppressing their native populations, etc. All of these concentrations on death, negative stories, exaggerated oppression, all lead to a population that can no longer think or make sense of their world. Adding the perceived threat of a deadly pandemic pushed many over the edge beyond reasoning.
A leader, or savior, or expert, suddenly comes along with ‘we know what the problem is and we can solve it.’ A mentally-exhausted public, with aimless anxiety, suddenly feels a cohesion with others in this new ‘we will fight this and win’ crowd, it allows them to transfer their aimless anxiety and attach it to this new crusade – in this case, to fight COVID19. It is too difficult for an anxious person to look inwards and address their inner anxieties, compared to some concrete, external, definitive threat (virus), for which the governments have provided a definitive solution for. Similar to uniting the population to go to war against a common evil enemy. This allows an anxious population to remove all self-doubt and analysis, and literally transfer and attach their anxiety and problems to an external threat or problem.
Regardless of any data or experiences that go against the official ‘this is how we fix this’ narrative, the population will continue the crusade, shaming anyone who questions the fight as ‘deniers’. The narrative can be non-sensical, for example ‘COVID is killing everyone!’, even with clear data showing it is not. Those who try to point this out are cancelled or attacked as ‘you are either with us or against us’. There is no room for even ‘we are with you but can we discuss this data first?’
This is the difference between a totalitarian state and a dictatorship. Dictatorships with one strong-arm ruler and cabal only lasts with force and compliance, and all of these eventually collapse. Authoritarian/totalitarian systems are easier to maintain because enough people are in mass formation to keep the system going by themselves – they police themselves and others, and reinforce the government position voluntarily.
“The reason why people within this mass formation (mass hypnosis) all need to participate in the lockdowns, wear a mask, social distancing or take a vaccine. Is because if you don’t do it, you are not showing solidarity to the new group that has been formed. Almost as if all the measures to defeat the object of anxiety are really just to prove to everyone else that you are apart of the new cult like social group. Which has no real ability to defeat the pandemic, is not backed in science and is only designed to identify who is apart of their new cult like social group, and who is not, and nothing more.”
The use of psychologist and social engineering groups an experts throughout the pandemic, not to ease the publics fears but to inflate them shows just how targeted these actions were and are (by their own admission – see Dodsworth on SPIB and Nudge Units). Techniques such as these are well known:
Milgram Experiment. A set of Yale University studies by Stanley Milgram, whereby he proved that obedience to authority figures to comply with orders did not need violent coercion. Subjects were instructed to give painful electric shocks to ‘patients’. The patients were actors not really being shocked, the subjects were real, and were only instructed by an ‘authority’ figure in a lab coat who promised it is okay to deliver the shocks, even if close to fatal levels. The subjects in general felt no guilt since an authority figure gave them permission.
Asch Experiments. Solomon Asch conducted conformity experiments in the 1930s (more recent ones have been repeated). One teacher would ask a group to conduct a vision test, evaluating the length of a drawn line against three other lines of various lengths. The target line obviously matched one of the three comparison lines (one was much shorter, one much longer). Of the 40 or 50 participants, just one was not in on the experiment, the others were all instructed to give an obviously false answer. One by one, the participants gave the same obviously wrong answer. When repeated, on average, 32% of participants would conform to the incorrect majority answer. Across multiple trials, 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% never conformed.
Stanford Prison Experiment. Socially- normal citizens were recruited to this experiment and randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard (10 prisoners, 11 guards). Prisoners were treated as normal – arrested and taken to a fake prison to be booked. The de-individualization process began – stripped down, deloused, assigned a number only. Guards could only refer to them as ID numbers. Within hours of just imitating prisoners and guards, normal citizens who were guards began to assert violent authority. The experiment was cut short due to the previously-normal participants devolution into their roles.
In addition to the showing of solidarity to the group, there is the effect of social media running mostly GEN-Z’s lives (those under 30 who grew up with mobile phones and SM). That is, polls show for most GEN-Z that their primary attribute is to do social good. This attribute is positive and laudable, however since they were ingrained with social media behavior, this became nothing more than ‘virtue signaling’ for ‘likes’ and kudos for their online persona. The media and social engineers knew this and hijacked this (see ‘The Social Dilemna’) for their own purpose. Take any normal person’s natural instinct to do good, tie it to social media via likes and voting, and then use media to propagandize them towards whatever topic is deemed socially-important. For this decade it’s climate change, and now ‘doing your part’ in the C19 pandemic. Once this is tied to vaccine digital passports, they have the ultimate virtue signal – to show off their vaccine status and passport to brag for points about doing their part for the collective. Everyone else not on board is against the common good – the idea of individual thought, debate, or any nuance is denounced as ‘you’re not doing your part’. Same fear as in 9/11 – ‘you are either with us, or with the terrorists’ if you ask any questions. Once the digital passport status is tied to the social credit system as already in place in China, this will only further the point-scoring and virtue signaling to show we are ‘the good ones’ obeying and doing our part. When in reality it is all a system of control which the State decides activity, behavior, and thought and opinion.
Further methods of subversion like this can be described as Yuri Bezmenov did in the mid 1980s. Bezmenov was a former reporter/expert from Russia who documented precisely how the KGB (Soviet secret police) would subvert entire nations and populations. There was always a 4-step approach, some of which can be seen in similar steps applied to the past 2 years during the pandemic. (1) demoralization – a 10 to 15 year period of subverting schools, religion, social life, while detracting from hard sciences like math, erode trust in social structures, police, society in general. (2) destabilize – a 2-5 year period, get society pitted against one another, disrupt the economy, law, media, prevent the public from solving their own societal issues. (3) crisis – a short sharp 6 week period to get government systems to fail, crumble, fall apart – and insert a savior figure to lead the way out to the other side. The public will be begging for this savior. (4) normalization – new self-appointed rulers take over, destroy anyone who helped them in stage (2) and (3).
Psychiatrist Mark McDonald, who treats children and youth for mental disorders, saw in 2020 and 2021 that the uptake of social issues were created on purpose – again the government knows if they followed the pandemic plan of keeping people calm and respectful, as normal as possible, you avoid these social issues. By isolating healthy and locking down everyone (not just sick or vulnerable), they knew these social issues and breakdown would happen – they are not and were not inept, this is done on purpose:
Not a medical virus crisis – it’s political – control, purge people who speak out. Virus narrative is a fear-based distraction to keep them not looking at the ‘how’ and ‘why’ what is really happening.
‘Societal malaise’ has been created on purpose. There has been a 300-400% increase in US societal anxiety and mental issues, depression, stress. Spousal and child abuse. Increased substance abuse, drugs, suicides, pot, meth, cocaine. Not due to virus, only due to ratcheting pressure to conform by governments, which is for compliance and control. Frustrated and afraid people go into a trance mode, freeze, and await a leader to guide them a way out (miserable desperate sheep). Not ALL people, but many in general. This is a well-known cause and effect.
The ‘pandemic of fear’ narrative is done on purpose for psychological control – it is difficult to control joyful, independent, fearless people, they must be the opposite for compliance. Fearful people will react irrationally, and if fear dictates your actions, you will cling to an authority.
Stages: fear, mass delusional psychosis, control, purge dissidents. Delusional psychosis stage was for more than a year – seeing masks, fear, people want to fit in and follow rules even though the rules are senseless or changing for no reason. Conformity is more comfortable. The moving of the goal-posts, lying about returning to normal, all on purpose to scare into conformity. The majority of humans want to be taken care of, a small minority want true freedom – it’s too scary for most.
We will soon cross a line of no return. Ratcheting of measures have prevented people reaching a tipping point suddenly if they push too hard too fast. Measures starting to hit the estimated 60% of people just trying to get along to go along.
Other points of discussion:
Is it really for depopulation? Not so plausible. First priority is control, compliance, and a purge of dissidents. Media, politicians, experts who do not fit narrative. The increase of social media censorship and cancelling is noted. People who protest may move to new online platforms, which will allow for ‘blowing off steam’, yet these can easily be cancelled and censored down the road.
Reduce/eliminate independent people and small companies, replace with ‘the big guys’ who are more centrally-controlled. Move their resources and money sources to stifle them.
All under guise of ‘health and safety’, ‘good of the people’ – the same claim that almost all tyrants throughout history have used, governments will continue to push through agendas set from the top down. Protesters will continually be labelled as ‘far right’, or racist or any other term. Laws are being changed and enacted to simply label these protesters as ‘domestic terrorists’, and so punishable by laws.
‘Western’ nations were targeted more since they were founded on similar principles of ‘individual liberty’ – something that needs to be attenuated for mass control/compliance.
Similar to Chinese revolutions – there could be forced renunciation of traditional family and societal/community ties. Reduce the family unit, neighborhood, civic society, churches, etc. Inform on parents to help State. Reliance on stability to the State becomes only option.
Assault on male/female/family in West has been ongoing for 2-3 decades. Breakdown of this, removal of male/female into neutered family.
Theft of passion, purpose, joy by govt over 30 years plus last 2 years, has sucked life out of young urban people.
The ‘new left’ is anti-religion, anti-family, but pro-corporations, which is more like facism (govt+corp).
Virtue signaling compliance is now closer to sadism – pleasure of suffering of ‘others’ – like saying ‘unvxxd can die for all I care – they don’t deserve medical services’. The ‘othering’ of untouchables.
Majority will comply – Stockholm Syndrome – identify/sympathize with abuser. Government is ‘the father’, the abusive father. It is unfathomable to acknowledge the he would be abusing us. Leaves us with no father figure.
Smaller rural, self-contained societies who need less government don’t suffer as much since they don’t need the State for much support.
The ritual and theatrical aspect of the measures taken also serve as a psychological priming technique to normalize behaviour among mainly the young. Masks on all, even though it is shown than masking healthy people does not prevent pandemics, serves to program into routine obedience, especially for kids, who will be completely normalized to this theater from a young age and will have not known a previous ‘old normal world’ without them. Vx (gene therapies) to reduce lifespan slightly, reduce overall immune system, make people weaker in general, normalize a constant ‘immunity by subscription’ world for young, plus act as a delivery system trial for future RNA jabs to alter genetic aspects of human behavior. The narrative has even adapted the vaccine status from how many jabs/doses/boosters one has had to simply ‘up to date’, which leaves an open-ended definition status to be set and reset at the whim of those in power.
All leaders said absolutely no vaccine mandates due to human rights concerns (summer 2021), then without explanation suddenly in Sept. all flipped to mandates, even though they also said they don’t stop transmission or infections. This was never questioned after the fact, and no media would challenge this.
DBS
13 Jan, 2022
Blog
Shortly after multiple datasets showing lower IFR came out (ten times lower than the 3% CFR still in the MSM) in mid April 2020 and on, many scientific and medical groups starting questioning and grouping together to highlight the good news that C19 is not as deadly as first feared, and that it is sharply age-stratified, even moreso than influenza (those 65+ with health issues are 1000-fold risk compared to 55 and under and healthy). These same groups pointed out that the pandemic plan should be re-invoked – shield the old/vulnerable, let those 95% not at-risk go back to normal (Sweden and Florida did this). Instead, governments ignored this and continued on isolating the healthy/all people with no explanation or even discussion with these groups (Great Barrington group, HART group, etc.)
Discussions after April or May 2020 started to increase as to ‘well the government is stupid’ because their locking down of healthy people was causing more death for younger healthy people compared to what they claim they were trying to save in the older vulnerable groups. In addition, long term care homes most at risk purposely had C19 patients returned to them from hospital, only to cause major death counts. New York, Ontario, the UK, these places all had proven policies whereby their governments ordered C19-ill patients to be turned out of hospital and sent back to their care homes, causing elevated death counts.
Health experts and pandemic planners have always known that lockdowns, loss of economic activity (job loss), loss of human interaction, loss of communication and connection, have negative effects on health and even increase deaths. Suicides and deaths of despair are also known outcomes, which did happen throughout 2020-2022 among younger people (who were not at risk from C19, relatively). So, were all governments messing this up and incompetent? Or, more likely, was this all known and there was a bigger plan behind the daily theatre of distancing, death counters? In politics, ‘nothing happens or gets done that isn’t planned’. There are numerous debates and articles arguing about whether all governments screwed up by mistake or did this on purpose. Just like the pandemic itself, again if you believe this is a deadly plague that needs all measures thrown at it, then again stop reading. Or even if you believe that governments made mistakes then stop reading here.
To me it is quite obvious that all ‘experts’ and governments knew the supposed cures would be worse than the disease. The goal of not using the traditional pandemic plans already in place for even worse diseases was to purposely set the precedent for future plans. That is, the old plans were to balance the health of society versus those at risk, since lockdowns and isolation are damaging to society. The new plans now set the narrative that lockdowns of ALL society regardless of risk are normal. Shutting schools and limiting children’s activity is normal even though it damages children. Masks all the time on healthy people is normal, even though up till 2020 it was accepted masking healthy people does nothing. All responses point to damaging society on purpose, in order to erase the old plans that relied on cooperation, societal cohesion, respect, and dignity.
Economic slowdowns are directly correlated to increased mortality, and this is obviously known by all leaders. “During years of falling GDP, death rates rise by 0.4 deaths per 1,000 people (4% of the mean). Child mortality rates surge by 4 deaths per 1,000 births (6% of the mean).” (Source: Bank for International Settlements: Recessions and Mortality.)
Donald Henderson, credited with eradicating smallpox, established the main pandemic plan cornerstone – keep the public and society functioning as normal as possible to maintain overall mental health. “Experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.” (Source: How a Free Society Deals with Pandemics, According to Legendary Epidemiologist and Smallpox Eradicator Donald Henderson – AIER).
Instead, even knowing the mortality rate hit >95% of people over 75 and with 3 or more co-morbidities, all our governments chose to do the opposite. Isolate and treat all of society as if they were sick until proven well. Replace calmness with fear, finger-pointing, anger, collectivism, and the ‘if you are not with us you are against us’ mob mentality. If governments’ roles are to above all keep people calm, rational, and respectful for their own mental health, yet they are doing and did the exact opposite with fear, anger, division, and name-calling, then they must be doing this on purpose. In one more generation, the memory of how previous pandemics were handled (going back to normal after the disease goes endemic), will be erased. The majority of the young will gladly, out of fear and ignorance, accept the authoritarian narrative of how to react and how to behave, in order to fit in with the collective, virtue-signal that they are ‘doing our part’, and even police and threaten those who go against the rules.
DBS
12 Jan, 2022
Blog
Control.
The pandemic is being used to accelerate changes in society that have been planned for some time. ‘They’ are doing this for control. To increase control of capital and resources, to increase control of populations and their movement and behavior, to increase control of economic activity, and to further divide society into more dependent citizens and elites. There are dozens of changes being made to take advantage of this crisis – I liken them to a ‘grab-bag’ of projects and changes that have long-since been desirable to implement, just waiting for the right crises. ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’. This is similar to the concept of ‘political capital’ that politicians use regularly. That is, keep ideas, scandals, black-mailing material always at the ready to be spent/launched for a later time when the environment is ready for it.
By looking at what is being implemented from the top down, rather than looking from the pandemic details and up, it becomes clear what is being done. The main outcome desired is increased control of people and their movement and behavior. The list of desired outcomes and changes are more targeted to Western nations than others but the whole world will be moved:
To demoralize/dehumanize the masses to be less cohesive with their own groups and more obedient and dependent on government and the official narrative of any topic.
To bankrupt and ‘repair’ the monetary system that was headed for another collapse, only to replace it with another fiat-currency model.
To establish a central bank digital currency (CBDC) to replace the remaining fiat monetary system. The CBDC has a more direct control aspect to it for shaping people’s behavior.
To train/condition people into obedience to the vaccine passport system on their mobile phones, as already trialed in China over the last decade.
To coerce mainly Western nations away from liberty-minded protection and promotion of the individual and towards the ‘collective’. Fear will be mainly used, interspersed with rewards, interspersed with guilt – that us messy humans – it’s our fault the world is dying.
To increase population control via digital ID or QR-code system, which will flow from the vaccine passport system, similar to the social credit system used in China, programmable digital currency at the control of the government.
To continue the migration of peoples’ lives away from the physical world and into the online one, where further control is easier.
Many who are against the authoritarian measures feel those imposing these changes are acting out of evil – they are psychopaths. Or, those imposing the changes must have been shown dire outcomes for an out-of-control population of overconsumption, and therefore are moving us towards a technocratic society for our own good. For some bigger-picture reason, those in control believe the world needs to be brought into a system of more State control in order to keep the world on track for a more compliant 10 billion inhabitants by the year 2100. This is especially acute in Western nations since they were the most liberal and free. The goals are to coerce society into a system of ‘immunity by subscription’ (vaccines), tie any and all vaccines to a passport system via QR code control on your mobile phone, combine this with the digital ID/passport, tie this to the banking system, eventually control the banking systems with central bank digital currency (CBDC), and then tie the whole system to a social-credit type system of societal control as already in use in China. Many portions of this system are in use in China and to some extent the Scandinavian countries. For whatever reason, ‘they’ have decided ‘we’ have had too much freedom that will endanger the world. The danger will be presented as the climate disasters, too far in the future to prove, but regardless the reason, more control and surveillance will be implemented.
In parallel with this, the global financial fiat monetary system was also in a state of collapse. By ‘fiat’, this means a system of money that only exists due to the population’s trust in the printed dollars. Up until the late 1960s and early 1970s, money and dollars in each country were backed by physical gold stores. Early in the 1970s, the USA took themselves off this ‘gold standard’ – banks no longer had to have physical gold to back the equivalent dollars printed. They could simply print money and let people live off of debt and credit. The ‘great financial crisis’ of 2008 was one hiccup to show this, and governments stepped in to print money and keep the system afloat. A second crisis occurred Sept. 2019 with even more printed money injected into the system to keep it alive. By using this narrative of the fiat system finally dying, the C19 pandemic arrived at an opportune time to justify printing even more trillions of dollars and distribute it, again to keep the ‘old’ fiat currency system afloat. In the past this would cause inflation and collapse societies, but now we simply ignore that and call it ‘Modern Monetary Theory’ – MMT. Many in finance see this C19 perfect timing as a sign we were on the verge of societal collapse due to the monetary system failing (all aspects of everyday working life would stop). Hence the perfect timing – C19 didn’t result in printing money, rather we needed a C19 to justify the printing.
“A collapse in our monetary system is the driving force behind a “covid plandemic” of irrational health policies. The covert goal is to replace existing fiat currencies with digital currencies linked to digital IDs. The power elite driving this agenda wish to maintain their wealth and power despite the collapse of the monetary systems upon which their empires are built. To achieve this, they will need to subvert democratic structures in favour of their own authoritarian controls facilitated by digitalisation. In this dystopia, democracy is sidelined and ordinary people must conform “correctly” or suffer immediate digital consequences.” (from ‘InProportion2’).
“But there’s no way so many people would be in on this conspiracy”. A common counter-argument. The reply to this is they don’t all need to ‘be in on it’. In a global machine such as this (see section on World governance below), once the top layers of the systems show what they are doing/implementing, layers just below them know right away that they either get in line and implement the mandated changes, or face resistance or removal. There is always a rough mix of the usual positions: those who see the plan right away and go along with it since their superior levels are going ahead with it; those who see it as not right, but go along anyway for fear of being fired/cancelled; and the small minority who outright oppose it out of principle, but who will generally get excluded or pushed out of the way. As Upton Sinclair said about oil lobbyists and corrupt officials in early 1900’s scandals – ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’
The narrative will continue for several years – estimate from 2021 to about 2030 – and will include interchanging campaigns of fear and anger towards pandemics and/or health issues/scares and dire warnings of climate change. The dates for climate change catastrophe avoidance, like in the past, will continue to be just close enough in the future (10 to 20 years), such that it feels close enough for each young generation to be frightened into action that the governments desire, while at the same time just far enough out that the people will forget about the catastrophe predictions when they don’t come true. This will enable an endless cycle of obedience driven by fear – the only way elites and others have ever used to control the masses.
The same ratio of people who fit these profiles are the same throughout humanity. Most doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers, ‘experts’ fit into these same basic ratios of those who will just go along for personal protection/gain, those who silently object, and those minority who stand for principles and risk their profession. It’s the same through history – it’s just that we always forget our history. The ‘good Germans’ and Jews in the 1930’s included.
DBS
11 Jan, 2022
Blog
This applies mainly to Western nations – North America, Europe, some central and South American countries. China and most of Asia is already under a top-down style of authoritarian rule and so needs less reform.
It is easier to look at the Western world from the top down versus from the citizens and countries and up. If you are still under the illusion that Western ‘democracies’ let the people control the governments via regular elections then again you can stop reading here. Rather than the ground up (citizens choosing their governments), societies are controlled from the top down. The facade of free elections only serve to give the people a sense that they are contributing or have some input, but in reality the mandates and long-term paths of Western countries are determined beyond the control of any citizens’ reach.
In the hierarchy of societal control, sovereign governments sit quite low in the schematic. The nostalgic days of the 1950s 60s and 70s of free democracies springing up from oppressed populations have long since passed. Even the Western notion of ‘spreading our freedom and democracy’ of the 1980’s, 90s, and 2000’s has passed, and even those were just euphemisms for invading and controlling the resources of backwards regimes. Problem is that most in the West still wholly-believe we are still the great democratic, freedom-loving beacons for the world, and that we have a free and separate press, judicial checks and balances, and regular elections to ‘throw the rascals out’ when we don’t agree with them. Almost all Western populations alive today have lived under the ‘winners’ side for 75 years. That is, ‘we’ won the world wars, formed democracies, spread our free-market wealth to out citizens, and promoted freedom of the press and the individual. A seventy-five year span of flourishing allows us to feel as though our system is the ultimate, final system that can do no wrong. It is little wonder almost all citizens feel complete trust in our system – ‘bad governments only happen to other people’. For many Westerners, the end of the Cold War with the Berlin Wall falling (symbolically ending the divide between Communist/Russian-back East Germany and democratic Western German) was the final ‘the good guys won’ proof that ‘we’ are the best and most noble societies. The quotation ‘throw the rascals out’ is from Carroll Quigley in ‘Tragedy and Hope’, describing how the ideal government system would be one to allow the citizens to feel like they are participating (elections), when in reality the business of the country would continue on with little difference (between Democrats or Republicans in this USA case).
“The culture war currently consuming the Western world is, at its heart, a continuation of the philosophical divide that separated the American Revolution from the French Revolution. We have a choice between two very different social contracts. On the one side is the vision of uncompromising individual liberty and individual responsibility championed by the (American) Founding Fathers. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. On the other side is the discredited obsession with social engineering embraced by the likes of Robespierre, Rousseau, Napoleon, Mussolini, and countless other leaders, current and historic, who believe they can create a better society based on top-down conditional rights and central planning. There’s always an action plan implied by their slogans. The global buzzword of “Build Back Better” is just the latest reincarnation.”
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” — Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Authors such as C.Wright Mills (The Power Elite), and Rothkopf (Superclass) even confirm this structure that upwards of a few thousand elites and families essentially control the world affairs. Rothkopf announces that he and his researchers have identified “just over 6,000” people who match his definition of the superclass — that is, who have met complicated (and vaguely explained) metrics designed to determine “the ability to regularly influence the lives of millions of people in multiple countries worldwide.” These include heads of state and religious and military leaders — even the occasional pop star, like Bono — but the core membership is businessmen: hedge fund managers, technology entrepreneurs and private equity investors. These rolls formerly were fulfilled by Royalty and the Clergy – there have always been ruling upper classes who feel they are more enlightened and genetically superior to ‘the masses’, who need prodding and guidance to live their lives properly. These new elites are simply globalists who still feel superior genetically. The general masses for the past few decades have been kept busy and ineffectual via simple, usually bi-partisan ‘politics’, whereby they can choose between two almost identical parties with simplistic differences. The average person can then be kept busy with petty arguments about the person they voted for, all the while truly not affecting the bigger picture pushed by the elites. It’s the ultimate illusion of choice, when in reality it’s simply dividing and conquering, providing both a distraction from the real situation being played out and a means to keep people fighting against one another versus against their governments.
In the early 1970s it was already well underway to transform these notions into Technocracies, or as Zbigniew Brzezinski termed it ‘the technetronic era’ *. Centralized government systems not beholden to the ‘bewildered herd’ (per Chomsky in ‘Manufacturing Consent’) or the public. You wouldn’t run a big company based on all the employees’ inputs feeling and opinions, why would you run a country or a world this way?
These trends toward technocratic or centralized systems were further enhanced after World War II by the USA. Groups were formed such as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission, in order to coordinate the West under a common plan. In addition to this, as outlined in G. Edward Griffin’s book ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’, the US banking cartel in the early 1900’s essentially became more powerful than the US government itself. That is, rather than the US government controlling the Federal Reserve as a public entity, the Federal Reserve solidified its power over the US government, as a private entity. In parallel the various states in Europe somewhat were combined to form the EU. This can be seen in the current structure of the world system from the top down: The World Bank and WEF (World Economic Forum) – The IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) – the world’s central banks – then country-level governments and territories. The citizens of the countries are a necessary nuisance at the bottom of the pyramid – once famously called ‘the useless eaters’. The masses have been and will be always easily controlled based on our desire for stability of money, security, energy, and food. Since the elites have controlled all of these aspects of life for long periods, it stands to reason the same types of controls will always be at play.
The tip of the pyramid – the top 3 layers, has always been the topic of too many conspiracies. Family names are always there – Rothchild, Rockefeller, Soros, Morgan, etc. At any rate, currently these elite families are tied to or in the background of Blackrock and Vanguard, and other massive fund companies who own/control the shares of the entire corporate world. Blackrock and Vanguard essentially sit above the central banks unofficially, but hold enough market capitalization to be bigger than any country.
In the rollout of COVID 19 pandemic measures, and vaccine rollouts, the decisions and allegiances of the Western nations were not from within their own pandemic plans, rather they flowed downwards from the structure explained above. This was done via the additional groups within the WEF – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who founded GAVI (Global Alliance Vaccine Initiative), and the World Health Organization (WHO). These groups, together with the vaccine makers (Pfizer Moderna etc.) all had monetary stakes and obligations to each other, but not to the citizens of any country. There are currently 193 nation states signed on to this structure, and each has pledged its allegiance via huge monetary support, and more symbolically via the eery ‘build back better’ speeches, echoing Klaus Schwab in his ‘Great Reset’ book. All of this is under no scrutiny from the citizens or the government opposition.
Given this context, it is obvious that it does not matter what type of national government was in place before the pandemic. After almost two years, the entire spectrum of stereotypes and leanings of any government party is irrelevant – pretty much all government powers and their official oppositions support the WEF/UN/WHO anti-democratic lockdowns without question. Be it Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Tories, left, right, centre – almost all governments pledged their ‘Build Back Better’ allegiance to the UN/WEF/WHO without exception. There were token opposers and MPs who denounced the measures, but none were in power and many of these were simply ostracized or simply allowed to ‘vent’ to give the appearance of opposition (‘controlled opposition’ is an old concept). The majority of the main Western leaders are and were in the WEF and/or World Bank ‘Young Global Leaders’ and/or the ‘Global Leader of Tomorrow’ programs. That is, the WEF actively produces and grooms ‘approved’ people for positions of government, media, entertainment, corporations, etc. This includes current leaders such as Angela Merkel, Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau, etc. Basically, if a leader is not on board with this grooming process, it is unlikely they will be allowed in any position of leadership in any meaningful way. Vice-versa, if you notice any opposition to the ‘proper’ narrative, most likely those people will have not been groomed through these WEF groups.
Another term given to this system is the ‘Global Public-Private Partnership’ (GPPP), per Iain Davis (‘Pseudopandemic: The New Normal Technocracy’). This describes the system above as a network of stakeholder capitalists, with sovereign governments and their citizens at the bottom of the structure, serving only as passive consumers of ideas, goods, and services deemed necessary by those at the top.
From Iain Davis: “The GPPP controls global finance and the world’s economy. It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media (MSM) corporations who are also “partners” within the GPPP. In this way the GPPP control many nations at once without having to resort to legislation. This has the added advantage of making any legal challenge to the decisions made by the most senior partners in the GPPP (it is an authoritarian hierarchy) extremely difficult. With the arrival of GPPP’s we were witnessing the birth of the process to formalise this relationship, the creation of a cohesive world order. The politicians have simply stuck to the script ever since. They didn’t write it. The GPPP would certainly like to run a world government, but imposition by overt force is beyond their capability. Therefore, they have employed other means, such as deception and propaganda, to promote the notion of global governance.”
“The GPPP will oversee everything. Every government, all business, our so-called communities (where we live) and each of us individually. We are not the priority. The priority is the planet. Or so the WEF claim. Centralised control of the entire planet, all its resources and everyone that lives on it is the core ethos of the GPPP. There is no need to interpret GPPP intentions, we don’t have to read between the lines. It is stated plainly in the introduction to the WEF’s Great Reset initiative.”
Courtesy Iain Davis, ‘Pseudopandemic: The New Normal Technocracy
The World Economic Forum itself holds the additional ties and means to propagate the change into the new technocratic world (or ‘technetronic era’ per Zbigniew Brzezinski):
The Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) is a premier forum for governments, global corporations and international entrepreneurs. Founded in 1971 by engineer and economist Klaus Schwab, the WEF describes its mission as “shaping global, regional and industry agendas” and “improving the state of the world”. According to its website, “moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does.”
The WEF was, together with the Gates Foundation, a sponsor of the prescient “Event 201” coronavirus pandemic simulation exercise, held in New York City on October 18, 2019 – the same day as the opening of the Wuhan Military World Games, seen by some as “ground zero” of the global pandemic. China itself has argued that US military athletes may have brought the virus to Wuhan.
The WEF has been a leading proponent of digital biometric identity systems, arguing that they will make societies and industries more efficient, more productive and more secure. In July 2019, the WEF started a project to “shape the future of travel with biometric-enabled digital traveler identity management”. In addition, the WEF collaborates with the ID2020 alliance, which is funded by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations and runs a program to “provide digital ID with vaccines”. In particular, ID2020 sees the vaccination of children as “an entry point for digital identity.”
The WEF founder Klaus Schwab is the author of the book COVID-19: The Great Reset, published in July 2020, which argues that the coronavirus pandemic can and should be used for an “economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological reset”, including, in particular, advancing global governance, accelerating digital transformation, and tackling climate change.
The WEF has been running, since 1993, a program called “Global Leaders for Tomorrow”, rebranded, in 2004, as “Young Global Leaders”. This program aims at identifying, selecting and promoting future global leaders in both business and politics. Indeed, quite a few “Young Global Leaders” have later managed to become Presidents, Prime Ministers, or CEOs of almost all major countries/corporations.
Digital Identity: The 2018 vision of the World Economic Forum
DBS
10 Jan, 2022
Blog
The concept of Technocracy and centralized government control via experts and scientists dates back to the early 1900’s. Authors and social commenters such as Aldous Huxley, C.S. Lewis, Hanna Arendt, George Orwell, Bertrand Russel and many more all saw the development of some sort of central one-world technocracy as inevitable and even necessary for humans’ future. The world has gone through all the forms of organizing – Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Republics, Autocracies, etc. Many of these historians saw or predicted either totalitarian regimes or some sort of centralized system as being the only ‘world order’ that would work on a human population of nearly 10 billion people. Topics on eugenics, population control, and Malthusianism have been part of this since the early 1900’s. Malthus worried food supplies would increase linearly and be outpaced by an exponentially-increasing huma population, hence the Malthusianism ‘limits to growth’ barrier that the Club of Rome pushed in the early 1970s. Technology has outpaced this problem, with distribution of food being a major limitation. However, the technocratic system of governance continued, if not now for food shortages, more for climate disaster avoidance or any other emergency.
Patrick Wood has the most comprehensive set of resources for all topics on technocracy.
Technocracy was in full planning in the 1930s, but went quiet during WWII. It surfaced again in the 1970’s under Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. It was literally described as the science of social engineering. In the West and America, this movement resulted in the Trilateral Commission, which would go on to seed almost all U.S. governments of the ‘70s and ‘80s as well as most World Bank leaders. By the 1990’s the Trilateral Commission paved the way for the World Economic Forum which we see today. The WEF in turn groomed current leaders via the ‘Young Global Leaders’ program. Agenda21 set out in Rio De Janiero in 1992 paved the wave for ‘sustainability goals’, which shifted public mindsets towards climate change and conservation and the concept that us messy humans were the ‘cancer’ making the Earth sick. This leads us to the 2000’s with global warming scares, climate emergencies, and finally the pandemic.
For whatever reason, the elites have decided the masses need to be controlled for our own good. Scenarios such as climate disasters, global warming, and other catastrophes are blamed on humans as the ‘cancer’ causing the Earth to be sick and damaged. Whether it’s for these reasons or some other hidden reasons, regardless, they have decided on technocracy to control us, limit our movement and consumption behavior, and mold our thoughts and feelings towards a more ‘communitarian’ way of life.
Humans have evolved to desire convenience over freedoms, and this includes relieving our responsibilities and our safety and health to the State. Much of this is done via programs on purpose – most governments do nothing to promote health and diet in the population. Quite the opposite, they promote and profit off poor health choices (tobacco, sugary diet, lack of exercise) in parallel with their own solutions – drugs and therapies that only treat symptoms rather than address the root cause of the health issue. In parallel, societies have gradually moved away from social cohesion derived from the family, neighbors, and religion in favor of mass media, technology conveniences (internet and mobile phones), and social media. This leaves a huge gap for the State, via cultural revolutions and tech-social media, to step in and replace those traditional ties with their own, creating dependencies, mainly via social media and technology. If you sampled groups of people and asked if they would give up tech devices, social media, 24-7 internet access, and other ‘conveniences’, in order to gain back their autonomy, odds are less than 5 to 10% would accept. This despite the fact that everyone up till the late 1990’s lived without any online life. This laziness and acceptance of ubiquitous technology as necessary leaves the populations totally open to technocratic takeover, which would be seamless and even welcomed as ‘convenience’ yet again.
Those imposing this ‘reset’ in their mind do this for our own good. Either they would have to physically wipe out 90% or turn 90% into transhumans before we hit 10 billion people in 2100. Agenda 21 and 2030 show these, having us living in planned zones, having restricted areas, and having many live only in an online Metaverse world. The majority have lived decades (1980s on) in hyper consumer capitalist world of instant convenience needs and will choose to stay in that, and go along with any new system, including bringing their kids along to do the same.
There can be no doubt that a major component of the ‘grab bag’ of changes ‘they’ wanted to push through during this pandemic is the accelerated erosion of mainly Western democracies. Almost all forms of Western governments and democracies (or Republics) have suspended the fundamental roles of government (as of 2020 due to the ‘pandemic’). These are supposed to be governments of and by the people – not the other way around. Under the continuous ‘State of Emergency’ due to the C19 pandemic, governments have suspended parliamentary oversight, opposition debate, scientific debate (including scrutinizing data or evidence), and many other aspects of normally-functioning democracies.
Hannah Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism:
“Arendt discusses the transformation of classes into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the non-totalitarian world, and the use of terror, essential to this form of government. Totalitarian movements are fundamentally different from autocratic regimes, says Arendt, insofar as autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone’s life as a prelude to world domination. She states:
‘… Intellectual, spiritual, and artistic initiative is as dangerous to totalitarianism as the gangster initiative of the mob, and both are more dangerous than mere political opposition. The consistent persecution of every higher form of intellectual activity by the new mass leaders springs from more than their natural resentment against everything they cannot understand.
Total domination does not allow for free initiative in any field of life, for any activity that is not entirely predictable. Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.[19]’
Arendt discusses the use of front organizations, fake governmental agencies, and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world. Near the end of the book, Arendt writes that loneliness is a precondition for totalitarian domination, with people who are socially isolated more likely to be attracted to totalitarian ideology and movements.”
Bertrand Russell:
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing,” wrote Russell in The Impact of Science on Society. “War so far has had no great effect on this increase . . . perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full . . . the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of other people’s.”
“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries.”
Joost Merloo: Rape of the Mind:
“The world of tomorrow will witness a tremendous battle between technology and psychology. It will be a fight of technology versus nature, of systematic conditioning versus creative spontaneity.”
“No longer does man think in personal values, following his own conscience and ethical evaluations; he thinks more and more in the values brought to him by mass media…television keeps him in continual awe and passive fixation. Consciously he may protest against these anonymous voices, but nevertheless their suggestions ooze into his system.”
Bill Gates:
In 2011, Gates told CNN: “The benefits [of vaccines] are there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth.” In a 2010 Ted Talk he said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower [population growth] by perhaps ten or fifteen percent.”
(Note that is limit the growth of population).
Aldous Huxley:
“By means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms — elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest — will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial […]. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit.” Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 1958
“If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of the technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of the social engineers — and the twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World.”
Aldous Huxley, Interview – Berkeley University 1962:
“It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in the process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and will always exist to get people to love their servitude.”
We seem to get brief periods of Orwell (authoritarianism) in order to ratchet up police state surveillance quickly, then revert back to the longer term, gradual path to Huxley, technocracy with no politicians, and people who don’t care about old style ‘freedoms’. The sharp ‘ratchet’ effect of brief authoritarianism also makes us feel relieved and free once we go back to the Huxley path, and we won’t notice the liberties lost. Harsher Orwell periods in the more free or independent minded Western states, until over time we all emulate China style rule, no need for old style democracy, or separation of government and judiciary. And people will be happy but feel something is missing. This technocracy is the only way to run a world peaking out at estimated 10 billion inhabitants. The West and EU population will taper off, Asia and Africa will peak and migrate, then taper off.
Many WEF and World Bank members/leaders have stated the ‘Great Reset’ plan openly for years. They feel a worldwide disaster would ensue at some point in the future if we do not limit peoples’ physical behavior for our own good – consumption of goods, traveling, selfishness etc.
Some argue that our populations essentially have voted on and agree with technocracy without knowing it. In that, even with a massive fear campaign, the events of the last 2 years (2020-2022) show that the majority gladly give up freedom for false security. In fact the majority are begging for it – we passed the test. The default mode for the majority of societies in history has been tyranny, not free democracies. The free liberal democracies are in the minority, and took decades of bloodshed to achieve. They must be maintained with vigilance else they slip away easily, as we are seeing now. They didn’t slip away with a short, targeted attack, but with decades or demoralizing decay and the preference of people to prioritize conveniences and decadence over liberty.
Peter Hitchens – who capitulated in early 2021 by saying ‘I always knew we would lose our democracy, I just thought I would be dead by then.’ And ‘Millions have greeted this new peril as an excuse to abandon a liberty they did not really care much about anyway.’
Currently, technocratic rule is being implemented under the guise of the WEF ‘Great Reset’ plan. It has the added points of socialism for all, hyper capitalism for the elites:
> The WEF’s 2030 agenda is part of what is now advertised as The Great Reset
> Also, part of The Great Reset is the transition from shareholder capitalism to “stakeholder capitalism,” which world leaders claim will provide “equity” for all
> In reality, stakeholder capitalism destroys freedom and shifts power over nations from elected governments to private corporations and other unelected “stakeholders” such as the WEF
> Since the first quarter of 2020, we’ve already gotten a taste of what The Great Reset will mean for public health. The basic premise is that of a biosecurity state, where unelected “stakeholders” decide what is best for everyone
Informal polling among friends, family, and colleagues regarding this topic seems to show a majority do not see any issues. This is currently about the public’s sentiment to accept vaccine passport systems to limit basic freedoms and rights of Western nations. Soon it will change in to a basic digital ID with similar restrictions – you will have to ‘opt in’ to the government mandates at any time to retrieve freedoms that are not and were not the governments to take away in the first place.
DBS
9 Jan, 2022
Blog
Many mistake the notion of the West adapting a social credit type system (as in China) with the idea that China wants to take over the world and dominate the West. In a similar way, many also assume that China, via its fake lockdown videos during the C19 pandemic, was somehow acting alone in lying and unleashing the SARSCOV2 virus on the world for control purposes. The manufactured crises and conflicts with China help this along, but China has no interest in becoming a world-dominator. Instead, these conflicts help to provide an enemy to the West, similar to the ‘evil Russians’ of the Cold War era. Maintaining a theatre of word conflict between ‘the West’ and China serves as a distraction to keep a level of fear in people, all the while leaders behind the scenes are carefully coordinating their narratives together. There is no point of ‘mutually-assured-destruction’ for those at the top, if even their worlds are destroyed. Western leaders and elites have been longing for a centrally-planned system for governing populations, especially since we in the West were starting to demand too much from our systems.
Before Nixon visited China in the 1970s, Kissinger and others were already working with China after WWII to ensure China developed out of poverty in a controlled way. The Cultural Revolution of the 50’s 60’s and 70’s in China ensured that the population was submissive and compliant to the State. This included public displays of ‘outing’ or cancelling people who showed signs of being too individual and so not in support of the collective or greater good. Fast forward to the 80s, with Deng Xiaoping leading the nation, China knew that they would need finances to maintain this system. It was hailed as ‘Capitalism with Chinese characteristics’ by those in power. Translation – controlled capitalism for the elites to profit, and to bring hundreds of millions of peasant-class out of poverty. This controlled experiment first resulted in the transfer of millions of middle class jobs from the West to Asia between the late 1980s till today. All aspects of manufacturing and engineering were included. Prior to the 1980s you would notice most consumer goods were manufactured in either Mexico, Taiwan, and prior to that, Japan. Those traditional factory jobs previously brought millions of Western people out of poverty throughout the 1900’s. China’s main expansion for this was in the “Special Economic Zone” (SEZ) around the Shenzhen area. It expanded and includes more than 100 million former peasant class citizens, who now mass-migrated into SEZ zones to do factory labor at an average rate of $150 to $200 USD per month. Around and above this working class grew a middle-class of managerial professionals, who would earn 10 to 20 times that of the laborers. And above them arose millionaire entrepreneurs who had State connections to run the major factories and businesses that profited from taking over the worlds’ manufacturing.
The end result of the decades of transfer was to reduce or decimate the working class/middle class of the West, in order to transfer this wealth to raise hundreds of millions of peasant Chinese out of poverty. The process took Socialist China into a society of ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’. Raised millions out of poverty, made a small middle class, and a very thin layer of wealthy elites.
The process the West is now going through can be described as the reverse. Michael Rectenwald describes it as ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’. Whereas China added a thin layer of capitalism into their already socialist-for-all system, the West is adding a large layer of Socialism into their already capitalism-for-all system. The results will be similar: a huge swathe of just-above-poverty masses preaching and forced to practice Socialism for all, a tiny middle class, and a very thin layer of elites and wealthy who benefit from Capitalism via State-controlled and partnered mega corporations. This process was already underway for decades, the COVID19 ‘Great Reset’ simply accelerates this. From Rectenwald:
“The corporate socialist tendency is toward a two-tiered economy, with would-be monopolies and the state on top, and “actually existing socialism” for the majority. As Roger Scruton noted, “[a]ctually-existing socialism” is a “[t]erm used in the former communist countries to describe them as they really were, rather than as the official theory required them to be.”[12] Corporate socialism involves a new actually existing socialism. ‘Capitalism’ with Chinese characteristics, on the other hand, represents a play on the Chinese Communist Party’s description of its economic system. Several decades ago, as China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the CCP, its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe its economic system.[14] Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase became an essential component of the CCP’s attempt to rationalize Chinese capitalist development under a socialist political system.”
A small side-note on the ‘Chinese capitalist development’ plan. The controlled ‘Special Economic Zone’ in and around Shenzhen (Shenzhen SEZ), while under development throughout the early 2000’s, contained very obvious propaganda from the Party. Essentially ‘head down – mouth shut’:
DBS
8 Jan, 2022
Blog
In 2017 I did my final trip to China, Taiwan, and Vietnam to inspect dozens of factories and engineering support sites that were engineering and manufacturing pretty much all the tech devices the world uses. In one visit to FOXCONN (they make all the Apple iPhones and other devices), our team was given an IoT (‘Internet of Things’) demo in front of a wall of screens displaying various aspects of life. After 30 seconds of 10 of us standing and watching, the host explained they now had a record of who we were, what our phones we logged on to, who we were standing next to, what we recently bought, where we recently travelled to, what our eyes were looking at, etc. All of this with facial-recognition technology and pretty much open scanning of anyone’s mobile phone Bluetooth, WIFI, and cellular data. In addition to this, the host explained that all their workers were tracked with this system, including their ‘health status’, via a QR-code tracking app that they had to update. There was no specific health issue at the time, just a generic status that had to be updated and kept ‘green’ for ‘allowed’ and if ‘red’, they had to report to officials for some unexplained ‘correction’. Their pay and ability to purchase items was also tied to this status.
That was 2017, and now it is employed across a majority of China, via the system above, named the ‘Social credit system’. This adds/deducts points for social behavior, with the State controlling what adds or detracts to the score. Obey the State, keep your Health Status (vaccines) current, pay your taxes, say nothing bad about the government, and your score stays high, you get travel benefits (freedom of movement) and other perks that should be considered ‘normal’ rights in the West. Speak out against the State, jaywalk, miss your taxes, skip a vaccine, and you loose points, with the State deciding when you can redeem them. In the meantime, your movement (planes, trains, etc.) is limited as well as your bank access. Since millions already use their facial recognition to unlock their devices, facial recognition (even with a mask), is by default tied to your digital ID and therefore access to your digital wallet.
“China has been developing a “social score” system that has also created a dystopian nightmare where citizens can track each other on radar-style “lowlife” scanners. The nightmarish scheme blacklists “lazy” citizens who get into debt or spend their time playing video games in a creepy initiative that could have come straight out of Black Mirror.
The scheme was first unveiled in 2014 and has been trialed in cities and provinces each using their own system – tracking financial and social worth. Millions of people with low “social credit” have been banned from taking flights and planes because of the system. And then people with high credit get discounts, get shorter waiting times at government-run institutes and are more likely to get jobs. In China’s next five-year plan, which covers 2021 to 2025, the regime has set out its ambitions to step up people watching even more. It states: “We will also closely guard against, and a crackdown on, the infiltration, sabotage, subversion and separatist activities of hostile forces.”
From the head of the IMF: They calculated vaccines would add $9 trillion to the world economy. ‘This year, next year, vaccine policy is economic policy … without it we can not turn the fate of the world economy around …’ – Kristalina Georgieva, Head of the IMF, April 8, 2021
Similar to how the US co-opted left-wing movements in the 1960s and 1970s (CIA funding fringe leftists groups like the Black Panthers and others), they have now succeeded in co-opting ultra-woke ‘leftist’ groups into supporting the very things the left used to despise (corporations and corporate-government corruption).
The old ‘left’ versus the new normal woke left
Many have shifted from their current position into the upper left corner
Personal Notes on China based on visits for work 2006 to 2017:
I saw the digital ‘health’ passport system being trialed in the Shenzhen “SEZ” (Special Economic Zone) in 2017. Since then my mental notes to myself about how China was organized, or at least how they trialed the organizing, became much more clear, mainly due to the links between technocracy and the systems and behavior of people today under the transformation ‘spell’ of the pandemic respsonse.
These are small items in time starting in early 2000’s, that now seem to fit with the ideal technocratic societies desired by ‘them’.
Early 2006 – initial trips. On one of my half-dozen work trips to Shenzhen SEZ. Ours was one of thousands of companies rushing to move any and all tech manufacturing into mainland China (we were actually quite late to the game starting only in 2001). Basically the early days of mobile phone and wireless device mass-production. Shenzhen (just north of Hong Kong) had grown from a small fishing town of under 200,000 people to above 4 or 5 million. The planned ‘Special Economic Zone’ around it had literal borders around it to keep population movements under control. You would be subjected to a minor security check to ensure you were an approved ‘professional’. Since we were Westerners our hosts said we would never be checked so long as we were there. My co-workers who were from China also came on some work trips. They explained all the workers in the factories were migrants brought in from the rural areas. They were repeating the official line that these workers were all previously poor criminals and that these low-paying factory jobs ($100 USD per month at the time) were the only way for them to survive. So I asked – ‘all these young people were poor criminals until they got these great factory jobs?’. ‘Well, no, I guess not all but that’s what the government tells us’.
Today in hindsight: At one of the entrance highways into the SEZ from the Hong Kong side, I always saw government signs such as this. ‘Empty talk endangers the nation, practical work brings prosperity’. Also in English probably to remind foreigners to know their place among this society.
2006 – 2008. On one factory visit, during our slow times, I was deep in to essays on Edward Bernays ‘Propaganda’, Carroll Quigley’s ‘Tragedy and Hope’, etc. The site I used and still use is https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/. Within an hour of opening this site and reviewing, factory security was in our small visitors office. My host pointed to me to explain I was the one on the website. This show how fast a ‘flag’ can be set for visiting disinformation sites.
General sense of planned societies. Any events involving leisure, fun, all have a planned feel to them in that only the government-sponsored events were allowed.
Final trip – 2017 to Shenzhen. I witnessed the majority of citizens scrambling around paying for everything via QR codes on their mobiles. My colleagues were impressed – ‘what a great system, eh!’ Later on, during a manager’s tour of FOXCONN (makers of iPhones and all other tech devices), we were treated to a demo of a giant media wall. This wall scanned our eyes, our phones (Bluetooth and WIFI), and the host revealed they now had our phone info, the info of people next to us, what we used our phones for, etc. They then showed us their own workers’ mobile app which included a ‘health status’, set to either red or green. The worker would have to report to an office if their status was red, even though there was no health issue specific at the time.
It may take years to move the rest of the Western nations on to such a system, but all aspects of this have been tested for years in China on hundreds of millions of citizens. The first major step for the West to somehow gauge uptake of the digital vaccine passport before moving to the digital ID. Again this is mainly aimed at ensure the young (under 30) are obedient, since they and their children will be the main economic drivers beyond the year 2030.
DBS
7 Jan, 2022
Blog
Many argue that the main urgency to lock the world down and implement ‘The Great Reset’ came from the collapsing of the fiat monetary system globally. That is, the system of printing money (“MMT”) has kept our paper money system and trust among citizens, banks, and world governments afloat for 45 years, but was set to collapse in 2008 (Great Financial Crisis), again in Sept. 2019 (repo swap crisis), and would have finally collapsed 2020 had not C19 pandemic come along and provided an excuse to stop everything and permit the governments to print trillions in money for years. Some on the financial side believe that many governments, already signed on to the WEF/UN/World Bank system of societal guidance, were warned of societal collapse and breakdown if the system of money collapsed (people would stop working, shipping and supply chains would halt, governments, banks, and employers would not function or honor payments or paycheques etc.) This collapse would have been inevitable in either two forms. First, central banks were facing the prospect of needing negative interest rates to keep the system running, which would lead to collapse. Or, secondly, if they continued printing trillions, the ‘transitory inflation’ we see now (Fall of 2021) would become hyperinflation. They know both scenarios would result in the monetary system failing, causing societal mistrust and breakdown. The interim mode they are operating in now, as of Oct. 2021, allows them to inflate away their debt and pass the costs on to the average person. That is, we have had months of high inflation (>4 or 5%) for all basic goods (groceries, fuel), all the while in a zero-percent interest rate environment. This devalues people’s savings and cash, even though they feel they have more savings, and essentially lets the governments inflate away their debt almost invisibly.
The printing of money (‘modern monetary theory’ = MMT, or ‘quantitative easing’ = QE), in Economics 101 theory should result in high inflation since you need goods and services to back the money up. Governments of the world first abandoned the ‘gold standard’ in the 1970’s, which fixed bank reserves to physical gold. After the 1970’s governments just started printing money under the ‘fractional reserve’ system. They didn’t need to actually hold 100% of the people’s money, just a fraction. This excess of printing money shows, for example, as excess debt to GDP ratio (below). It can be seen that both in 2008 and 2020 that banks printed and injected money into the system at accelerated rates. The projection is for this to ease off from 2022 to 2030, but for it to accelerate and continue in 2030 and beyond.
Some interpret this as the timeframe of 2020 to 2030 being needed to completely shift people from any remaining forms of cash or physical money, into a complete central bank digital current (CBDC). Most of our money or wealth is already electronic, in that we couldn’t all at once withdraw all our money out of all the banks at once – there is physically not that much cash there. The CBDC will push this further, and perhaps replace system of crypto like Bitcoin, so that the majority of the world will use and only recognize the central bank money. The control of the CBDC will already be tied in to each persons digital passport/digital wallet for seamless tie-in to the social credit system of societal control.
The progress of this shift is already connected to the ‘need’ to enter a new economy, pushed by the BIS and ECB (Bank of International Settlements and European Central Bank), as well as all major Western governments and their central banks.
Ernst Wolff describes ‘them’ as the Digital-Financial Complex. The mega IT and social media corporations (Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon) and the mega financial groups (Blackrock, Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street). Together this group controls all world-wide datastreams as well as $220 trillion USD, larger than the EU and US GDP combined. This concentration of powers began years ago, and their goals now are to pillage and plunder the ‘old’ system, purposely create societal chaos in the process (unemployment, middle-class destruction, censorship and control of speech and thought, government unrest and distrust), and in parallel set up the new system, post Fourth Industrial Revolution. The new system is the CBDC, which is controlled via central banks directly (not national banks), which are in turn controlled via the Complex system via a Social Credit system (already underway in China). The new CBDC in programmable to coerce good social public behavior: access can be turned off/on by ‘the State’ based on behavior (credit score); transactions are completely trackable; any and all taxes (country, sales, global, ‘carbon deficit’) will be instantaneous and without recourse.
The necessity of the global financial change to CBDC requires the erosion and destruction of Western liberal democratic processes since they are simply in the way. The world needs to be necessarily in a socialist system for its own good from the top down. Rather than spending billions to alleviate world-wide issues like shortages or supply issues, the system is actually encouraging the crises, chaos, and disorder. This is a major sticking point for many Westerners who still feel ‘our governments would never do this’ to us. Social media, the mainstream media, and all governments are beholden up to the WEF/UN, not to their citizens.
DBS
6 Jan, 2022
Blog
A large part of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (per the WEF Great Reset plans) is to shift societies away from actual human (animal) interactions and lives into the technological or online life. Humans have existed and flourished as evolved animals for more than 100,000 years. We trade, barter and make markets, hunt, gather, farm, form tribes, war with each others’ tribes, etc. These are the primitive aspects of humans that make life feel worth living. But these traits are messy and not controllable, especially in the eyes of ‘those elites’. For more than 10 or 15 years, technology and social media have gradually shifted people away from real human life into online, virtual social life. It is already the case that more people argue and yell and shout online than actually meeting face to face to have discussions.
Natural human behavior – meeting face to face, gossiping, touching, fighting, emotional contact, gathering in groups (tribes), having long conversations – these have all been slowly both attenuated and/or hijacked into the online version, which is not just inhuman, it is ‘transhuman’. This long-term move from actual human (animal) behavior to the online version makes our society ripe for a takeover. We already have the foundation for physical civil war, in that we are divided, surrounded by chaos and systematic breakdowns, and lack stability in our physical lives. Now, the same civil war can be launched or created on the technological world online. Current government leaders are scrambling to ensure they still have a place in this new world post-civil war. The public will be on-board (mostly) with any ‘solution’ as a desperate need to feel normal again – but it will be a ‘new normal’, online, and controlled via systems above. The majority will feel relieved, and won’t even miss their liberties that were removed between 2020 and (2025, 2026?) “We can’t ever go back to THAT old way. It was horrible, remember?” This includes any and all aspects of life and risk, which we have lived with for centuries as a species. Taking on risks in life is a natural, necessary stressor that builds our character. You need to make mistakes and fail at risks to grow. The ‘pandemic’ is conditioning people to be more risk-averse in everyday aspects of life and to defer the risk to government bodies – this includes work risks, lifestyle, immunity, everything. The very fact that mortality barely reverted back to that of 2008 or 2007 levels shows that life even with the ‘pandemic’ is no worse than life risk was around a decade ago (see mortality levels versus year in Appendix). From Ben Shapiro: “The uncertainty of freedom, the burden of assessing right from wrong and the inconvenience of being offended have been replaced by the certainty that non-compliance with the party brings punishment, certain, swift and harsh”.
For centuries, man’s question of the self, the soul, the existential meaning to life, and other topics beyond the reach of simple data and facts were typically answered and guided by religions – any spiritual belief. Our animal spirit has always told us that life is messy, finite, and full of risks. It would have a physical end and so religions would seek to explain and guide us based on our souls and provide some sort of afterlife sense of purpose. Decades of religious decay and moral degradation have left us with a gaping hole of existence – ‘what else is the point of all this’? We used to look inwards and embark on a spiritual type journey to find what is inside our own souls. Now, with technology, ‘safetyism’, and government control, this messy human need can be replaced with controlled ‘trans’-humanism – beyond the human animal spirit. We give up control and conflict of our inner self to an over-seeing technology system that provide safety and false comfort against the ‘dangerous’ real world. The technocratic system becomes the alpha-male that used to provide leadership and guidance to the tribe.
All animal species disproportionately protect their young at the expense of the older and weaker. This is a natural survival instinct – we value the potential of the young to continue the species and family line. This is also done with immunization programs. Small pox, measles, polio – these all affect and kill the young at a much higher rate than C19 (C19 is even less fatal than flu for those under 30). And so due to ‘life-years-lost’ of our youth compared to the elderly, we concentrate on them. Quite the opposite for C19, through media campaigns of fear, we are shaming the young and enraging the public to ‘get them all vaccinated’ even though children have next to zero risk from C19, and the vaccines do not stop spread. We have scared the public into thinking it’s okay to sacrifice healthy children (masks, missed school, depression, suicides), for a false sense of protecting the elderly.
“They” – the same ruling elites stated previously, have always despised us populations as ‘the herd’ in need of guiding and coercing for our own good. The ‘new world order’ will remove the old way of living under ‘the rule of the jungle’ (G.H.W Bush in 1990). The new system will control our spending and behavior, helping good citizens score ‘social credit points’ (i.e. virtue signal points) and promote socialism among the masses (you will own nothing and be happy) for our own good.
During the 2000’s and 2010’s, multiple ‘grass roots’ protests and oppositions took place against ‘them’ and the establishment. Examples being the Yellow Vest protests worldwide (against government cutbacks), the million-person-strong pro-democracy protests throughout Hong Kong, the Occupy Wall Street movements denouncing investment fraud and inequality, and many more. The pandemic essentially ended all of these ‘populist’ movements. As for the ‘far left’ that mobilized to fight against Wall Street corruption, the elites have managed to hijack this group, transition its anger into ‘wokism’ via ANTIFA, BLM, and other movements. Now, during the pandemic, they have managed to steer these groups’ anger and energy against anyone who isn’t (for the US), pro-Democrat and handily, pro lockdown and pro- anything the Democrats in power want, so long as it’s not that evil Trump. This has allowed the US government to essentially wall itself off in military barricades, and rule by decree with the full support of the enraged ‘left’.
This transhumanist, technocratic system was portrayed by Huxley’s Brave New World. The novel is set in 2540, in a futuristic world known as the “the World State” wherein advanced science and technologies are use to reproduce genetically modified babies that are conditioned to believe in certain moral values and are then raised in strict social castes. People are encouraged to have regular and casual sex and to take a drug called soma, which is designed to make them happy. In the novel, Bernard Max and Lenina Crowne, take a trip to a savage reservation in New Mexico outside the World State. They meet Linda, a woman separated from her group years ago who gave birth to a son named John and who raised him at the reservation. The four return to London, where John becomes famous for being a natural-born “savage.” After his Linda overdoses on soma and dies, John moves away in search of a solitary lifestyle, but eventually chooses to hang himself after being rediscovered by sightseers hoping to watch his bizarre behaviors. A key question that Brave New World raises is about the trade-off between happiness and freedom. Happiness is guaranteed through instant satisfactions for desires such as food, sex, drugs, and consumer items, but comes at the expense of freedom and truth. Members of the World State are not able to think for themselves, and the characters who do think for themselves are not happy. The novel asks its readers to question whether it is more important to be happy or to be free.
Gene-editing technologies have existed for years by now, and, even were discussed by Klaus Schwab back in 2015 as a possible use for mRNA vaccines, the technology used currently for the first time on humans for the C19 pandemic. The same corporations working with the WEF and UN – Wellcome Trust, under Wellcome LEAP, has been working on these. These include programs aimed at adults and young children, to monitor behavior under the guise of helping people, when in reality researching methods to ‘tweak’ behavior back in line with what is ‘normal’ before adverse events happen. As Whitney Webb reports:
“The program description document notes that, up to this point in history, “our primary window into the developing brain has been neuroimaging techniques and animal models, which can help identify quantitative biomarkers of [neural] network health and characterise network differences underlying behaviours.” It then states that advances in technology “are opening additional possibilities in young infants.”
“Indeed, as this report has shown, most of these technologies would usher in a deeply disturbing era of mass surveillance over both the external and internal activities of human beings, including young children and infants, while also creating a new era of medicine based largely on gene-editing therapies, the risks of which are considerable and also consistently downplayed by its promoters.”
DBS
4 Jan, 2022
Blog
The ‘infection fatality rate’ of any pandemic is usually estimated after a pandemic has passed. Johan Geisecke, former health official for Sweden, estimated in April 2020 that C19 ‘would be approximately two times a bad flu year’. A bad flu year is approximately 0.05% to 0.1% IFR, and C19 as of a few months ago was declared to be at a median level of 0.1 to 0.2% (with a range), making it approximately two times a bad flu as Geisecke predicted.
The infection fatality rate (IFR) is still in flux (pandemic still ongoing) and usually has its final estimate years after the virus goes endemic. The initial case fatality rate (CFR) was flooding the media early on as 3%, and this helped drive the fear factor early on. Since then, the IFR based on many samples had settled at a range of 0% to 1%, median value approximately 0.15%
Fatality rate (IFR). Initially it was all over news that fatality rate is 3% (compared to a ‘bad’ seasonal influenza at 0.1% – even this figure is debatable – could be as low as 0.02% for mild season). The Imperial College models (Neil Fergusson) were used at IFR = 1% by almost all the world to initially use the ‘precautionary principle’ to lockdown like China did (except Sweden, whom Fergusson predicted would suffer 40,000-90,000 deaths yet have had 7700 so far).
The WHO and CDC have now accepted (as of Oct 2020) and published that C19 median IFR is 0.15%, range of 0 to 1.5%. This peer-reviewed and accepted paper took 3 revisions and 7 months of reviews: ID: BLT.20.265892 pdf, 878kb (who.int)
From the U.K, in October 2021, Opposition member Steven Baker asked what the estimate for IFR was, answer 0.096%:
The WHO stated in Oct.2020, that after 10 months of spread (or 1 year given China had cases in August), the estimation of infections was 10% of the world, or 780 million people. Deaths at that time were 1.1million. Yields IFR = 0.14%. Keep in mind the WORLDOMETERS/John Hopkins/FT and other trackers only show ‘Cases’. In Oct. Those were around 35 million, which is why people assume/report ‘fatality ratio’ = 1.1/35 = 3%. (This is the ‘CFR vs IFR’ mixup).
The IFR is much more age-specific than influenza. That is, from age 0 to 50, C19 IFR is lower than influenza, and above 60 years, it is higher. The CDC updated its IFR estimates to the following age-ranges:
The Economist Sept. 15, 2020 summarized dozens of seroprevalance studies to arrive at an estimated infection count of 630 million. Deaths then were just under 1 million. IFR = 0.15%
Source: The Economist, Sept. 15, 2020:
Comparisons to previous pandemics. The 1918 pandemic IFR was 3%. Both 1958 and 1968 pandemics were 0.1 to 0.2% (close to C19). Both killed up to 4 million at a time when world population was half what it is today. Note the table below shows ‘CFR’ but it is actually IFR (estimated deaths divided by estimated infections).
Co-morbidities. All major countries’ data shows that the majority of deaths is strongly correlated to morbidities. Alberta health stats below are one such example. In the USA, deaths ‘with’ C19 had on average 3 co-morbidities.
Looking at all-cause mortality for Ontario as an example. Somehow neoplasms, influenza+pneumonia dipped down for 2020 and deaths ‘with C19’ took their place. The peaks for C19 were similar to the bad flu year for 2017/2018, when adjusted for overall population growth trend (up 1% per year).
And for BC all-cause. Note approximately 0.75% of population dies each year, 2020-2021 was statistically the same as any severe influenza year. For context, in the two years March 2020-March 2022, (0.75% * 5.1million * 2) = 77,000 deaths from all causes, versus approximately 2300 death ‘with a positive PCR C19 test’. We used to have something called ‘proportional response’ based on ALL health issues.
DBS
2 Jan, 2022
Blog
This summary shows how various countries fared with average all-cause mortality. This removes the ambiguity of how countries counted C19 ‘with’ versus ‘of’ deaths. Statistically, variations of +/- 5% are considered insignificant, and need to be compared to one year in future to average out. Notably Sweden showed just 1.5% excess without locking down healthy people, and keeping masks voluntary.
Country/ Expected Age-Standardized Mortality per 100,000 / Actual / Excess / Percentage Increase
Source: CEBM OxfordSource: CEBM Oxford
In addition to the all-cause mortality in general, many countries that enforced various lockdowns of all healthy people (against the pandemic plan), showed higher than normal levels of mortality for people who were generally not at risk from C19. That is, for Canada as an example, 16 people under the age of 19 died ‘with’ C19. However, per the mortality.org site (using STATSCAN data), up to 30 additional young people per week for 60 weeks died, total of almost 1000 excess under 14’s, that were not due to C19. Sweden as a comparison showed normal youth mortality for the whole year.
From StatsCan. 2020 to Dec 2021, 30,000 ‘with C19’ deaths; approx. 540,000 all other causes
For perspective, even countries that fared poorly (more than 10% excess mortality) saw their levels match the previous 10 years up until the early 2000’s, like the UK:
Similar for the USA, it saw mortality levels similar to 2008 and earlier:
DBS
1 Jan, 2022
Blog
In almost all countries, after universal lockdowns were mandated around March 20, 2020, supposed ‘deaths’ from COVID19 suddenly shot up. The lockdowns were supposedly a reaction to ‘flatten the curve’ before the virus ‘hit us’. Within months, it was revealed via blood-donor sample analysis and sewage analysis, that the virus was in almost all western countries many months before March 2020. The ‘deaths’ only showed up as soon as they started using the faulty PCR test above 35 cycles (where it catches everything as SARSCOV2-related). Hypothesis: SARSCOV2 virus floating around months before March 2020, deaths only spiked when/due to lockdowns, coincidental with mass false PCR testing to show 1000’s of ‘cases’ suddenly just arrived, as if the virus behaved like in a Hollywood movie.
Here’s a series of countries, charts showing lockdown dates and the mythical ‘arrival’ of the virus (later to be found that SARSCOV2 was around months prior):
From ‘el gato-malo’ : ‘Everyone always wants to know about covid restrictions, so let’s start there. i used this data and compared it to the wallethub freedom index because it’s pretty accurate and provides a nice, simple number that includes mitigations like masking and school policy that are absent from sets like google mobility data. is it perfect? no. is it good enough that if there’s a strong signal here we should see it? yes, i think so.’
There is no signal.
“What you did to try to stop covid appears to have had no effect on all cause deaths. This is a result I pulled out dozens of times using google mobility data vs covid deaths as well back when internet felines were still permitted over at casa del bluebird. it looks to hold even now.”
None of this policy worked.
You can have correlation without causality, but material causality without correlation is extremely implausible to the point of more or less requiring special pleading.
Looking for a ‘dent’ should also be visible comparing Florida (abandoned lockdown) versus California (strict lockdown). Or Sweden versus the UK, or North Dakota versus South Dakota. These pairs have similar climates and so same seasonality. Doing this over 50 times (States) looks for ANY correlation (above) yet none is found.
The same analysis was done for masking. There was no ‘dent’ in any signal (ICU hospitalizations, deaths ‘with C19’, etc.) when comparing harsh mask adherence/mandates to none or lax mask adherence. In almost all locations, the shape/curve of cases or deaths would follow the same up/down outbreak (Gompertz) curve. One example, Florida and Texas, almost zero mask mandates and/or very low mask usage, versus California, very strict mandates and usage. The best compilation of these are at Ian Miller’s feed: Ian Miller (@ianmSC) / Twitter
And in general, mask mandate counties versus those without mandates. Even putting aside how much mask usage there is, this still shows no dent or change:
