Obviously a Criminal

Drunken Student Stole Madonna Statue’s Head, Later Killed 6 Million People with a Deadly Virus He Designed

Very Interesting Past of Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance

Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, came from a laboratory. While there are some legitimate differences of opinion about who exactly released it, where, and for what exact reason, it is clear that Sars-CoV-2 was described in a certain 2018 financing proposal.

Igor’s Newsletter
Sars-Cov-2 was Lab Made Under Project DEFUSE
This long article will explain how Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was created as a result of intentional laboratory work. It will also show that the blueprint for Sars-Cov-2 was described in the “Project DEFUSE” proposal by Peter Daszak, which was preceded by years of relevant lab work and virus manipulation…
Read more

Who is Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, who submitted the proposal? Some new material surfaced about his early criminal life that may shed light on what kind of person Peter is.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/936079556/?fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjkzNjA3OTU1NiwiaWF0IjoxNzE1MjczNjc4LCJleHAiOjE3MTUzNjAwNzh9.nYaeeVdvVE4ciqwTh4Mu79zmo9U3OJwY7h89s7zTGwQ

While young, Peter Daszak apparently stole stuff he needed instead of paying for it, such as the above-mentioned TV set and a hi-fi radio. For entertainment, he broke off and stole the “head of a Madonna statue” and even painted its lips with lipstick. (Daily Post: The Paper for Wales, Thu, Jun 26, 1986 ·Page 3)

Why, of all things, did Peter decide to paint her lips? Was it for some perverse sexual gratification he wanted from Madonna’s head?

The drunkenness mentioned above, offered as an excuse for his behavior, may be fabricated to reduce his punishment. Generally, petty criminal behavior is typical for a growing sociopath. (other signs include harming animals, which is easy for a biology student to do)

Peter’s career led him to found EcoHealth Alliance, a venture to manage the health of the entire planet—not just the health of humans. The approach he champions is called “One Health.”

At EcoHealth Alliance we’re governed by a clear and direct philosophy; we call it One Health: that the health of humans, animals, and their environment are all connected. It’s that principle which guides our work from our headquarters in New York all the way to southeast Asia and everywhere in between. Those connections are apparent in everything we do.

“One Health” is an umbrella term for messing with the lives of humans and animals, an approach endorsed by Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and the United Nations:

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32316/ZP.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

I personally never signed up to be governed by criminal psychopaths wanting to control the health of people and animals, who started their lives by breaking Madonna statue heads and painting Madonna’s lips with lipstick.

Should we be thankful to Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and Peter Daszak for caring so much about our health?

Is it anti-science to mention prior sociopathic, criminal acts by leading proponents of “planetary health”?

What about you? Do you want convicted psychopaths to be heading efforts to govern planetary health?

from:    https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/drunken-student-stole-madonna-statues?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

What Wall?

Manufacturing Consent: The Border Fiasco and the “Smart Wall”

The political response to the crisis at the southern border continues to advance the bipartisan “smart wall,” having been backed by Trump and Biden alike. This bipartisan consensus reaches far beyond the US, as much of the world is similarly speeding along in implementing “digital borders.”

The disastrous situation at the US-Mexico border is, and has been, intentionally produced. Throughout the last several administrations, regardless of campaign and other public rhetoric, the porous nature of the border has remained unresolved. On several occasions, the situation as it has developed has been blamed largely on incompetence and government inefficiency. Though some administrations have been tougher than others in regards to terrestrial migration (under some metrics), the US-Mexico border has not been sealed off so to force entrants to cross through officially recognized and managed ports of entry.

Under the current administration, it has been pointedly obvious that even the sections of the border that do contain physical barriers are being dismantled on purpose, all the while illegal crossings have risen to unprecedented levels. Whatever the motives for this deliberate policy on the part of the Biden administration, the end result has been the widespread characterization of the crisis as an “invasion,” priming the voter bloc usually most concerned with border security – the American Right – for military-style “solutions.”

While the justifications for the frenzied media coverage are based on the actual reality that the border is indeed highly insecure (and has been for some time), the policy responses from American politicians reveal that there is a bipartisan consensus about what must be done. Tellingly, the same “solution” is also being quietly rolled out at all American ports of entry that are not currently being “overrun”, such as airports. That solution, of course, is biometric surveillance, enabled by AI, facial recognition/biometrics and autonomous devices.

This “solution” is not just being implemented throughout the United States as an alleged means of thwarting migrants, it is also being rapidly implemented throughout the world in apparent lockstep. The reasons for the unspoken, but obvious, global consistency in implementing invasive, biometric surveillance is due to the fulfillment of global policy agendas, ratified by nearly every country in the world, that seek both to restrict the extent of people’s freedom of movement and to surveil people’s movements (and much, much more) through the global implementation of digital identity. Those policy agendas include mainly the UN’s Agenda 2030 or Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG 16, as well as Interpol’s Global Policing Goals.

While the American Right has been rather outspoken in its rejection of the UN’s Agenda 2030, and the digital ID project at large, the distress over the border situation is being used to manufacture consent among this specific group for “solutions” that are focused on expanding surveillance and biometric collection as opposed to the implementation of physical barriers.

The Virtual Wall

The Hawaiian shirt-wearing inventor of the VR headset Oculus Rift, Palmer Luckey, has become the face of America’s “virtual border wall.” Luckey, the brain behind the defense tech firm Anduril, is a long-time associate of Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, with Luckey having met Thiel at 19 when Luckey presided over his first company Oculus Rift, which was later sold to Facebook. Thiel was then on Facebook’s board and was also instrumental in the rise of the social media company. Luckey’s Anduril is also backed by Thiel’s Founders Fund and another Palantir co-founder, Joe Lonsdale, is also an Anduril investor.

Anduril is one of the main beneficiaries of government contracts to build autonomous surveillance towers along the US-Mexico border, which are now also being rolled out along the US-Canada border. As a consequence, they are likely to be among the beneficiaries of the Senate’s current proposal for “border security,” which sets aside $170 million for additional towers to be build.

Under the Trump and now Biden administrations, Luckey has been vocal about how Anduril will create “a digital wall that is not a barrier so much as a web of all-seeing eyes, with intelligence to know what it sees.” As noted by WIRED in 2018, Luckey and Anduril has long been pitching its technology “as a complement to – or substitute for – much of [then] President Trump’s promised physical wall.”

Luckey was a donor to Trump’s inaugural committee and his apparent mentor, Peter Thiel, was a key figure on Trump’s transition team, particularly for defense. The company dresses itself in “America First” rhetoric, especially when it comes to border security, framing itself as a beacon of “Western democracy” and nationalism in an age of globalism. Despite this, Anduril is part of a network that fronts for the long-standing surveillance ambitions of the same American “Deep State” that Trump supporters revile.

An Anduril surveillance tower deployed on the US-Mexico border, Source: FedScoop/Anduril

Luckey’s Anduril would not exist without the assistance of Thiel and several executives from Thiel’s Palantir. As Unlimited Hangout has reported in multiple articles, Palantir is a CIA front explicitly aimed at resurrecting the controversial surveillance dragnet once housed by the Pentagon’s DARPA known as Total Information Awareness (TIA), which sought to use warrantless, dragnet surveillance of Americans to prevent crime and terrorism before it happens (i.e. pre-crime, a field which Palantir has since pioneered and which was essentially made DOJ policy by Trump’s Attorney General William Barr).

One of those Palantir executives who later came to Anduril, Trae Stephens, worked at a government intelligence agency (he declines to specify which one) before joining Palantir. From there, Stephens joined Thiel’s Founders Fund and ended up on the boards of some of the most controversial Founders Fund-funded companies, such as Carbyne911. Financed in part by Jeffrey Epstein and the brainchild of former Israeli Prime Minister (and Epstein associate) Ehud Barak, Carbyne’s platform also involves invasive data collection from civilians and “predictive policing” functionalities. On Carbyne’s board, Stephens originally sat alongside Barak as well as Israeli intelligence-linked figures like Pinchas Buchris (former commander of Israel’s Unit 8200), Lital Leshem (“former” Israeli intelligence operative who know works for documented CIA asset and former head of the infamous mercenary group Blackwater, Erik Prince), and Nicole Junkermann (an Epstein associate who has since rebranded as a venture capitalist in emerging technologies and FinTech). Stephens remains on Carbyne’s board, where he now sits alongside former US Homeland Security chiefs Michael Chertoff (Bush administration) and Kirstjen Nielsen (Trump administration).

Thanks in part to Thiel’s influence over the early Trump administration, Stephens was chosen to oversee Trump’s transition team for the Defense Department, where he “steered” Trump’s early Pentagon policies. At the time, Stephens was also in talks with Luckey to create a new company. After Luckey left Facebook under a cloud of controversy in late March 2017, he and Stephens created Anduril and other Palantir executives were recruited to join the company. Within a year of its existence, Anduril had already netted millions in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security. Stephens has remained at Thiel’s Founders Fund since co-founding Anduril.

Not unlike Palantir, Anduril is also a modern reboot of a failed DHS initiative from around the same time as TIA. The Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet) was a Bush-era DHS effort that sought to build a virtual border wall that could not only deter and detect illegal border crossings, but also automatically designate those illegal crossers a “threat level” as well as predict “illegal border activities” before they occur. Like Anduril, it relied on surveillance towers and a litany of sensors spread throughout the environment. The program, though shuttered by DHS in 2011, never actually ended, as the DHS report announcing the “end” of SBInet stated the following:

DHS is currently developing a comprehensive border technology deployment plan that will build upon successful technology currently deployed and provide the optimum mix of proven surveillance technologies by sector. Where appropriate, this technology plan will also include elements of the former SBInet program that have proven successful.

Just like Anduril’s marketing strategy, SBInet was pitched as a cheaper, more cost-effective and “faster” means of securing the border than the construction of physical barriers. Anduril has openly laid out its strategy to avoid the pitfalls of SBInet; whereas SBInet was doomed to fail by hiring incompetent contractors to build and sell the system to the government, Anduril plans to own the system it builds and lease it to the government, which – according to Trae Stephens – “creates an incentive to keep development costs low.” Despite claims it is “low” cost, since 2017, massive DHS contracts have been given to Anduril to fulfill many of the original ambitions of the SBInet project and, despite the construction of hundreds of towers and millions spent, the border remains more insecure than ever.

One of Anduril’s earliest advocates was Congressman Will Hurd, a former officer in the CIA’s clandestine operations division who now represents Texas in the House of Representatives. With Hurd’s help, Anduril was able to place their first prototypes for the “virtual wall” on the border-adjacent private property of an anonymous rancher. Custom and Border Protection (CBP) then conducted their first official pilot of Anduril towers in 2018, leading to the Trump administration’s approval to deploy Anduril’s towers along the entirety of the south-western border in 2020. That approval saw Anduril awarded a five-year and still-ongoing contract and also saw the contract designated a “program of record,” meaning it is deemed essential enough to be a dedicated item in the DHS budget.

Trump, in the latter years of his presidential term, began to embrace the type of virtual wall that Anduril would enable even more so than the physical barrier he had campaigned on. In January 2019, for example, Trump stated “The walls we are building are not medieval walls. They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of frontline border agents.” The “smart walls”, Trump went on to say, would include “sensors, monitors and cutting-edge technology.”

Under the Biden administration, Anduril’s star has continued to rise. This is partially due to the millions the company has spent lobbying Congress, but also facilitated by the long-standing bipartisan love affair with building a “smart wall” on the Southern border. CBP was given millions for autonomous surveillance towers along the border in the 2021 US Citizenship Act and then again in the 2022 omnibus bill, with millions more granted last year. The lion-share of that money is destined for Anduril’s coffers. This year, if the Senate’s bipartisan “border security” efforts are any indication, Anduril stands to gain even more contracts to build ever more autonomous towers, which are now accompanied by autonomous drones and other connected devices. Luckey, despite Anduril’s claims that there will always be human oversight of its products, has stated that his vision for the future of warfare that Anduril is helping to build will soon result in humans playing ever more insignificant roles.

Palmer Luckey works on an Anduril product, Source: Inceptive Mind

While Anduril is one of the main companies building the “virtual wall,” they are not alone. General Dynamics, a defense firm deeply connected to organized crime, espionage scandals and corruption, has developed several hundred remote video surveillance systems (RVSS) towers for CBP while Google, another Big Tech firm with CIA connections, has been tapped by CBP to have its AI used in conjunction with Anduril’s towers, which also utilize Anduril’s own AI operating system known as Lattice. Anduril is merely the visible face of the “virtual wall” that has positioned itself in close proximity to Trump’s political movement and is sure to benefit if Trump is re-elected later this year. However, Anduril has been more than happy to cozy up to the Biden administration, having praised Biden for calling to develop border protection measures using “high-tech capacity,” which they have say they’ve “delivered.”

Yet, despite support from both political parties, millions upon millions of funding and several hundreds of towers and supporting devices deployed, this “virtual wall” has done nothing to stop the drastic increase in illegal migration into the United States. Why, since the towers were deployed, are illegal crossings skyrocketing? Why is it that the proposed solution to this “invasion” is to build even more towers? One could argue that the answer to those questions lies in the fact that the border crisis is being used to manufacture consent amongst Americans for the implementation of a surveillance panopticon, not just on the border, but well into the interior of the country.

The Thiel-Funded, All Seeing AI

Anduril’s other government contracts suggests that the company’s installations on the border are only a small component of what a completed “smart wall” might entail. In addition to their contracts with CBP, Anduril is a major contractor for the Department of Defense and supplies (or is soon to supply) the military with autonomous aircraft, such as its Ghost platform and autonomous underwater vehicles. Like the drones that interface with their surveillance towers on the border, they are framed as useful for surveillance and reconnaissance, but are also able to deliver payloads, i.e. they are able to be outfitted with weapons of war. They have also been developing weapon systems that appear to fall under the controversial category of autonomous weapons, meaning that the unmanned device could kill without meaningful human oversight. These drones utilize Lattice, the same AI-enabled operating system as those that run Anduril’s border towers and surveillance drones. Last year, Anduril unveiled a new version of Lattice that “is designed to foster dynamic collaboration among autonomous systems,” e.g. allowing surveillance drones/towers and weaponized ones to be interoperable and conduct missions together without necessarily needing a human to coordinate them.

An Anduril underwater drone developed for the Australian military, Source: Breaking Defense

Anduril’s ambitions go far beyond dominating the Pentagon’s push into autonomous vehicles and AI and the Southern border’s “virtual wall.” Anduril’s website describes how Lattice can be deployed to surveil and protect the 16 critical infrastructure sectors that have been identified in the United States, including “dams, energy, nuclear reactors, transportation systems, water and wastewater, and communications.” “Securing critical infrastructure is vital for the U.S. and beyond, and, similar to our border security solution, Lattice can take over the dull work of monitoring cameras and sensors for threats to critical infrastructure sites and free up humans to do something about it,” the company states on their website. The company has also pitched Lattice for use in detecting and responding to wildfires and conducting civilian search and rescue missions. Luckey has stated that Anduril ultimately plans “to turn American and allied warfighters into invincible technomancers.”

The potential dangers of Anduril can only fully be fleshed out when considering the family of Thiel-backed defense/intelligence companies as a whole. For instance, Thiel’s Palantir, which has numerous ties to Anduril aside from just Thiel, is the engine that intelligence agencies and militaries (in the US and beyond) use to analyze drone footage, satellite imagery, and open-source data and turn that visual and non-visual data into actionable intelligence. It has been openly described by mainstream outlets like Bloomberg as “using War on Terror tools to track American citizens” and has long been a major driver of “predictive policing”, i.e. pre-crime. Another Thiel-funded venture, Clearview AI, has developed AI-powered facial recognition tools that were trained off of billions of photos scrapped from the internet, many of them from the Thiel-backed social media platform Facebook and the Facebook-owned Instagram. Despite being a favorite of US law enforcement and DHS, Clearview AI has been sued numerous times over privacy violations and its database has been banned in numerous countries including Australia, Britain, Italy and Canada. Like Palantir, which mainstream media has acknowledged for years as knowing “everything about you” and even called an “all-seeing eye,” Clearview AI’s tools are allegedly able to “identify activists at a protest or an attractive stranger on the subway, revealing not just their names but where they lived, what they did and whom they knew.”

In looking at the overlap shared between Palantir, Anduril, Clearview AI and even Elon Musk’s SpaceX (which has been backed by Founders Fund since 2008 and is tied to Anduril co-founder Trae Stephens), one wonders if this Thiel-backed family of companies could eventually serve as an interoperable system for total AI surveillance. Troublingly, there are numerous indications this is already happening. Furthermore, given their common links to Thiel, it seems that such an outcome was likely always the intent.

For instance, as Stavroula Pabst previously reported for Unlimited Hangout, Anduril and Palantir, both contractors to military and intelligence agencies, are currently collaborating on the Army’s Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN) program. In addition, Anduril has announced that its Lattice AI system “is now for everything” and designed to be interoperable with the products of other contractors. All three of these Thiel-backed companies have been testing the interoperable use of their products already in the Ukraine conflict and appear to be using Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip for the same ends.

Often, these technologies are tested and used abroad first before they are deployed at home, something that even mainstream media has acknowledged that Palantir has been doing for years. The so-called War on Domestic Terror has long been about retooling the weapons of the War on Terror as a means of curbing domestic dissent and Palantir is just one of several companies aiding that shift. Similarly, Clearview AI, despite claims that the company is Trump-linked and tied to right-leaning political circles, has bragged about its utility to the US law enforcement community by highlighting the company’s role in identifying those involved in January 6th, which the company’s CEO refers to as an “insurrection.” After January 6th, Clearview AI’s use by US law enforcement jumped by 26%.

However, Thiel, Luckey and others in this network who are building the domestic panopticon often claim that they are defending “Western values” and “democracy” by embracing military and intelligence contracts. They also rely heavily on “America First” rhetoric. These companies contrast themselves to companies like Google, where employees have previously scuttled the big military contracts over ethical concerns, even though figures like Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO who is a big backer of the Democrats and the Biden administration, are similarly developing autonomous weapon technology also under the guise of “defending democracy.” These Big Tech oligarchs ultimately agree about the plan, though Thiel and his ilk are much more vocal about their willingness to overlook ethical quandaries in the pursuit of ever more lucrative government contracts and cloak themselves in right-leaning, “America First” rhetoric.

An example of Anduril’s marketing materials and narratives, Source: Shack News/Anduril

This intelligence-linked web of Thiel-backed companies is poised to follow this same trajectory with respect to the “smart wall” being erected on the southern border as well as the northern border. While framed as only surveilling border crossings, the surveillance towers, drones and related devices being deployed are able to spy beyond the border and into American border cities and towns. While Anduril’s towers in particular are often framed as being placed in rural, sparsely populated parts of the southern border, there are several that are located close to major urban centers.

There is also the issue of the so-called “Constitution Free Zone,” which refers to the “border region” claimed by the US government that extends roughly 100 miles inland from all of the US’ terrestrial (including coastal) borders. It is estimated that 2/3 of all Americans live within this “border region”, which also includes 9 of the 10 largest US cities. The blatant overreach has been criticized by left-leaning (e.g. the ACLU) and right-leaning groups (e.g. the CATO Institute) alike. Whenever there are frenzied pushes in the media (mainstream and alternative alike) demanding new border security measures, many forget or are simply unaware that the government defines “the border” as much, much more than just the physical US-Mexico border and – thus – military-style measures rolled out on “the border” could also be rolled out much more inland.

The “Constitution Free Zone” may soon have implications for the border “smart wall.” Those surveillance devices could also be utilized, once they are capable, to surveil within the government-defined “border region,” where the violation of basic civil rights by law enforcement and CBP is a well-documented phenomenon. Given that intelligence agencies have been known to engage in the warrantless wiretapping of Americans for well over a decade, it seems likely that the “smart wall” could be used for much of the same.

Though some recent US court cases have tackled modern video surveillance tactics by law enforcement, it is still possible for them to collect data from surveillance cameras without a warrant if the intent is to “guard against […] crime.” The precarious state of civil liberties in the US, combined with the growing dominance of a small, close-knit and intelligence-linked group over the surveillance infrastructure of the State, should be carefully scrutinized, not rapidly rubber-stamped on the back of media-generated panic.

Agenda 2030 and Global Policing Goals

The bipartisan consensus around an Anduril-built “smart wall” likely has its roots in the same global agenda that is spurring the rapid implementation of biometric entry/exit systems at ports of entry throughout the Western world. For instance, this is the year where the European Union’s biometric entry/exit system is due to launch, whereby travelers crossing the EU’s new “digital border” system – whether terrestrial or aerial – will have to provide their fingerprints and submit to facial scans if they wish to enter an EU member state. Despite claims that the “digital border” would facilitate easier travel and reduce wait times, current estimates reveal that the new system is likely to take almost ten times longer per entry. The UK, despite leaving the EU, is also poised to “make its borders digital” by 2025, i.e. next year, with Canada implementing similar policies.

A pilot of BorderXpress biometric kiosks at Keflavik International Airport in Iceland in 2020, Source: Biometric Update

In the US, the move toward the “real ID” system, which is to come into force in 2025, will see biometric collection in the US become a requisite for domestic flights and any other “official purposes” that the DHS Secretary can unilaterally determine require a “real ID.” The “real ID” also provides favorable provisions for digital IDs, such as digital drivers licenses (such as the “Florida smart ID” being piloted in Ron DeSantis-governed Florida) and other “mobile digital documents and digital cards.” Elsewhere in the US, in airports, the push for digital IDs and facial biometric scans continues to rapidly advance.

It is quite obvious that the “smart wall” being built on the US’ southern and northern borders is intended to be part of the same “digital border” system that DHS has been designing and gradually implementing for most of the past 20 years. For instance, CBP currently utilizes the same biometric facial comparison technology used at numerous land, sea and air ports of entry throughout the country and plans to continue to expand its use nationwide. As noted above, Anduril’s towers or its affiliated drones could easily be equipped with facial recognition or other related technologies, while official terrestrial port of entries are already using the same biometric system being rolled out at American airports. In addition, many of those seeking to cross the southern border are being onboarded to the CBP One app, which CBP initially claimed would result in a “safe, orderly and humane” border processing when it was launched in January 2023. That app also collects biometric information from applicants of certain nationalities, a functionality CBP will likely expand in the future as reliance on its app increases.

The apparent global coordination of biometric entry/exit systems is no coincidence, as it is a policy initiative deeply connected to the UN’s Agenda 2030, or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, it is tied to the implementation of SDG 16, which contains provisions for digital identity systems, among other things. The UN has chosen the global law enforcement entity Interpol as its “implementing partner” of SDG 16, a decision that ultimately spawned Interpol’s SDG-aligned Global Policing Goals (GPGs). The GPGs were approved and adopted by Interpol’s 196 member countries in 2017. As previously noted by Unlimited Hangout, Interpol is a dangerous organization to trust with the vast power these goals and their associated policies will bestow upon them, as they operate as a “pay-to-play” organization and have been embroiled in several significant corruption scandals.

One of the GPGs, GPG No. 2, is to “promote border security worldwide.” Interpol specifically notes that the implementation of this goal will involve establishing “advanced global standards for an intelligence-led border management, including standards for border surveillance, border checks and related equipment.” These standards, they continue, “should be underpinned by technology and digital advancement and risk analysis.” Elsewhere, they discuss how the implementation of this goal will also involve “managing and sharing biometric data, including with the use of the Interpol’s Biometric Hub [“a state-of-the-art system for identifying criminals˝] and other hubs.” Interpol has teamed up with biometric digital ID companies Idemia and Onfido as part of this effort. Both of those companies facilitated vaccine passports during Covid-19 and are currently helping to create digital driver’s licenses in some US states.

Interpol is mainly funded by the European Commission and the governments of Germany, the US and Canada, all of which – as noted above – are implementing the same biometric entry/exit systems on similar timelines. However, many other Interpol member countries are similarly ramping up their adoption of biometric, digital IDs for foreign travel and domestic use, including the West’s ostensible adversary countries, like Russia and China. The vast majority of the world’s countries, whether West or East, have signed onto Interpol’s GPGs and the UN’s SDGs, both of which push for comprehensive, biometric digital IDs interfaced with a digital currency wallet (whether a CBDC or private sector-issued equivalent). Globally, these agendas are being rolled out rapidly, forming the foundation for the next era of highly centralized global governance.

However, in some countries, such as the United States, where a significant portion of the population has become wary of digital IDs and digital, programmable money, unprecedented efforts are being made to sell these globalist policies via right-leaning talking points in contrast to years prior. For instance, digital, programmable money is being developed in the US, not as a CBDC, but a mix of regulated stablecoins and tokenized bank deposits. Even global carbon markets are being framed, not as being about climate change, but about innovation and profiting off a new class of assets. Now, it seems, the biometric “digital border” tied to the UN’s SDGs – a key component of the infrastructure for digital ID – is being sold mainly to the populist right and being rolled out under the guise of tackling illegal immigration. Not unlike Israel’s “smart wall,” these walls can be “turned off” when a crisis needs to be manufactured and, just like so much else, used to sell the same agendas that are pushing us all into a global, public-private panopticon.

It’s A Bird! It’s a Pig! It’s the Livestock! Oh, No!!!!

WHO’s In Charge???

The WHO’s Proposed Pandemic Agreements Worsen Public Health

The WHO’s Proposed Pandemic Agreements Worsen Public Health

Much has been written on the current proposals putting the World Health Organization (WHO) front and center of future pandemic responses. With billions of dollars in careers, salaries, and research funding on the table, it is difficult for many to be objective. However, there are fundamentals here that everyone with public health training should agree upon. Most others, if they take time to consider, would also agree. Including, when divorced from party politicking and soundbites, most politicians.

So here, from an orthodox public health standpoint, are some problems with the proposals on pandemics to be voted on at the World Health Assembly at the end of this month.

Unfounded Messaging on Urgency

The Pandemic Agreement (treaty) and IHR amendments have been promoted based on claims of a rapidly increasing risk of pandemics. In fact, they pose an ‘existential threat’ (i.e. one that may end our existence) according to the G20’s High Level Independent Panel in 2022. However, the increase in reported natural outbreaks on which the WHO, the World Bank, G20, and others based these claims is shown to be unfounded in a recent analysis from the UK’s University of Leeds. The main database on which most outbreak analyses rely, the GIDEON database, shows a reduction in natural outbreaks and resultant mortality over the past 10 to 15 years, with the prior increase between 1960 and 2000 fully consistent with the development of the technologies necessary to detect and record such outbreaks; PCR, antigen and serology tests, and genetic sequencing.

The WHO does not refute this but simply ignores it. Nipah viruses, for example, only ‘emerged’ in the late 1990s when we found ways to actually detect them. Now we can readily distinguish new variants of coronavirus to promote uptake of pharmaceuticals. The risk does not change by detecting them; we just change the ability to notice them. We also have the ability to modify viruses to make them worse – this is a relatively new problem. But do we really want an organization influenced by China, with North Korea on its executive board (insert your favorite geopolitical rivals), to manage a future bioweapons emergency?

Irrespective of growing evidence that Covid-19 was not a natural phenomenon, modelling that the World Bank quotes as suggesting a 3x increase in outbreaks over the next decade actually predicts that a Covid-like event will recur less than once per century. Diseases that the WHO uses to suggest an increase in outbreaks over the past 20 years, including cholera, plague, yellow fever, and influenza variants were orders of magnitude worse in past centuries.

This all makes it doubly confusing that the WHO is breaking its own legal requirements in order to push through a vote without Member States having time to properly review implications of the proposals. The urgency must be for reasons other than public health need. Others can speculate why, but we are all human and all have egos to protect, even when preparing legally binding international agreements.

Low Relative Burden

The burden (e.g. death rate or life years lost) of acute outbreaks is a fraction of the overall disease burden, far lower than many endemic infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis, and a rising burden of non-communicable disease. Few natural outbreaks over the past 20 years have resulted in more than 1,000 deaths – or 8 hours of tuberculosis mortality. Higher-burden diseases should dominate public health priorities, however dull or unprofitable they may seem.

With the development of modern antibiotics, major outbreaks from the big scourges of the past like Plague and typhus ceased to occur. Though influenza is caused by a virus, most deaths are also due to secondary bacterial infections. Hence, we have not seen a repeat of the Spanish flu in over a century. We are better at healthcare than we used to be and have improved nutrition (generally) and sanitation. Widespread travel has eliminated the risks of large immunologically naive populations, making our species more immunologically resilient. Cancer and heart disease may be increasing, but infectious diseases overall are declining. So where should we focus?

Lack of Evidence Base

Investment in public health requires both evidence (or high likelihood) that the investment will improve outcomes and an absence of significant harm. The WHO has demonstrated neither with their proposed interventions. Neither has anyone else. The lockdown and mass vaccination strategy promoted for Covid-19 resulted in a disease that predominantly affects elderly sick people leading to 15 million excess deaths, even increasing mortality in young adults. In past acute respiratory outbreaks, things got better after one or perhaps two seasons, but with Covid-19 excess mortality persisted.

Within public health, this would normally mean we check whether the response caused the problem. Especially if it’s a new type of response, and if past understanding of disease management predicted that it would. This is more reliable than pretending that past knowledge did not exist. So again, the WHO (and other public-private partnerships) are not following orthodox public health, but something quite different.

Centralization for a Highly Heterogeneous Problem

Twenty-five years ago, before private investors became so interested in public health, it was accepted that decentralization was sensible. Providing local control to communities that could then prioritize and tailor health interventions themselves can provide better outcomes. Covid-19 underlined the importance of this, showing how uneven the impact of an outbreak is, determined by population age, density, health status, and many other factors. To paraphrase the WHO, ‘Most people are safe, even when some are not.’

However, for reasons that remain unclear to many, the WHO decided that the response for a Toronto aged care resident and a young mother in a Malawian village should be essentially the same – stop them from meeting family and working, then inject them with the same patented chemicals. The WHO’s private sponsors, and even the two largest donor countries with their strong pharmaceutical sectors, agreed with this approach. So too did the people paid to implement it. It was really only history, common sense, and public health ethics that stood in the way, and they proved much more malleable.

Absence of Prevention Strategies Through Host Resilience

The WHO IHR amendments and Pandemic Agreement are all about detection, lockdowns, and mass vaccination. This would be good if we had nothing else. Fortunately, we do. Sanitation, better nutrition, antibiotics, and better housing halted the great scourges of the past. An article in the journal Nature in 2023 suggested that just getting vitamin D at the right level may have cut Covid-19 mortality by a third. We already knew this and can speculate on why it became controversial. It’s really basic immunology.

Nonetheless, nowhere within the proposed US$30+ billion annual budget is any genuine community and individual resilience supported. Imagine putting a few billion more into nutrition and sanitation. Not only would you dramatically reduce mortality from occasional outbreaks, but more common infectious diseases, and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity, would also go down. This would actually reduce the need for pharmaceuticals. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, or investor, promoting that. It would be great for public health, but a suicidal business approach.

Conflicts of Interest

All of which brings us, obviously, to conflicts of interest. The WHO, when formed, was essentially funded by countries through a core budget, to address high-burden diseases on country request. Now, with 80% of its use of funds specified directly by the funder, its approach is different. If that Malawian village could stump up tens of millions for a program, they would get what they ask for. But they don’t have that money; Western countries, Pharma, and software moguls do.

Most people on earth would grasp that concept far better than a public health workforce heavily incentivized to think otherwise. This is why the World Health Assembly exists and has the ability to steer the WHO in directions that don’t harm their populations. In its former incarnation, the WHO considered conflict of interest to be a bad thing. Now, it works with its private and corporate sponsors, within the limits set by its Member States, to mold the world to their liking.

The Question Before Member States

To summarize, while it’s sensible to prepare for outbreaks and pandemics, it’s even more sensible to improve health. This involves directing resources to where the problems are and using them in a way that does more good than harm. When people’s salaries and careers become dependent on changing reality, reality gets warped. The new pandemic proposals are very warped. They are a business strategy, not a public health strategy. It is the business of wealth concentration and colonialism – as old as humanity itself.

The only real question is whether the majority of the Member States of the World Health Assembly, in their voting later this month, wish to promote a lucrative but rather amoral business strategy, or the interests of their people.


Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

 

Author

  • David Bell

    David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

    from:    https://brownstone.org/articles/the-whos-proposed-pandemic-agreements-worsen-public-health/

Who Is Manipulating Your Mind?

Addressing Mind Control in the Covid Era

Discover how mind control techniques have been used on society and how this contributed to people falling prey to the Covid narrative with Max Lowen, David Charalambous, and Jason Christoff.

Please be aware that this recording may stimulate uncomfortable emotions and/or memories and is not recommended for children under the age of 16.

Part 2: Addressing Mind Control in the Covid Era

On Tuesday 24 April 2024, World Council for Health (WCH) Steering Committee Members Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Mark Trozzi hosted a special feature on trauma-based mind control and Organized Ritual Abuse (ORA). Part 1 of this two-part article covered disturbing stories from survivors of MK Ultra mind control and Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA).

In Part 2, we discover how mind control techniques have been used on society as a whole for many years, and how this contributed to people falling prey to the Covid narrative. Panel members – Max Lowen1, a survivor of satanic ritual abuse, torture, and trafficking; David Charalambous2, a behavior and communications expert; and mind control researcher Jason Christoff3 – share insights into how we can strengthen our minds and our resolve so that we are no longer vulnerable to these insidious techniques.

Commenting on the stories shared by fellow survivors, Max Lowen calls on humanity to recognize how powerful we really are. Those who perpetrate these hideous forms of abuse have severed their connection to the light and prey on our energy to create hell on earth. But Max believes “we have the option to create something completely better and different.”

Watch the full episode at WorldCouncilforHealth.org.

Controlling the mind of society

According to Jason Christoff, just as the MK Ultra program has used drugs and trauma to control the minds of victims of Organised Ritual Abuse (ORA), the same mechanisms are being used to control society as a whole. We are witnessing the widespread legalization and sale of psychoactive drugs, as well as the traumatizing effects of modern entertainment, such as violent movies on Netflix. Both of these increase our susceptibility to mind control. The TV is known to be a hypnotic military device, through which messages can be laid down in our subconscious. And even coffee shops play a role, with caffeine having a profound effect on the area of the brain responsible for creating memories! Mind control methods such as these contributed to many people uncritically falling prey to the Covid narrative.

David Charalambous calls this state ‘manufactured apathy’. People think they cannot challenge the authorities, but this is not our true nature; it is a conditioned response that makes us easier to control. From infancy we are subjected to traumatic images, beginning with ‘Bambi’. Movies, music videos, and ceremonies (such as opening ceremonies of the Olympics and the Gothard Tunnel) normalize horrific acts, poisoning the mind, and causing people to detach from their feelings and become numb. And when something is portrayed as the norm, people simply accept it.

The destruction of attachment

Mind control starts early in our society. From the moment of birth, the attachment between mother and baby that used to be normal is deliberately broken. Babies born in hospitals are removed from their mothers and isolated in bassinets in a nursery, deprived of the bonding that creates a sense of safety. Increasing economic scarcity, and the need for both parents to join the workforce, have resulted in children being put in the care of the State at earlier ages. In some countries, Child Protection Services are empowered to remove children from their parents and some are even involved in child trafficking operations.

Schools are designed to resemble prisons. Children are trained to submit to authority and rewarded for regurgitating information rather thinking critically. It is hardly surprising that such a system generates apathy.

Societal violence and wars add to the experience of trauma, fragmenting the psyche and leading to dissociation. Living in a state of fear causes the prefrontal cortex of the brain to shut down, undermining rational thought and enabling the programming of the mind. Fear, ignorance, and compliance make for a population that is easily manipulated.

The Covid response as a satanic ritual

We all know that we are stronger together. So, it is much more effective to conduct psychological warfare on the public if people are isolated. This was the role of lockdowns – to isolate us, devastate us economically, and render us powerless. In this state we were more susceptible to being traumatized by TV-mediated messages hypnotically repeating fear-based propaganda, death counts, and hyperbolic (often staged or fake) imagery.

As in a satanic ritual, the power differential was exaggerated during Covid, with all-powerful decision-makers controlling powerless victims; and masks (which served no medical purpose) obscuring people’s identities and deepening the sense of isolation.

Satanic rituals are death rituals. The Covid event, the ensuing countermeasures, and the bizarre societal changes that have unfolded since, have all been death focused. The daily covid death tallies; the fake photos of mass graves; the midazolam murders in ‘care’ homes; the increased rates of death from the shots; the incentives to accept medically assisted suicide; and even the delayed deaths due to transgender confusion causing children to destroy their reproductive capacity – all these aberrations are about death, and they are all being normalized.

The pursuit of justice

You have my vow personally to … hunt these perpetrators down, and to keep pursuing justice for everybody involved. – Jason Christoff

Dr Mark Trozzi observed that, for people who live according to the ‘golden rule’ of treating others as they would like to be treated, it is hard to imagine the levels of depravity experienced by the survivors of ORA. The ‘global parasites’ who have infiltrated our governments and institutions have exited the human contract and their relationship with God. They have become energy vampires, parasitizing children.

But we do not have to continue accepting the subversion of our civilization by this satanic cult. The darkness has become so overwhelming that we must now face and address this wickedness. The challenge is to find ways to bring the perpetrators to justice in lawful and spiritually enlightened ways. To this end, WCH Steering Committee Member, Shabnam Palesa-Mohamed, encouraged viewers to consult the WCH policy brief on human trafficking titled Ending Modern-Day Slavery, and to become critically aware of legal efforts to tackle the ritual abuse of children in various jurisdictions.

The time to act is now!

“What can I do?” asked seven billion people. The answer came: “Pretty much anything. All the major changes in the world are made by individuals.”

The last four years have undermined our long-held view of the world, and this has been a very uncomfortable experience. Arriving at this crossroads we have two choices: We can stick with the trauma and continue to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or, as we seek out the support of other people, we can experience Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG). So let us reach out to one another, build supportive communities, and start healing. And then let us take action to make the world a better place!

The panel shared their thoughts on how we can do just that:

  • Never give in to the ancient strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Our only enemy is the global cult. Let us unite as humanity, and not allow constructs like race, gender, or religion divide us. When we come together, we are unstoppable and together we can create a completely new reality.
  • Recognize that we have been programmed for decades to prepare us to accept the current policies. Narratives are controlled and slurs were prepared in advance (e.g. right-wing conspiracy theorist) to stop people asking questions and shut down debate.
  • David Charalambous shared how to communicate more effectively under these unnatural conditions. To get through to someone, avoid arguing but instead try to really connect with them. Remember that people come to their conclusions based on the information they have been exposed to. However, as many of us have found, we are very unlikely to get through to someone by giving them lots of facts. It is more effective to expose people to an experience that resonates at a deeper level in the mind. Experiences that jar with people’s previous assumptions – such as listening to the survivors’ testimonies – have the power to change minds.
  • Jason Christoff explained that one of the reasons why it is difficult to talk about the issue of trauma-based mind control and ORA is that our society is in a ‘comfort coma’ and is desperate to avoid pain. “Pain is a goblin that needs to be avoided at all costs,” he says, but refusing to face the pain of ritual abuse will not solve the problem. Instead, facing pain develops courage and the will to become a better human being.

    May Jason’s words inspire us all to step into our courage:

If we want to address it, we’ll have to walk right into it and look this devilish content in the eye and put on the armor of God and protect these children. … I never back away from the dragon’s fire. I will stand in the middle of that fire no matter how painful. I will not sedate to it. I will not tranquilise to it. Even though this group is well-organised and well-funded, they are controlled by evil, and evil is too low IQ to ever win a battle this big!

  • The perpetrators of these atrocities operate by intimidating others. But they fear independent, strong, healthy, empowered adults. A healthy body equals a healthy mind – and a healthy mind can resist mind control. So, if we want to take our power back and face down this group, we must be the strongest versions of ourselves. Jason Christoff recommends first attending to our physical health: reject sources of poison and address the addictions that contribute to mind control – alcohol, coffee, junk food, and the poisoning of the mind through TV and Netflix. Once we are physically strong, we can focus on building mental, intellectual, spiritual, financial, and emotional strength.

Dr Mark Trozzi reminded us that it is our responsibility as adults to protect children and young people and to expose them to the best of their cultural heritage – to that which is godly, righteous, conscious, and useful. Let us share stories that reinforce the golden rule and encourage young people respect wisdom and speak with kindness. Let us also empower young people to recognize mind control techniques, particularly in the music industry, so that they can step away from these influences and avoid being manipulated and controlled.

In Conclusion

Referring to the I Ching, Dr Tess Lawrie concluded:

The family has been under attack and a lot of healing needs to take place. A healthy family is incredibly powerful. When the house is set in order, the world is established on a firm course. We need to heal the human family so that our house can be set in order and a better world can be established. 

Thank you for bringing your brave hearts to this meeting. 

Watch the full episode at WorldCouncilforHealth.org.

from:    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/mind-control-covid?publication_id=1135210&post_id=144203064&isFreemail=true&r=b7cwa&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Who Will You Listen To? Truth vs Spin

The Vast Pharmaceutical Conspiracy to Silence Online Dissent

Millions of dollars were spent to weaponize the public against all of us

by:   A Midwestern Doctor

Story at a Glance:
•There has been a coordinated campaign to attack and defame anyone who has spoken out against the COVID-19 response. This has primarily been restricted to social media (e.g., getting people deplatformed) but it has also been weaponized in real life (e.g., getting medical licenses revoked).

•This coordinated campaign was the result of a “non-profit” known as The Public Good Project (PGP), which was actually directly linked to the pharmaceutical industry. The PGP used the industry funding it received to defend industry interests.

•Vaccine safety advocates were able to get into the group where these campaigns were coordinated. There, they discovered numerous public figures working hand in hand with healthcare workers to descend like a hive of bees on anyone “promoting misinformation.” Likewise, we learned that the most belligerent doctors we keep encountering on Twitter belonged to these groups.

•Some of the influencers advancing PGP’s message through “Shots Heard” (and its sister United Nations initiative “Team Halo”) were hucksters who faked their own credentials. My overall impression from looking at everything was that this group operated in a very similar manner to many of the sleazy internet marketing operations I’ve seen in the past. Fortunately, the public appears to be seeing through what they did.

Almost any viewpoint can be “proven” using the “correct” evidence and logic. Purely as a challenge, I’ve successfully done this in the past with beliefs I consider to be abhorrent and completely disagree with. Once you become familiar with the process, you begin to gain an appreciation for how ephemeral the truth is and how problematic it is that most people have filters they see through reality through that lead to them doing this even if it’s not deliberate (although if you watch carefully for it, you’ll often see non-verbal signs that show they are somewhat aware they are lying to themselves).

For some reason, this realization directly conflicted with my deepest values (which to this day I don’t know the source of as they just existed long before I had learned about the world), so my own way of seeing the world reoriented around trying to discern what was actually true rather than proving I was right (e.g., to hold onto the illusion I know what was going on) in the hopes the truth could become something tangible rather than this ephemeral fiction our hands and minds constantly passed through. In turn, a major reason why I approach most topics I present here by fairly presenting both sides is because I found it was one of the things necessary for me to pass through that ephemeral layer of truth that clouds almost everything.
Note: after going through this process for years, I started being able to tell if what I was exposed to had a “solidity” to it or an “emptiness” and a large part of how I filter reality now is by focusing my attention to the things that appear to have solidity (rather than them conforming to what I want to be true). In the past, I’ve mentioned how I will constantly debate and scrutinize each idea I am considering before deciding which one to adopt (which is important to do), but I view this discernment of solidity and emptiness to be much more important for arriving at what rings true.

Despite this publication being about medicine, I’ve repeatedly focused on highlighting the work of public relations (PR), a massive invisible industry (e.g., 20 billion was spent on it in America last year) that continually shapes our perceptions of reality for its corporate and government clients. Briefly, PR is the incredibly refined science of manipulating the public, and essentially is what lies between propaganda and marketiing.

(Check out the link for the video:https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-vast-pharmaceutical-conspiracy?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-73ee14d3-ed71-47ce-9e3a-23343c1c36480

Note: this is not that different from how many people who have an ulterior financial motive will inevitably arrive at the conclusion which supports their financial interests regardless of how hard you try to convince them not to. For example, listen to this talk below the co-founder of Shots Heard gave about why no one online could possibly have a valid reason to question vaccine safety, that no doctor who promotes vaccines is being paid off to do so, and why it was necessary to censor all of those opinions—while conveniently neglecting to mention he’s received over $200,000.00 from vaccine companies.

The “miracle” of PR is how effective it is, and I’ve now lost count of how many times an abhorrent policy that few Americans wanted was pushed through by a well financed PR campaign. In turn, I would argue PR has effectively altered policymaking from being a process of crafting an idea which is acceptable to the public (this is essentially how Democracy is supposed to operate). To simply making sure what is being done isn’t so far out of line it will be prohibitively expensive for a PR firm to sell it to the public.

For reference, some of the common PR tactics include:

1. Organizing a massive amount of coverage of an event which supports someone’s narrative and was crafted to go viral. For example:
•The founder of PR was infamous for convincing women across America to take up smoking by staging a women’s suffrage (right to vote) protest and having them all smoke their “liberation torches” as part of the protest).
•The Gulf War was sold to America by a fake testimony from a Kuwaiti girl (who was the daughter of the ambassador) who was coaxed to say the rampaging Iraqi army was invading hospitals and “taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die on the cold floor,” a line which was then repeated again and again by politicians (e.g., Bush) around the world.
•In 2022, one actor made a joke about Will Smith’s wife having hair loss due to alopecia (a known side effect of the mRNA vaccines) which quickly went viral on every network.

This was very usual. However, it just so happened that Pfizer was sponsoring the Oscars, and had just announced a positive result in their pivotal phase 2b/3 trial clinical trial for their new alopecia drug, and had recently begun the marketing push in anticipation of its FDA approval (which happened exactly a year later, with an annual course of the drug being priced at $49,000.00). While it’s impossible to know what actually happened behind the scenes, individuals did come forward alleging the whole thing was scripted.

2. Hiring focus groups to determine what language is the most effective in persuading people to support your position and then blasting it on every public announcement and news station (e.g., the local ones) simultaneously. This often goes hand in hand with producing news programs for the stations (which are effectively PR productions for their sponsors). To illustrate one example of this approach being used:

3. Creating an endless number of “non-profit” organizations with nice names that actually advance the interests of the sponsoring industry. For example, the “non-profit” Foundation for Clean Air Progress is an industry front group that has aggressively lobbied both the public and the government to reduce the existing air quality standards mandated by the Clean Air Act. Likewise, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society took in 172 million dollars last year and is notorious for blocking many proven treatments for MS from seeing the light of day, while continuously supporting lucrative new drugs to “manage” the disease.

4. Paying off an endless number of experts to promote your message and having them be hosted on networks that are already in your pocket.

I cannot state how effective PR is and how depressing it has been to watch each candidate I supported get torpedoed by the media industrial complex.

However, while the effect of PR is remarkable, many of the people who work in the industry aren’t that talented, and as a result, they will just copy existing (and proven) PR tactics for the current campaign. Because of this, once you’ve seen enough PR campaigns, it becomes very easy to recognize one being enacted.
Note: two things allowed me to accurately predict most of what happened during COVID-19. One was being familiar with the same script having been followed during the HIV epidemic, and the other was seeing the PR campaigns for it be enacted in real time and recognizing the implications of each stage I observed (as the campaigns are typically structured in a sequential series of steps which eventually arrive at their sponsor’s desired outcome).

Censoring the Internet

The primary thing which has allowed the existing PR model to work has been the fact there is an (ever increasing) monopoly over the mass media. Because of this, a chosen PR campaign can be rapidly disseminated across the country while simultaneously, no dissenting narratives are allowed to air that challenge it.

Recognizing that the internet was the fatal weakness of the existing system, I suspect (but can’t prove) that a decision was made to have large internet companies become gatekeepers of information online, and in turn, as these large platforms attracted a large enough audience to become the “trusted sources” of information, they slowly transitioned to censoring things.

In turn, we saw a tug of war occur between the increasing pushes for censorship and the increasing ability of the internet community to bypass the attempts that were made to censor them. This eventually hit a tipping point, when in October 2016, Obama gave a speech at Carnegie Mellon where he declared:

“We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to,” “[T]here has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”

Parallel to this declaration, various campaigns were launched. This began with “Fake News” being blared everywhere until Trump attached the label to CNN, at which point the media pivoted. We saw an endless number of media messages about the dangers of “misinformation” ( followed by anything challenging the existing narrative, in turn receiving that label).

Note: public officials (like the instance of Obama mentioned above or Biden throughout the COVID vaccine push) are frequently involved in PR campaigns. For example (as discussed within a recent article on Dermatology’s disastrous war against the sun), in the 1980s, the struggling profession of dermatology spent 2 million dollars hiring a public relations firm to inflate their status and were suggested to rebrand themselves as cancer doctors. This in turn was accomplished by:

1. Offering campaigns beginning in 1985 to provide skin examinations to bring awareness to “skin cancer” and having widespread strategic media coverage of those campaigns.

2. Convincing Ronald Reagan to sign proclamations for “National Skin Cancer Prevention and Detection Week,” and “Older Americans Melanoma/Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Week.

3. Creating a mortal fear of the sun (which persists to a truly absurd degree these days) despite the fact people that who avoid the sun are 60-130% more likely to die than those who get moderate or high amounts of it (e.g., smokers who get regular sunlight have the same risk of dying as nonsmokers who avoid the sun).

4. Equivocate melanomas (which are rare, dangerous, and caused by a lack of sun exposure) to basal cell carcinomas (which are common, never fatal, and caused by sunlight) since both are “skin cancers” so people can be corralled into regular skin examinations where those skin cancers are identified and quickly surgically removed.

5. Dermatology became one of the highest paying specialties in medicine, and the number of diagnosed skin cancers greatly increased, but there have been minimal changes in the actual death rates of skin cancers. Simultaneously, since those surgeries pay a lot, the profession lost all motivation to determine the actual causes of skin cancer, safe and effective non-surgical treatments for skin cancer, or how to make the sun heal rather than damage the skin.

What I find particularly interesting about Obama’s announcement was that it happened at the same time a coordinated campaign (spearheaded in California) was being conducted to push vaccine mandates across the nation, which were part of a coordinated push by Bill Gates, the WHO, and the WEF (amongst others) to launch a “decade of vaccines” as much of what we saw later throughout COVID-19 was laid out in their documents. Since they knew the public, through the internet would likely oppose this, a lot of investments were made to preempt that. For example:

Note: in this 2020 talk (and many others) PGP’s CEO explains how they monitor all anti-vaccine messages online 24/7 and their plans to pay off local influencers around the country to promote vaccines and to use counter-terrorism tactics to turn everyone on the internet against the anti-vaxxers (who are “not nice people”)—discussed further in this article. Finally, in a later 2023 webinar about inoculating the public against misinformation, the CEO also mentions they regularly use PR techniques. What I personally find amazing about his numerous talks is that he characterizes things being said online (e.g., that monkeypox was a non-issue) as “dangerous misinformation” which has since been proven true. Likewise, I suspect this project was inspired by past pharmaceutical initiatives like this infamous one.

Twitter () and PR

One branch of the misinformation campaign was Peter Hotez going on a national media tour in 2019 about the dangers the country was facing from online vaccine misinformation, which in turn laid the foundation for rapidly censoring any voices online that dissented against the COVID narrative. Because of this, we saw an escalating level of censorship from all the major internet platforms after Obama’s 2016 speech which then kicked into overdrive during COVID-19 to protect us from dangerous misinformation.

At the time this began in 2016, it became very clear to me that major online censorship was occurring, some of which was happening behind the scenes (e.g., shadow banning) and some of which was happening overtly towards easy to target groups (e.g., the alt-right) which I took as a sign more and more aggressive censorship was going to happen, much of which we would not see.

Simultaneously, since the censorship was very selective in who it targeted, based on who it targeted, while I couldn’t “prove it,” I assumed it had to be some type of collaboration between the government and the pharmaceutical sector. This was eventually confirmed by two things:

Discovering numerous major investments being made by Big Tech into the pharmaceutical industry.

•Elon Musk buying Twitter () and making the choice to publicly release Twitter’s correspondences with the Federal Government, which in turn showed a consistent pattern of Twitter complying with (illegal) requests from the Federal government to censor anything that threatened its narratives. Those documents in turn led to a landmark case that placed an injunction against the Federal Government (which Biden is currently trying to appeal at the Supreme Court).

From my perspective, Elon buying Twitter and making free speech on it was monumental as in addition to it being a large venue for free speech, it’s structure was such that it allowed ideas with merit to spread very quickly, and again and again, I saw well packaged bits of truth reach millions of people (and sometimes make national headlines)—something I’d never witnessed before on any media platform.

When I reflected on why this is, I realized that this frequently cited internet quote described it.

It’s not [that] the left can’t meme per say, it’s that their viewpoints rely on a carefully constructed denial of reality, to a far greater extent than any of the cults or religions they seek to supplant. This doesn’t lend itself to simple, easily conveyed messages, because if you rely on your viewers to see things as they are, without providing several layers of carefully selected context, they’ll interpret it the wrong way. The left can’t meme because memes are the antithesis of how they communicate.

Note: I describe myself as “liberal” but the current definition of “the left” is very different from what many of us signed up for when we became Democrats.

Private Social Media Groups

to get the rest of the article, go to the link:  https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-vast-pharmaceutical-conspiracy?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-73ee14d3-ed71-47ce-9e3a-23343c1c3648

FREE DOWNLOAD: David A. Hughes Tome

“Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy by David A. Hughes

By Catherine Austin Fitts

“Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy (Volume 1) by Dr. David A. Hughes, lecturer and program leader in International Relations at the UK’s University of Lincoln, is “dedicated to all who are actively resisting the global technocratic coup.” In the book’s eight chapters—titled “Permanent Counterrevolution, Technocracy, and World War III,” “Shock and Stress,” “Trauma-based Mind Control,” “Fear and Threat,” “Cognitive Attack,” “Weaponised Deception,” “Mass Paranoia and Hysteria: Turning Society Against Itself,” and “The Coming Unrest”—Hughes discusses “a novel, biodigital form of totalitarianism that threatens to lead to the irreversible enslavement of humanity.”

Describing the “wide portfolio” of invisible psychological and neurological weapons that Hughes so ably documents in this book, I remind readers, “The first step to not falling victim is to see these 21st century weapons of war clearly. Hughes’ formidable scholarship helps you to do so.” Another reviewer comments, “Dr. Hughes stands out as a rare, brave academic, who is willing to go where few are willing to tread.”

The entire manuscript and/or individual chapters can legally be downloaded for free and shared by anyone. Please feel free to do so!

If you would like to join Solari in supporting David’s work, you can do so here.

Download the book:

“Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy

from:    https://home.solari.com/covid-19-psychological-operations-and-the-war-for-technocracy-by-david-a-hughes/

SOme Posters vis-a-vis the WHO “Treaty”

CHECK OUT:    https://doortofreedom.org/posters-and-memes/  for more

Shareables and Printables!

Our wonderful graphics article Dove has customized this meme of Tedros squeezing our world  in the language and with the flag of as many countries we could.  If you would like your country included, please tell us how to say “Our world, not His” in your language and we will include it. Please contact us

Source: Dove from The World Doctors Alliance


Source: Sovereignty Coalition

from:    https://doortofreedom.org/posters-and-memes/

Are Open Borders Killing What Is/Was the USA?

(So what is “charity” and what is deception?)

This Is Only Phase 2 of Biden’s Migrant Border Invasion Plan, on the Way to Phase 4

Author JJ Carrell revealed the four phases of mass migration and replacement that begins with the first phase of ongoingly flooding the border. Phase two is that the people who have been paroled inside the US border have been categorized as ‘legal US residents’ who can now sponsor their family members to join them in the US. Each ‘legal resident’ can bring in four more people who may then bring in more people. The estimated 10 million migrants welcomed by the Biden administration will multiply by tens of millions more people. The rules have been changed so that financial sponsorship by the family is no longer required as NGOs like Catholic Charities may fill in as the financial sponsor. Other NGOs facilitating the invasion of America include the United Way, Jewish Family Services, Lutheran Family Services and hundreds of mom and pop organizations. They have been paid billions of dollars by the Biden administration.

Mr. Carrell dropped a bombshell about Social Security benefits.

Phase 3 is continual propaganda that the system is broken, setting the stage for phase four, which is blanket amnesty. Both Republicans and Democrats are complicit in mass migration. For example, House Speaker Mike Johnson has failed to address the border issue.

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2024/04/this-is-only-phase-2-of-bidens-migrant-border-invasion-plan-on-the-way-to-phase-4/

The Power of Astroturfing

How Astroturfing and Other Media Manipulation Compromise Your Ability to Get Truthful Information

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Ninety percent of news media are controlled by six corporations. As a result, the vast majority of what you read, see and hear is part of a carefully orchestrated narrative created and controlled by special interest groups
  • “Astroturf” is the effort on the part of large corporate special interests to surreptitiously sway public opinion by making it appear as though it’s a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda
  • Wikipedia is astroturf’s dream come true. Many pages are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests who forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 28, 2017.

Ninety percent of news media, be it television, radio, print or online, are controlled by six corporations. As a result, the vast majority of what you read, see and hear is part of a carefully orchestrated narrative created and controlled by special interest groups.

When you combine that with other astroturf and public manipulation schemes that hide the identity of these special interests, the end result is, to use investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s term, a Truman-esque fictitious reality, where medical journals, doctors, media and presumably independent consumer groups all seem to be in agreement. The problem is it may all be false.

Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award-winning anchor, producer and reporter whose television career spans more than three decades. In 2009, she blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was manufactured and completely unfounded. At the time, I interviewed her about these findings. I’ve included that fascinating interview below.

In 2014, she left CBS to pursue more independent venues of investigative journalism, and wrote “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” — an exposé on what really goes on behind the media curtain.

Why Everyone Must Be Aware of Astroturfing

The featured video is a TEDx Talk Attkisson gave in 2015, in which she discusses the methods employed by special interest groups to manipulate and distort media messages. For example, astroturfing — false-front “grassroots movements” that are in fact funded by political parties or private industries — are now “more important to these interests than traditional lobbying of Congress,” she says. She explains the term “astroturf” thus:

“It’s a perversion of grassroots, as in fake grassroots. Astroturf is when political, corporate or other special interests disguise themselves and publish blogs, start Facebook and Twitter accounts, publish ads and letters to the editor, or simply post comments online, to try to fool you into thinking an independent or grassroots movement is speaking.

The whole point of astroturf is to try to [give] the impression there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not. Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making you feel as if you’re an outlier when you’re not …

Astroturfers seek to controversialize those who disagree with them. They attack news organizations that publish stories they don’t like, whistleblowers who tell the truth, politicians who dare to ask the tough questions and journalists who have the audacity to report on all of it.”

Wikipedia — Astroturf’s Dream Come True

If you’re like most, you probably rely on certain sources more than others when it comes to information. WebMD, for example, dominates for health information, Snopes for checking the latest rumors and Wikipedia for general facts, figures and details.

Attkisson has a great deal to say about Wikipedia, calling it “astroturf’s dream come true.” Wikipedia is advertised as a free encyclopedia, where information is added and edited by the public. Anyone can add to or edit any given Wikipedia page. Or so they say.

“The reality can’t be more different,” Attkisson says, explaining that many pages have been co-opted and are controlled by anonymous Wikipedia editors on behalf of special interests. “They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda,” she says. “They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity.”

Even the smallest factual inaccuracies are impossible to correct on these agenda-driven pages. As just one example, in 2012, author Philip Roth tried to correct a factual error about the inspiration behind one of his book characters cited on a Wikipedia page. His correction was repeatedly reversed and, ultimately, he was told he was not considered a credible source!

Worse, a study1 comparing medical conditions described on Wikipedia with published research found that Wikipedia contradicted the medical literature an astounding 90% of the time. So, be aware — Wikipedia is NOT the place for accurate and reliable medical information.

Who’s Who and What’s What?

The extent to which information is manipulated is enormous. Let’s say you hear about a new drug for an ailment you have, or your doctor recommends it, and you decide to research it to be on the safe side. Ultimately, you conclude it is safe and effective because everywhere you look, the information seems to support this conclusion. You feel good knowing you’ve done your homework, and fill the prescription. What you don’t know is that:

Facebook and Twitter pages speaking highly of the drug are run by individuals on the payroll of the drug company
The Wikipedia page for the drug is monitored and controlled by a special-interest editor hired by the drug company
Google search engine results have been optimized, ensuring you’ll find all those positive sources while burying contradicting information
The nonprofit organization you stumbled across online that recommends the drug was secretly founded and funded by the drug company
The positive study you found while searching online was also financed by the drug company
The news articles reporting the positive findings of that study sound suspiciously alike for a reason — they’re reiterating information provided by the drug company’s PR department; hence, you will not find any contradictory information there either
Doctors promoting the drug and making derogatory comments about those who worry about side effects are actually paid consultants for the drug company
The medical lecture your own personal doctor attended, where he became convinced the drug is safe and efficacious, was also sponsored by the drug company

How to Identify Astroturf

Believe it or not, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The extent of the control and manipulation goes even deeper than this. Even the U.S. government, regulatory agencies and public health organizations are colluding with industry in a variety of different ways.

So, what can you do? How can you possibly decipher the truth when the truth is so well-hidden beneath layers of astroturf? As noted by Attkisson, recognizing the telltale signs of astroturf is key. And once you know what to look for, you’ll start to recognize it everywhere you look. Telltale signs and hallmarks of astroturf include the following:

  • Certain key message lines repeatedly crop up. For example, the line “talk to your doctor” is highly suggestive of a PR message for a drug, even if what you’re reading doesn’t look like an advertisement
  • Use of inflammatory and derogatory language. Keywords to look for include crank, quack, nutty, lies, paranoid, pseudo and conspiracy
  • Astroturfers will often claim to debunk “myths” that are not myths at all
  • They will attack people, personalities and organizations rather than address the facts or concerns in question
  • Astroturfers are skeptical of those exposing wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers. As noted by Attkisson, rather than questioning authority, astroturfers question those who question authority

Astroturfing in Action

A perfect example of astroturfing occurred in 2015, when the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH) — a pro-GMO front group — attacked Dr. Mehmet Oz for reporting on the now scientifically established hazards of glyphosate.

Mainstream media swallowed and regurgitated the vicious propaganda without any critical thought whatsoever. Slate magazine publicized the attack with the headline “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.”

The letter accuses Oz of repeatedly showing “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops.” The letter was signed by Dr. Henry I. Miller and nine other “distinguished physicians.”

What the media failed to address is that Miller is a well-known shill for the GMO industry. In his capacity as its frontman, he was caught misrepresenting himself during the Anti-Prop 37 campaign in 2012, pretending to be a Stanford professor opposing GMO labeling, when in fact he is not a professor at Stanford.2 The TV ad had to be pulled off the air because of this misrepresentation.

Learn to Identify Shills and Front Groups

Miller also has a long history of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), in addition to defending Big Tobacco. He’s even penned articles suggesting radioactive fallout might be beneficial for health, while claiming “Organic agriculture is to the environment what cigarette smoking is to human health” — apparently momentarily forgetting he’s defended the safety of cigarette smoking.3

Miller’s true colors were also revealed in August 2017, when he was fired by Forbes magazine for submitting articles ghostwritten by Monsanto. The evidence4 against Miller emerged during the court-ordered discovery process of a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto by people who claim they developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma as a result of glyphosate exposure (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, used by farmers and home gardeners alike).

The documents, more than 700 pages in all, were posted online by the law firm Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman (now known as Wisner Baum).5 Faced with evidence they’d published material under Miller’s name that was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired Miller but also removed all of his work from their site. Some of the other nine physicians that signed the letter against Oz are also less than distinguished. As noted by U.S. Right to Know:6

“One was stripped of his medical license in New York and sent to federal prison camp for Medicaid fraud. Yet Dr. Gilbert Ross plays up his M.D. credentials in his role as acting president of [ACSH]. Ross was joined on the Columbia letter by ACSH board member Dr. Jack Fisher.

So what is ACSH? Though some reporters treat it as an independent science source, the group has been heavily funded by oil, chemical and tobacco companies, and has a long history of making inaccurate statements about science that directly benefit those industries — for example, claiming that secondhand smoke isn’t linked to heart attacks [or that] fracking doesn’t pollute water …

These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired. We urge reporters and editors to take a closer look at the sources selling them story ideas, and to act as better watchdogs for the public interest.”

In short, the attack on Oz was orchestrated not by “concerned physicians” but rather by industry shills whose job it is to attack anyone who embraces a more natural approach to health and/or raise damning questions that might hurt the industry’s bottom-line.

Corporate Conflicts of Interest Killed Investigative Journalism

I interviewed Attkisson about her book, “Stonewalled” and the downfall and deterioration of true investigative journalism in 2015. I’ve included that interview again for your convenience. It delves a lot further into the issues brought up in her 10-minute TEDx Talk.

For example, direct-to-consumer drug advertising has created a situation where drug companies in particular wield enormous power over media. The industry spends billions of dollars each year on advertising, and this financial windfall is typically enough for any media outlet to bend to its advertisers’ whims and desires.

Attkisson refers to this as “soft censorship.” It’s when a media outlet’s sponsors wield power at the corporate level over the types of stories and topics journalists are allowed to cover, and the slant they must take when doing so. It’s important to realize that you simply will not get the truth from the media on certain topics for this very reason.

My mission is to arm you with information that is not easily obtainable in the mainstream media about things that influence your health, for better or worse. All of my articles are carefully referenced and I rely on peer-reviewed published science and firsthand interviews with experts in various fields. My advice to you is to develop a keen eye for the hallmarks of astroturfing, and to dig deeper when faced with claims that “the science is settled.” More often than not, it’s anything but.

from:  https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/03/29/astroturfing-media-manipulation.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art3HL&cid=20240329_HL2&foDate=true&mid=DM1549869&rid=2082323638