Two Australian Doctors question actions on Covid and the environment

This new post presents a range of issues raised by two Australian doctors concerning views and directives about Covid and the environment.

If you really do care about the flora and fauna of our planet …

Email to Australian Prime Minister:

Dear Prime Minister Scott Morrison,

If you really do care about the flora and fauna of our planet, view these two videos, each less than one minute. You will not see these on the TV.  All we the people are allowed to see are benign images from a distance. It is evidence-based fact that wind turbines are a fatal attraction to large birds. They play on the turbulence generated by the blades until they get too close and are mortally wounded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb6VeMaXy8

And as you will see below, the euphemistically phrased solar farms incinerate insects and small birds.

https://youtu.be/ICLXQN_lURk

Malfeasant politicians and corporate criminals can deceive the people by lying to them, but they cannot disprove moving images.  

By contrast to the insidiously ugly, killer ‘renewables’, beautiful clean carbon dioxide, which is heavier than air, sinks to the ground after it comes out the chimney of a coal-fired power station. It then becomes the food and fertiliser for all vegetation, which converts it to oxygen for all other life on planet Earth to breathe (photosynthesis).

Dear Prime Minister, we realise that you are a knowledgeable courageous man because here is a video of you taking a lump of coal into parliament and telling everyone to get over their coal phobia.

Please do not attend the name and shame socialist gathering of the taxpayer-funded, ignorantly arrogant, entitled ones. The United Nations is no different from communist China. We, the people, who see the danger, do not want socialist, global governance from afar. We want our own Prime Minister presiding over a Direct Democracy

In closing, we are not deniers or conspiracy theorists. We are just two retired scientists who love our country with all its flora and fauna.

Thank you for your time in reading this Prime Minister

Respectfully Yours

Drs.  Judy Ryan and Marjorie Curtis

=======================

Covid: Dismissive response from Australia’s Acting Minister of Health

Covid. Dismissive response from Australia’s Acting Minister of Health  Letter to Australia’s Acting Minister of Health from Doctors Judy Ryan and Marjory Curtis, 9 October 2021

 Editor’s note: Click on link above to view PDF document showing several graphics.

Dear Acting Minister for Health Greg Hunt,

As you have not responded to our previous correspondence we write again. This time we include the Canadian politicians etc as they can look and learn what not to do from us.

First, as Minister for the Environment in 2014 why did you have the terms due diligence and data quality assurance removed from the investigation into the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s data handling procedures? (See last sentence in screenshot below.)

The original investigation instigated by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott included those terms. It was based on the historical evidence raised in this poster.    It is downloaded on thousands of computers both in Australia and other nations.  Copy and paste the link to the maps into your browser. If this fails the maps can be found can be found here   [Editor’s note: Click on link above]

We note with trepidation that, the Australia  Climate Realist, which simply had this letter on website has been closed down. Why did you do that?

Now, back to the historical record, Minister Hunt.  The first screenshot evidences your same day polite but frivolous and dismissive response to our communication on the issue of climate-change…..Oops warming etc.

I take the opportunity to clarify the 2013 date in the screenshot. That was the approximate date that Tony Abbott was elected leader of the Liberal Coalition, which was then in opposition to the incumbent Labor Government. Tony Abbott took the Liberal party to a resounding victory, on his promise to abolish the carbon tax, in 2018. That is when you became Minister for the Environment.   Later you betrayed him and bragged about the removal of the offending terms ‘due diligence  on the ABC

Now, let’s move  to the current pseudo-scientific  ‘pandemic’ that, the evidence indicates, you are presiding over as Minister for Health. First, the PCR test, which Australia is using is finding too many asymptomatic  cases because Covid19 is part of the Coronavirus family, to which the common cold also belongs.

Further, it can be manipulated to test positive, depending on the number of cycles that the researcher/medico runs. In Australia  the number of cycles run does not have to be  disclosed to the Covid positive testee or their Doctor.  Therefore it can be manipulated to imply just about anything by fraudsters. This selective non-disclosure of the cycle threshold is probably unlawful under Australia’s constitution, as the covid ‘patient’ is not provided ‘informed consent re the number of cycles run back at the laboratory.  It was never meant to be used as a diagnostic test. Its real purpose is to amplify viral fragments for research purposes.

Now, let’s look at the adverse effects of the COVID19 pseudo-mandatory vaccines that you, as Minister for Health, are presiding over. In fact, the evidence indicates the vaccines are killing far more people than the wild virus could ever kill. This non, or delayed  disclosure, of the adverse reactions to COVID vaccinations in Australia is probably unlawful. You cannot deny that the adverse effects from both the  Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have increased threefold in less than three months, May to July. 

Dear BCCd observer, If you search on these words “most people experience only mild symptoms and can self treat at home” you will see numerous references on the first webpage that indicate that COVID19 is equivalent to a very mild case of the flu. Here is further evidence from the Worldometers site (Word search on ‘Active’   then click on the downward pointing chevrons to see the truly minuscule numbers as shown in the screenshot.

Minister Hunt, the evidence of your ongoing duplicity is strong. Maybe, for the sake of the health and wealth of the Australian people, you should step down from your Ministerial duties.

Again, we request you to respond to this email and either confirm or deny our statements. If you do not reply, all of the above stands as the unchallenged truth and can be used as evidence in a court of law.

Respectfully Yours,

Drs. Judy Ryan and Marjory Curtis

Which ‘New World Order’?

Who is planning a ‘New World Order’ (NWO),  in what form, and what progress so far?  Will it be ‘The Great Reset? Currently, many of the world’s normal practices are falling apart. Links to many more articles follow those below.

Pandemonium looms for the world

 

Pandemonium looms for the world  By Dr. Mathew Maavak, RT.com, 18 October 2021

Pandemonium looms for the world as the ‘Everything Shortage’ meets a ‘Dark Winter’ thanks to collapsing global supply chains

Dr. Mathew Maavak, a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance.

A global supply chain crisis is brewing, leading to a full-spectrum shortage of essential items. This is the result of mass centralization, where policies are dictated and synchronized by the aristocrats of the New Normal.

The coming years will be marked by extreme socio-economic turbulence. The world is reportedly facing an “everything shortage” where essential goods are getting harder, farther, and more time-consuming to find. These shortages affect the entire gamut of the social pyramid structure. The typical production to delivery cycle is repeatedly hammered by a macabre musical chair of woes in tune with Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.”

If the problem is not a lockdown, then it is a dearth of raw materials. If ports are ready to unload raw materials and finished products, then truckers are unavailable to pick them up. If truckers are available, ports are unable to process freights. Alternatively, the problem could be an acute power or fuel shortage. Coronavirus restrictions worldwide have also led to a shortage of essential labour, ranging from garbage collectors to pilots. Under the pyramidical hierarchy of the New Normal, only the capstone representing the top 0.1% is truly detached and thriving.

The long-festering supply-demand disequilibrium entered a point of no return when the coronavirus pandemic was declared in March 2020. A mass of freight ships bobbing aimlessly off the coast of China is now joined by a similar armada along US coasts. A container that cost $2,500 before the pandemic now commands a hefty $25,000 for the same load. Imagine the snowballing costs to the consumer?

Everything is now conveniently blamed on Covid-19, with causations and fearmongering reaching epically absurd proportions. Australia locked down the entire city of Perth (population 2 million plus) after discovering a single new coronavirus case in late January. Nearly eight months later, another single case resulted in the lockdown of the capital city of Canberra (population over 400,000). This insanity is just the tip of the Covid-19 iceberg.

Australia is arguably the most locked-downed nation on earth. More ominously, it is also one of the world’s primary food baskets. After 18 months of socio-economic disruptions, its agricultural exports are headed for a slump. The situation is worse elsewhere. Food inflation is already at a 10-year high in the United States, with prices in September notching a 32.8% increase on a year-on-year basis.

Scarcities and inflation herald a variety of social woes. An epidemic of organized shoplifting, for instance, has emerged as a $45 billion industry in the United States. This poses an additional whammy to the US retail sector, which is still reeling from the George Floyd riots and coronavirus restrictions. Amazon, au contraire, is doing nicely for itself. This is where goods stolen by day are e-tailed by night. Lunatic woke policies in the US also ensure that serial shoplifters are routinely released – often on the same day – to presumably expedite the bankruptcy of established retail outlets, particularly the small and medium-sized ones.

All the Black Swans, bred specifically for the Great Reset, are coming home to roost. Ripple effects from China’s Evergrande real estate debacle, involving debts of $305 billion no less, have impacted Sweden’s electric vehicle sector. Our global dominoes are set to cascade.

A collapse of Evergrande’s magnitude requires a well-executed whole-systems response. However, China is facing highly disruptive power outages due to poor foresight and a global coal crunch. Recent floods in the coal-rich Shanxi province will likely aggravate matters further. A global energy crisis is already spreading from Brazil to India. As Germany may soon learn at great costs to its industries and society, going green without retaining a robust fossil fuel infrastructure is simply myopic. With winter approaching, the need to operationalize Nord Stream 2 becomes more urgent than ever. Behind the scenes, however, bureaucrats in Brussels remain clueless.

There are some energy-related details to ponder in this context. Will EU authorities prioritize winter electric heating over electric cars that are supposedly green and climate-friendly? Smart meters within smart grids are supposed to resolve these cascading binary choices but not so in a world “designed by clowns” and “supervised by monkeys” – to paraphrase a Boeing engineer’s depiction of the recent 737 Max fiasco. That scathing pronouncement seems lost on the aviation sector as vaccination mandates are forcing out a good number of skilled personnel, including pilots. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki even deemed these mandates “good for the economy”.

It is quite ironic that pilots must get inoculated in order to ferry the aristocrats of the New Normal who are exempted from such trivialities. If critical staff shortages persist in the airline industry, accompanied by one or two aviation disasters, the global supply chain may simply fold.

The biblical-scale woes do not end here, however. Experts and leaders are regurgitating the prospects of a “very dark winter” ahead. The solution, predictably, is mass vaccination and booster shots. Now, that should solve our global coal crisis, mass floods, growing hunger, real estate bubbles, shoplifting sprees and even climate change ad nauseam.

Bill Gates, the world’s foremost authority on pandemics and vaccines, opines that the world is not ready for “next pandemic.” The man has prophesied; it therefore must happen. Hopefully, this new outbreak would not be accompanied by pesky curative claims over cheap generics like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin or that impressively-trialled green chiretta herb in Thailand.

According to Gates, proper preparedness should include the ability to make a vaccine in “100 days” and manufacture enough for the entire world in the “next 100 days after that”. One wonders if Gates knows anything about product development. Vinyl toys, for example, take 4-6 months to progress from design to production phases. Creating and deploying a universal nostrum for a new disease in 100 days is simply preposterous. The human body, with too many unknown unknowns, is way more complex than vinyl toys. Even crappy operating systems take years to develop – that too after scuppering the prospects of worthier alternatives!

If Gates’ science appears in dire need of some patches and updates, a pliant media can help along by flipping nonsense into facts as usual. The blame for emerging global crises – from the ongoing fuel crunch to climate change – can be squarely laid on the unvaccinated. Call it the Corona-psychosis Effect.

One may reasonably argue that Gates was referring to a centralized global response to new pandemics. On paper, this may speed up the discovery of a remedy. But mass centralization never quite worked for the communist regimes of yore. It only strengthened the hands of dictators and the nomenklatura. Wealth and power today are similarly centralized in the hands of a few who, in turn, dictate and synchronize policies everywhere. Their only concern is wealth fractionation and the preservation of their class; not the fallouts of their machinations.

=================

Using Disaster Capitalism to Control All Humans

Using Disaster Capitalism to Control All Humans  By Greg Hunter, USAWatchdog.com 3 July 2021

 Editor’s note: Greg Hunter interviews Catherine Fitts. Watch the full 36 minute video at https://usawatchdog.com/using-disaster-capitalism-to-control-all-humans-catherine-austin-fitts/

Investment advisor and former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts contends CV19 and vaccines to cure it are all part of the “Going Direct Reset.”  Fitts explains, “This is so simple at the root.  The central bankers are using the government to shut down the main street economy, and then they are going direct and injecting money into the private equity firms and Wall Street who are running around the country buying things.  Think of this as a leverage buyout of the world.  We are being purchased with our own money.  Also, we are liable.  If you look at all the debt the government is issuing, our assets are liable for that debt.  This is a continuation and consolidation of the financial coup that we have been taking about.”

Fitts goes on to say, “We have had a small group of people who have gotten away with crime, and crime that pays is crime that stays.  Now, they are in full blossom.  We have been talking about this, and many people have tried to stay in the middle of the road.  Now, the message in 2021 is there is no middle of the road.  You’ve got to pick sides. . . . This is freedom or tyranny, and tyranny is slavery.  We are talking about very invasive slavery because they are planning on installing the smart grid into our bodies.  There will be 24/7 surveillance and control of your money.  If you don’t behave, they will turn off your money.  If they don’t want you to go more than five miles, your money won’t work further than five miles.”

Fitts says the entire CV19 virus and vaccines to fix the problem is simply part of the cruel and brutal plan.  Fitts says, “There is no legal basis for an ‘emergency authorization’ even though they have done that.  More important, if you look at what we know about the vaccine injuries, the type of vaccine injuries and the extent of them, it is shocking that these have not been shut down.  We are talking about serious physical harm coming to the people who are taking them. . . . There is recent information that has come out of the Japanese health agency, and one of the indications is we are seeing toxicity in the female organs.  If you look at the damage that is being done, I am told it’s impossible to not know this before they started giving these injections.  We may be looking at a full blown sterilization program.”

Fitts has much more to say in this 36 min interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, publisher of The Solari Report.

========================

Who Owns Big Pharma + Big Media +++

Who Owns Big Pharma + Big Media +++  By Dr Joseph Mercola, 22 June 2021

Editor’s note: Click on link above to view the many graphics in this article.

BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, combined own The New York Times and other legacy media, along with Big Pharma.

What does The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that owns just about everything else you can think of too. As reported in the featured video:

The stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. They all own each other. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi aren’t really competitors, at all, since their stock is owned by exactly the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies, banks and in some cases, governments.

“The smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies whose names we have often seen …They are Vanguard and BlackRock.

“The power of these two companies is beyond your imagination. Not only do they own a large part of the stocks of nearly all big companies but also the stocks of the investors in those companies. This gives them a complete monopoly.

“A Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028, together will have investments in the amount of 20 trillion dollars. That means that they will own almost everything.’

Who Are The Vanguard?

The word “vanguard” means “the foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle,” and/or “the leading position in a trend or movement.” Both are fitting descriptions of this global behemoth, owned by globalists pushing for a Great Reset, the core of which is the transfer of wealth and ownership from the hands of the many into the hands of the very few.

Interestingly, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock, as of March 2021. Vanguard itself, on the other hand, has a “unique” corporate structure that makes its ownership more difficult to discern. It’s owned by its various funds, which in turn are owned by the shareholders. Aside from these shareholders, it has no outside investors and is not publicly traded. As reported in the featured video:

The elite who own Vanguard apparently do not like being in the spotlight but of course they cannot hide from who is willing to dig. Reports from Oxfam and Bloomberg say that 1 percent of the world, together owns more money than the other 99 percent. Even worse, Oxfam says that 82 percent of all earned money in 2017 went to this 1 percent.

“In other words, these two investment companies, Vanguard and BlackRock hold a monopoly in all industries in the world and they, in turn, are owned by the richest families in the world, some of whom are royalty and who have been very rich since before the Industrial Revolution.

While it would take time to sift through all of Vanguard’s funds to identify individual shareholders, and therefore owners of Vanguard, a quick look-see suggests Rothschild Investment Corp. and the Edmond De Rothschild Holding are two such stakeholders. Keep the name Rothschild in your mind as you read on, as it will feature again later.

The video above also identifies the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, the du Pont family, the Morgans, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, as Vanguard owners.

BlackRock/Vanguard Own Big Pharma

According to Simply Wall Street, in February 2020, BlackRock and Vanguard were the two largest shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline, at 7% and 3.5% of shares respectively. At Pfizer, the ownership is reversed, with Vanguard being the top investor and BlackRock the second-largest stockholder.

Keep in mind that stock ownership ratios can change at any time, since companies buy and sell on a regular basis, so don’t get hung up on percentages. The bottom line is that BlackRock and Vanguard, individually and combined, own enough shares at any given time that we can say they easily control both Big Pharma and the centralized legacy media — and then some.

Why does this matter? It matters because drug companies are driving COVID-19 responses — all of which, so far, have endangered rather than optimized public health — and mainstream media have been willing accomplices in spreading their propaganda, a false official narrative that has, and still is, leading the public astray and fosters fear based on lies.

To have any chance of righting this situation, we must understand who the central players are, where the harmful dictates are coming from, and why these false narratives are being created in the first place.

As noted in Global Justice Now’s December 2020 report “The Horrible History of Big Pharma,” we simply cannot allow drug companies — “which have a long track record of prioritizing corporate profit over people’s health” — to continue to dictate COVID-19 responses.

In it, they review the shameful history of the top seven drug companies in the world that are now developing and manufacturing drugs and gene-based “vaccines” against COVID-19, while mainstream media have helped suppress information about readily available older drugs that have been shown to have a high degree of efficacy against the infection.

BlackRock/Vanguard own the media

When it comes to The New York Times, as of May 2021, BlackRock is the second-largest stockholder at 7.43 percent of total shares, just after The Vanguard Group, which owns the largest portion (8.11 percent).

In addition to The New York Times, Vanguard and BlackRock are also the top two owners of Time Warner, Comcast, Disney and News Corp, four of the six media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape.

Needless to say, if you have control of this many news outlets, you can control entire nations by way of carefully orchestrated and organized centralized propaganda disguised as journalism.

If your head is spinning already, you’re not alone. It’s difficult to describe circular and tightly interwoven relationships in a linear fashion. The world of corporate ownership is labyrinthine, where everyone seems to own everyone, to some degree.

However, the key take-home message is that two companies stand out head and neck above all others, and those are BlackRock and Vanguard. Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.

Considering BlackRock in 2018 announced that it has “social expectations” from the companies it invests in, its potential role as a central hub in the Great Reset and the “build back better” plan cannot be overlooked.

Add to this information showing it “undermines competition through owning shares in competing companies” and “blurs boundaries between private capital and government affairs by working closely with regulators,” and one would be hard-pressed to not see how BlackRock/Vanguard and their globalist owners might be able to facilitate the Great Reset and the so-called “green” revolution, both of which are part of the same wealth-theft scheme.

That assertion will become even clearer once you realize that this duo’s influence is not limited to Big Pharma and the media. Importantly, BlackRock also works closely with central banks around the world, including the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is a private entity, not a federal one. It lends money to the central bank, acts as an adviser to it, and develops the central bank’s software.

BlackRock/Vanguard also own shares of a long list of other companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet Inc. As illustrated in the graphic of BlackRock and Vanguard’s ownership network below, featured in the 2017 article “These Three Firms Own Corporate America” in The Conversation, it would be near-impossible to list them all.

In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90 percent of all S&P 500 firms.

To tease out the overarching influence of BlackRock and Vanguard in the global marketplace, be sure to watch the 45-minute-long video featured at the top of this article. It provides a wide-view summary of the hidden monopoly network of Vanguard- and BlackRock-owned corporations, and their role in the Great Reset. A second much shorter video (above) offers an additional review of this information.

How can we tie BlackRock/Vanguard — and the globalist families that own them — to the Great Reset? Barring a public confession, we have to look at the relationships between these behemoth globalist-owned corporations and consider the influence they can wield through those relationships. As noted by Lew Rockwell:

When Lynn Forester de Rothschild wants the United States to be a one-party country (like China) and doesn’t want voter ID laws passed in the U.S., so that more election fraud can be perpetrated to achieve that end, what does she do?

“She holds a conference call with the world’s top 100 CEOs and tells them to publicly decry as ‘Jim Crow’ Georgia’s passing of an anti-corruption law and she orders her dutiful CEOs to boycott the State of Georgia, like we saw with Coca-Cola and Major League Baseball and even Hollywood star, Will Smith.

“In this conference call, we see shades of the Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the New World Order. The UN wants to make sure, as does [World Economic Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus] Schwab that in 2030, poverty, hunger, pollution and disease no longer plague the Earth.

“To achieve this, the UN wants taxes from Western countries to be split by the mega corporations of the elite to create a brand-new society. For this project, the UN says we need a world government — namely the UN, itself.

As I’ve reviewed in many previous articles, it seems quite clear that the COVID-19 pandemic was orchestrated to bring about this New World Order — the Great Reset — and the 45-minute video featured at the top of the article does a good job of explaining how this was done. And at the heart of it all, the “heart” toward which all global wealth streams flow, we find BlackRock and Vanguard.

==================

Climate change is covert weather modification

Climate change is covert weather modification  By Alexandra Bruce, via CairnsNews, 15 June 2021

Dane Wigington joins Greg Hunter at USAWatchdog.com to say that the Western US is under siege by covert weather warfare that is causing crop failures, food shortages, farmer bankruptcies and that Bill Gates is ready and waiting to buy their land for pennies on the dollar, as the largest buyer and owner of farmland in the US.

Many of us already know the story told by former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark to Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!, about how he was shown a list of target countries in the Middle East; countries that had been marked for invasion by the US military-industrial complex, long before 9/11 had occurred. This, by itself gave us pause. What if it were just as widely known that every one of these Middle Eastern target countries subsequently underwent a once-in-one-thousand-year drought?

“That’s not nature, that’s climate engineering,” Wigington says. “In fact, the leaders of some of these countries stated so on the floor of the UN, like the leader of Iran. They have sophisticated atmospheric monitoring equipment and they stated, with no ambiguous terms that NATO was cutting off their precipitation, which destabilizes food productions and thus populations.”

 

The obvious next question is, “How many other global populations are being covertly targeted by the climate engineering operations? Let’s start here: ‘Engineered Drought Catastrophe: Target California’. That’s the title of a presentation given by myself on behalf of geoengineeringwatch.org many years ago. The data presented in that presentation is more relevant now than ever before.

“Climate engineering operations are the crown jewel of the military-industrial complex. Remember that it’s a weapon by which they can bring populations to their knees without those populations ever even knowing or understanding that they are under assault. Crush crop production and blame it on nature. That is the MO…

“The global science community is telling us that ‘we need to geo-engineer immediately’, as if it hasn’t been going on for 70 years, already…They describe the need to fill the atmosphere with light-scattering particles to reflect some of the Sun’s incoming thermal radiation, i.e. thermal energy…And the elements named in climate engineering patents: aluminum, barium, strontium, polymer fibers, all of that showing up in every lab test that we take from around the globe. It’s happening and the climate science denial is beyond criminal, at this point.”

The The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that, based on a warming planet, the Pacific Northwest would receive a huge increase in precipitation in the Lower 48 but that’s not what’s happening. Dane Wigington explains, “That hasn’t happened because they are aerosolizing the moisture that enters from the west and they’re establishing pressure zones, like the high pressure dome [created by a HAARP-like ionospheric heating devices] that’s parked over the Northern California-Southern Oregon region, which deflects all the incoming pacific moisture, over and around us and then, down into the eastern half of the Lower 48, Greg, which is statistically, since 2012, the last 9 years, the most anomalously less-warm region in the entire world.

“This is not nature, this is climate engineering, period…We can speculate into…the agenda behind the drought-creation, we can speculate as to the motives but the fact of the case of the drought in the Western US, and what the rest of the world have gone through, like Australia, Spain, Portugal – this is a direct result of climate engineering operations, period…That they are completely derailing the hydrological cycle and drying out the US West is beyond dispute.”

And it is already leading to food shortages.

Moreover, he says, “Why wouldn’t we think this is a platform to disperse biologicals? We know, in the case of CV-19…we have a peer-reviewed study from Italy to prove CV-19 was attached to airborne particulates. How does that happen?

“We have the world’s second most-recognized geo-engineer, Ken Caldeira, now working directly for who? Bill Gates. We have Bill Gates, buying up more farmland in the US than anyone else. He’s the largest owner of farmland in the US of all and we have Gates involved with the seed bank, the doomsday seed bank in the Arctic. We have so many pieces to this puzzle that paint a very, very dark, nefarious picture, Greg…

“The cutting off of the precipitation in the US West, breaking farmers, causing, in many cases for them to have to sell their land for pennies on the dollar – and who’s there to buy it up? It appears Bill Gates! The fox is running the henhouse and if we don’t deal with this soon, we won’t have much to care about.”

==================

The total reset of everything

The total reset of everything  By Martin Geddes, 15 April 2021

What happens when a multi-generational global war of subversion and infiltration reaches its endgame? That is not an easy question to answer, since by its construction we don’t have access to recent and relevant historical precedent. While nothing can stop what is coming, nobody may be prepared for it either. I make the case here that what is fast approaching is a Total Reset of Everything.

The picture that is forming for many of us is the liberation of the whole of humanity from hundreds of years of slavery — mental, financial, cultural, technological, and spiritual. That the slavery of the mind is first in the list is figural: the ultimate form of slavery is one where the slaves believe themselves to be free. This form of trickery had been pioneered in Britain with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, which effectively stripped inhabitants of their innate Common Law rights, following deliberate societal sabotage.

At the heart of this modern emancipation movement lies the American People, who briefly escaped from the tyrannical European banking aristocracy. In 1871 the British Crown, working in secret alliance with the Vatican, annexed the United States and returned it to full colony status. This was triggered by the need for debt financing following the Civil War, and was achieved by the construction of a parallel doppelgänger state.

A new corporate government and constitution was established as “Washington DC”, an unaccountable and unlawful extra-territorial city state. Behind this fraud of the highest order was pure treason by Congress. It involved the misapplication of maritime law to the land, and later securitisation of humans via taxation. Thus slavery did not end with the Civil War; it was surreptitiously extended to all, yet marketed as liberation from plantation chains.

“Make America Great Again” is really about reversing this 1871 debt-driven incorporation, and restoring sovereignty to the American People. Once the whole world understands their relative debt and tax slave status, it is inevitable that they too will demand equal freedom and prosperity. Donald Trump’s first term was a bait to draw this illegal and illegitimate form of bankster government into a trap.

The Chinese Communist Party runs a modern-day totalitarian slave-owning society on behalf of the Globalist central bankers (who have their own internal factions and power struggles). The Maoist form of tyranny induced extreme poverty, whereas this one is economically productive, since unproductive slaves are pointless. It is a testing ground for prototype total surveillance and control technologies like social scoring. China seeks to usurp the USA as the global hegemon, through acquisition of resources including minerals, technology, workers, and eventually land.

The Second Amendment, as protection for free speech and hence dissidence, makes Americans the hardest people in the world to conquer. “Deplorable” Americans are the last bastion of true human freedom. The “rights” and “freedoms” everyone else “enjoys” are really state-conferred privileges that can be removed, as vaccine passports and widespread censorship now demonstrate. The only way to resist a police state is for the police to be outgunned by the people.

The 2020 election was a CCP-led attempt by multiple actors working together to end the Trump-led revolt against Globalism, steal away those firearms (or generate a civil war trying), and impose this neofeudalism on the American People in full force. It was a turning point in history, in many ways even more significant than that of the 2016 election where “they never thought she would lose” and got caught with no Plan B.

This attempted “nationjacking” was achieved using multiple methods, but two stand out. The first is using a CCP bioweapon, with the media overhyping the resulting pandemic, as cover to issue endless fake mail-in paper ballots. The second is the hacking of elections via “droned” electronic voting machines. There are whole books on such “colour revolutions” and election fraud, and it is not my job to repeat their knowledge. The end result would have been the collapse of the West and any freedoms we enjoy.

The good news is that the military sting operation, using Donald Trump as its lure, has succeeded. The attempted re-conquest of America and its People has failed. The Stafford Act appears to have been invoked, and the military and FEMA are now in full control. The Second American Republic has been re-established, and the bankrupt Washington DC corporate state wound up and shut down.

We can now see the Q public awakening and media bypass operation in its proper context, which is the military Law of War manual. This is directly referenced in the Q drops, but it took three years for “anons” to work it out. “Washington DC” was never a State, and hence now forms a hostile power (run by the CCP and others) yet occupied by the US military. “The Bidan Show” is ongoing to draw out all the bad actors and sleepers who falsely believe Joe Biden “won” and got away with the election fraud crime.

They all get to meet their doom as a consequence.

This failure to recapture America spells the collapse of the covert rule of the Venetian (aka Phoenician and Babylonian) mafia banking system, their Egyptian-inspired slavery system, and whatever it was in turn feeding. (That is above my pay grade, but to the “elite” humans are a mix of bushmeat, lab rats, and slave workers. The word “pedovore” is one I wish I didn’t understand.) For clarity, there is definitely no Jewish-led conspiracy! However, Israel is a major player, and USS Liberty false flag is about to go full circle. Nonetheless, the end result for all people is shalom.

The nature of a war of subversion and infiltration, as opposed to subjugation via invasion, is like a cancer that infects and parasitises every organ of civil society. As JFK famously said, “It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.” The events of the last year have demonstrated that academia, law enforcement, the courts, the media, and medicine are all deeply corrupted.

We face turbulent waters ahead, as the political reset and restoration of the American Republic have their domino effect in all of these domains. The cancer of corruption has to be removed without killing its host. The first visible step is the conversion of Washington DC back to plain Washington, and the end of the “Federal” branded corporate government as we have known it. If you watch carefully, you can see that we are “flooding the swamp” right now, as all the subterranean infrastructure of Washington is purged of evil.

We have had a very close shave with totalitarianism, and in the meantime find ourselves in an ongoing dirty “fourth generation” global war, which is de facto WW3. This is “unrestricted”, meaning that there is no formal divide between military and civilian combat operations. There are also no physical or moral boundaries to its conduct. It includes both biological and information weaponry, with these specifically working in alliance to push the Covid fear propaganda. Again, this explains the need for the Q military intelligence operation to raise a digital militia armed with laptops to fight back. The secret and silent war is real, and it is over when it is perceived by all.

As our collective enemy the CCP is just an agent of a bigger and far more wicked agenda. I have learned much of our history is fraudulent and “hacked”. I have discovered what I was taught in school or by TV documentaries is often a perversion of reality. Our timelines have been wrecked, whole nations disappeared (like Tartaria), territory histories deleted (say Antarctica or Greenland), and civilisations ignored (such as the Vedics in India). The “world as we commonly know it” excludes vast infrastructure in and between deep underground military bases (DUMBs) and on the sea bed, and an equally huge Secret Space Program off-world.

The average human wallows in extreme ignorance of the esoteric; the worst case is to be “educated” and overconfident, as you are in the exoteric “knowledge elite”. What is most interesting to me is that the signs of profound change are in the wide open, and the data there for all to see. Take the onrushing financial and economic reset. We have seen $16 trillion of assets poured into XRP crypto technology, and ISO 20022 rolled out to bypass central banking. Gold “reacquisition” and silver repricing anticipate new “rainbow” non-fiat currencies backed by precious metals.

Yet close technology associates working on crypto projects like Cardano/ADA may be unaware of the ultimate purpose of their endeavours, and how they fit into the bigger picture. Indeed, the nature of compartmentalisation means they may reject the actual true purpose of their own work as a “conspiracy theory”! Such is the world we have been living in, where systems of secrecy have been in combat and conflict. The public exposure of these secrets ends the power of secret societies, and triggers a political reset.

It is not just finance and politics that face a total reset. We have been exploited through many other routes, and each one faces a reset. The energy reset moves us from petrochemicals to Tesla-based broadcast power (from both land and space). The communications reset requires the removal of the Mockingbird Media, as well as a new secure space-based Quantum Internet for content distribution. The wellness reset sees the demise of Rockefeller medicine, also based on toxic petrochemicals, and replacement with a mix of simple light and electric therapies all the way through to extremely sophisticated “medbeds”.

The last of these is notably topical via the Coronavirus scamdemic. Current “sickcare” incentives align profit to lifelong unwellness. Suppression of symptoms is rewarded; cures are not. mRNA vaccines fit into this pattern, and are credibly accused of being depopulation bioweapons. Beware suppressing your natural non-specific immunity and arming the cytokine storm hazard!

We potentially face an “AIDS 2.0” megacrisis around the corner due to organ failure, dementia, and death of those who took this gene therapy route. Conversely, we also can anticipate a lifespan revolution for those who make it through these risky times. Choose your path carefully and wisely.

The “total reset of everything” is a process, not an event. For instance, the forced deployment of vaccines in their “experimental” phase means they cannot be mandatory, which removes the ability of the Globalists to coerce everyone to take them. That in turn means the awful consequences cannot just be blamed on “new virus variants” and fan more fear. That some do not take these products, and are not sick as a result, makes it all too obvious that they are dangerous. The reset of medicine takes time.

Despite this, there does seem to be a trigger event for a sudden and massive geopolitical shift. Donald Trump once tweeted “Move slowly, carefully — and then strike like the fastest animal on the planet!”. If the warning signs are to be believed, such a strike could include the destruction of the Three Gorges Dam, ending the CCP. This would kill a lot of people in the process, but stops the Coronavirus global genocide and “vaccine” depopulation agenda.

Such an attack also kills the Bitcoin mining infrastructure under the dam, and destroys the unregulated currencies being used for crimes like human trafficking. The same space-based “Rods from God” weapons can demolish Satanic monuments worldwide, symbolising a change in the global order. Meanwhile, precision cyberweapons can target critical Globalist corporations and revenue streams. Such a strike would result in both global martial law as well as mass awakening to the existence of the war.

Spookdom is impenetrable by its nature, and I only work with open source intelligence.
I have no crystal ball, and no insider contacts. The apparent civil war in the Freemasons — and the uncertainty and confusion it brings — means I am not in a position to see the whole battlefield. Take this as the synthesis of one person; it is not even the summary of an organisation or private intelligence agency. Nonetheless, it seems clear that a process of mega collapse, mega reform, and mega renewal is underway.

The “Great Awakening” is just one part of this “Total Reset of Everything”. I cannot know its scope or timescale. Credible sources have warned me that “nature is coming”. It would make sense that secret societies are aware of cycles of cataclysm, including those that come from space. We may lose a lot of lives, including loved ones. What is at stake is the survival of humanity as a whole. There is no way to sugar coat this.

My work of the last three years documenting the Q project tells me that the “best of the best” are on the case. General Flynn has obliquely confirmed that Donald Trump is the actual President (with the same “two presidencies” as happened in the Civil War era). He has also effectively re-endorsed the Q project in public by approving of its “WWG1WGA” mantra. The military are delivering “Q proofs” by the dozen on Twitter. There are rational reasons to believe that humanity is heading in the right direction, however great the struggle.

We are also very close to some major historical dates with interesting pasts:
April 16 — President Lincoln signed the Compensated Emancipation Act ending slavery.
April 17 — President Kennedy lead the Bay Of Pigs invasion.
April 19 — George Washington leads the 1st American Revolution. Is also Patriots Day celebrating Lexington and Concord.
April 20 — 150th Anniversary of the 1871 Act of England.

I cannot predict the exact sound of the death rattle of the old guard’s system of power. Surprise attacks by both sides are… surprising. If we have to endure a fake holographic alien invasion as a distraction, then so be it! Have steadfast courage: a new culture and a new society for a new Earth is coming, if the “foreshocks” are to be believed. There is a benevolent and peaceful “far side” to this wild ride. For instance, technologies like CRISPR editing and mRNA gene therapies can equally be used to turn off traits that drive psychopathy and human misery. Humanity can blossom when freed from inbred greed.

What doesn’t change in a total reset is the pole star of loving kindness: “Good Wins” because we inhabit a universe whose physics seeks connection over compartmentalisation. That this process of uprooting evil is “Biblical” is not just a metaphor: it traces its roots back through our “family feuds” as a species, all the way to our origins. We are in a “purple platypus” situation – outside of any experienced “black swan” — so the more ancient the wisdom, the more likely it is to apply and to be of value.

The best is yet to come, but to arrive there we may yet have to traverse the worst too. Be accountable for yourself; let others choose their own path. Self-care, self-compassion, and self-worth are the watchwords.

Believe in yourself.
Reclaim your sovereignty
Demand your liberty.

Welcome the Total Reset of Everything.

=============================

Saving America and the world

Saving America and the world  By Martin Geddes, 28 February 2021

 How “The Bidan (sic) Show”
is saving America (and the world)

?This article is not intended for dangerous morons. If you are a dangerous moron who believes that colour revolutions and communist insurrections cannot be attempted in America, please stop reading now. This article will only distress and annoy you, and that would be unkind to yourself.

Thank you.

° ° °

OK, now we’ve insulted the dangerous moron audience segment and driven them away, that leaves the rest of us — who can have an adult conversation about what is really going on in America, and the pivotal role of the media and propaganda in spinning a false reality.

A lot of us are living in frustration that the obvious landslide win of Donald Trump in November — try finding someone who went to a Biden rally — did not result in immediate truth and justice. Our patience is being annealed into a hardened resoluteness to see this through to the end.

Here is my best sense of what is going on; keep in mind I’m just one guy with a laptop and an opinion, and you can have your own equally functional laptop and valid opinion. There is a perverse and paradoxical logic to what is happening, bizarre as it all sounds. As Mark Twain said, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”

° ° °

MAGA is the end game of the original 18th century American Revolution. The European banking aristocracy and monopolising monarchies didn’t just pack up and go home when they were shot at and it was heard around the world. They simply switched tactics and played a long game to stealthily retake America. The war of invasion became a war of infiltration; the War of Independence never ended in reality.

After various attempts to impose a central bank, the 19th century Civil War plunged America into debt and set up the conditions for a “bankocracy” to take power. America was turned into a corporation ruled by a Masonic city state — Washington DC — that was effectively an extension of the alliance of the British Crown (i.e. City of London freemasons) and the Vatican (i.e. Rome freemasons) plus the bloodline families (i.e. occultist banking and commerce mafia).

This allowed maritime and contractual law to displace the people’s sovereign rights under common law, and opened the way for the unconstitutional Federal Reserve to impose debt slavery on Americans. The history of America is a nonstop tussle between individual and state sovereignty versus federal and bankster oligarchy. The good news is that the former have won, and we’re in the final phase of restoring liberty.

The Chinese Communist Party is the front through which the globalist totalitarian banking aristocracy has been operating its plan to gain complete control of this planet. November 2020 was an attempt by the CCP to hijack America — the last bastion of true freedom due to an armed populace — via a classic colour revolution. Demoralise the public via a scamdemic, impose economic hardship by closing small businesses, kill some old people in nursing homes to spread fear and terror, and spray pervasive media lies over any opponent. Then use election fraud to seize control without having to send a single soldier or fire a shot.

° ° °

I was stunned recently when an otherwise lucid professional associate — whose work I admire — said there was no election fraud. The zillionth item of evidence is the hand recount in New Hampshire where the Dominion voting machines short changed only Republican candidates. If you cannot find the evidence, please go back to the beginning of this article and reconsider whether you might be a dangerous moron. Because refusal to consider the possibility and look at the data would surely qualify you for that title.

This election fraud has been going on for decades — a century and more, even. The Bush vs Gore matter in 2000 surfaced a lot of the problems. Our “liberal” (i.e. authoritarian) leftist friends used to complain about the lack of transparency and trustworthiness of voting machines, until it was the hated Donald Trump who was the victim. Then they went silent and decided it was of no importance. Oh well, dangerous morons are a thing after all. We’ll all get over it when the truth comes out.

If you are not a dangerous moron, it is obvious that there is no “Joe Biden” presidency. A fake and unconstitutional prerecorded “inauguration” (where the weather kept magically changing with the camera angle) was attended by military not wearing insignia. There was no handover of the nuclear code “football”, no arrival on Air Force One, no foreign dignitaries, and no salutes.

The White House is empty and dark right now, and there is no Marine guard. The pictures of the Oval Office are visibly of a movie set; they’ve even recycled some of the art from a previous show. Trump hinted in 2019 it wasn’t really Joe Biden himself by calling him “Joe Bidan”, and you can look closely and see it isn’t him. The ears and shape of head are different. Whether it is a double, clone, CGI, actor in a latex mask, hologram, ghostly apparition from another dimension, or all the above — I don’t care and it doesn’t matter.

° ° °

It isn’t just a fake Presidency, it seems like the whole election was a fake — a sting operation to draw out every cunning clown who thought they could get away with a communist takeover in America. Remember, these things are not announced in advance. You only find you’ve got a real communist in power when potential opposition is being exterminated (with no media coverage). You also only get to find out it’s a sting operation when it’s over (and the official state media are discredited).

President Trump has a long history of election fraud tweets. This operation to retake America for its People has been planned for decades. He has executive orders on election fraud and human rights, allowing him to seize the assets of those conspiring against the public and breaking their oath of office. The Stafford Act, 2019 Presidential Handover Act, and Insurrection Act give him the needed powers and allow FEMA and the military to take control. PEADs — Presidential Emergency Action Documents — were established under Eisenhower and are the “nuclear option” of continuity of government for exactly this kind of exigency.

Remember, if you have read this far then you’re not a dangerous moron, so this is all objective stuff that we can believe in. Rational empirical people are driven by evidence, not prior belief or limits of our imagination.

Washington DC is now a prison complex under the control of Gen Walker, not the Mayor, nor “President Bidan”. This allows military tribunals to run for the election fraud: traitors don’t get to spend years fighting in corrupt civilian courts when you work for the CCP. Child sex trafficking is the bedrock of power via blackmail, and its underground infrastructure can be flushed of the nightmarish nastiness that has long been going on. Those responsible won’t be seen again, and deservedly so.

Capturing the leadership of a defunct corporate government that does not represent the people is a political booby prize. Returning power to the people means taking it away from this unaccountable capital of the cancer of corruption. In other words, Washington DC is OVER and FINISHED: it is about to become a museum and alligator swamp reserve. The whole place is one deceptive occult hellhole from conception to demolition. It cannot stand as a totem of the sovereign American People.

° ° °

The establishment of a new free American Republic involves a cutover from the old and bankrupt corporate entity that the “Joe Bidan” movie character heads up. It cannot be done instantly, and those who are losing power would love to create chaos and deny the public their rights and inheritance. Capturing and removing the Deep State isn’t enough; you also need to deliver a functioning society afterwards.

There are very specific benefits of Donald Trump being “off stage” during this transition period:

  • The corrupt mass media that is under CCP control cannot accuse Trump of being a military dictator when the US military overtly becomes in control.
  • It preserves the legality of the change, and avoids confusion for the public of which Presidency they are endorsing (corporate entity vs federation of sovereign states).
  • It ensures the safety of both President Trump and his family, since they are assassination targets. It also avoids the need for rallies or other events where the public would be put at risk of terrorism.
  • “Joe Bidan” can do increasingly absurd things in the “show” — like zany “rule by executive order” — to wake up more “normies” and decrease the “dangerous moron” count.
  • You can do military operations that otherwise would be politically unacceptable (think Iran, Syria).
  • Any chaos is attached to the Deep State and its Democratic and RINO operatives.
  • It gives time for the global takedown to occur, since this all has to be synchronised. Even if America is ready, success is removing all bases of power from which this criminality could return.

Finally, and most importantly, it sets up the total destruction of the Mockingbird Media. They are fully invested in promoting “The Bidan Show” as objective reality. But as with the Truman Show, there is a moment when it “glitches” and the stage set is visible. It only takes the President Bidan actor to remove his latex mask on TV, and it’s all over, as the illusion machine is shattered.

Frank Zappa, no stranger to the military-industrial-entertainment complex, once said: “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

He was nearly right. The deceived element of the public (including a large subset of dangerous morons who pose a civil war risk to us all) will get to watch the curtain pulled back, but instead of a brick wall, they will find that the whole theatre has been dismantled around them. They are free; their “Plato’s Cave” has been excavated and opened to the fresh air.

° ° °

So the “big picture” is that we are watching a total reboot of America, and consequently the world. When a computer reboots its operating system goes down a series of “run levels”, and then back up again. We are experiencing the same thing in America: “The Bidan Show” is just a “holding screen” and distraction put on to educate the public while the military does the election fraud cleanup operation. This is done at the lowest Constitutional “run level” where normal civilian government is (quietly) suspended. The inevitable riots and chaos of the wakeup phase — when this is all official and in the open— have to wait until the cleanup is finished. One problem at a time.

As this corrupt bankocracy is removed from power we will likely experience a financial reset, exposure of these war crimes, and disclosure of the hidden technology that has been hoarded by a minority in secret (yet paid for by the public). It is already happening — and seems like something from a sci-fi movie. But you can go check out the legit anti-gravity and energy devices from the US Navy on the official patent site.

Having Donald Trump immediately be re-elected in November would have been a strategic failure, even if it offered a temporary emotional release. It would have perpetuated the fake corporate government, and sustained the illusion of its legitimacy. The two real tasks are to prevent a descent into civil war in the short run, and to prevent a recurrence of this horror show in the long run. “The Bidan Show” is a necessary “liminal passage” in the story of the rebirth of America. It cleverly skirts around the traps that would lead to disaster and the prize of peace being snatched away at the last minute.

° ° °

The cancer of corruption is an aggressive one, and returns easily. Its cure demands the total elimination if the mass media brainwashing machine. You may have noticed how quiet Hollywood has been recently; it is equally as finished as Washington DC. Allowing the election fraud to happen sets up the case for strong voter ID and robust election technology. Changes that were previously unthinkable will be demanded by all as they understand how close they came to losing their Republic and freedom.

Saving America is not the hard part; keeping her saved is the real struggle. Only a massive cultural shift can achieve this. “The Bidan Show” triggers self-identification of the “dangerous morons” and authoritarian colluders in our society. Their loss of credibiltiy in turn forces a reordering of power among the people towards Patriots. A lot of arrogant and prideful dangerous morons are about to get the hardest lesson of their lives as their conceit and carelessness is exposed. Academia is set for revolt and revolution, mass media for implosion, “sick care” medicine for replacement. It’s an “apocalypse of authority”.

The Q military intelligence operation has prepared Patriots for this time of upheaval — The Great Awakening. We are given objective reasons to believe this is a carefully planned process with a benevolent outcome, so we do not engage in our own insurrection against an illegitimate entity in Washington DC. The genius combination of plausible deniability and strategic ambiguity delivers exactly the right information at the right moments to those with the eyes to see. Shelves of books will be written about how this sensational covert military plan was executed.

° ° °

The bottom line is that we are in an epic transition from slavery to sovereignty, poverty to prosperity, and war to peace. We may have some difficult struggles ahead — food shortages, nature causing havoc, genocidal pharma “vaccines” — but we will overcome them. But at least we won’t have to endure the lies of the Mockingbird Media for much longer.

Nor will we have to suffer the mocking of dangerous morons. “The Bidan Show” says wakeup time is almost here for everyone. The multi-year cleanup is nearly done. America has been saved by its military and Patriots. The whole world is next.

Enjoy the show!

======================

Great Reset? Putin Says, “Not So Fast”

Great Reset. Putin Says, Not So Fast  By Tom Luongo, Zerohedge, 13 February 2021

Did you happen to catch the most important political speech of the last six years?

It would have been easy to miss given everything going on.  In fact, I almost did, and this speech sits at the intersection of nearly all of my areas of intense study.

The annual World Economic Forum took place last week via teleconference, what I’m calling Virtual Davos, and at this year’s event, of course, the signature topic was their project called the Great Reset.

But if the WEF was so intent on presenting the best face for the Great Reset to the world it wouldn’t have invited either Chinese Premier Xi Jinping or, more importantly, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And it was Putin’s speech that brought down the house of cards that is the agenda of the WEF.

The last time someone walked into a major international forum and issued such a scathing critique of the current geopolitical landscape was Putin’s speech to the United Nations on September 29th, 2015, two days before he sent a small contingency of Russian air support to Syria.

There he excoriated not only the U.N. by name but most importantly the U.S. and its NATO allies by inference asking the most salient question, “Do you understand what you have done?” having unleashed chaos in an already chaotic part of the world?

As important as that speech was it was Putin’s actions after that which defined the current era of geopolitical chess across the Eurasian continent.   Syria became the nexus around which the resistance to the “ISIS is invincible” narrative unraveled

And the mystery of who was behind ISIS, namely the Obama administration, was revealed to anyone paying attention.

President Trump may have taken credit for beating ISIS, but it was mostly Putin and Russia’s forces retaking the Western part of Syria which allowed that to happen, while our globalist generals, like James Mattis, did as much damage to Syria itself and as little to ISIS as possible, hoping to use them again another day.

And regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the U.S.’s policy in Syria, which I most definitely do not, it is hard to argue that Russia’s intervention there fundamentally changed the regional politics and conflicts for the foreseeable future.

It was the beginning of the voluntary disconnection of China, Russia and Iran from the West.

For standing athwart U.S. and European designs on consolidating power in the Middle East, Russia has been vilified in the West in ways that make the indoctrination I received as a kid growing up in the Cold War look like vacation advertisements for spending the summer in Crimea.

But it is that strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. He’s done wonders in rebuilding Russia.

He’s made many mistakes, mostly by first trusting American Presidents and second by underestimating just how arrogant and rapacious the leadership in Europe is.

That said, he’s now reached his limit, especially with Europe, and he’s set a firmly independent path for Russia regardless of the short-term costs.

And that’s why his speech at the World Economic Forum was so important.

Putin hadn’t spoken there for nearly a decade.  In a time when WEF-controlled puppets dominate positions of power in Europe, the U.K., Canada and now the U.S., Putin walked into Virtual Davos and dumped his coffee on the carpet.

In terms I can only describe as unfailingly polite, Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Putin literally laughed at the idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – Schwab’s idea of a planned society through AI, robots and the merging of man and machine.

He flat-out told them their policies driving the middle class to the brink of extinction over the COVID-19 pandemic will further increase social and political unrest while also ensuring wealth inequality gets worse.

Putin’s no flower-throwing libertarian or anything, but his critique of the hyper-financialized post-Soviet era is accurate.

The era dominated by central banking and the continued merging of state and corporate powers has increased wealth inequality across the U.S. and Europe, benefiting millions while extracting the wealth of billions.

Listening to Putin was like listening to a cross between Pat Buchanan and the late Walter Williams.  According to him the neoliberal ideal of “invite the world/invade the world” has destroyed the cultural ties within countries while hollowing out their economic prospects.  Putin criticized zero-bound interest rates, QE, tariffs and sanctions as political weapons.

But the targets of those weapons, while nominally pointed at his Russia, were really the West’s own engines of vitality, as the middle classes have seen their wages stagnate, and access to education, medical care, and the courts to redress grievances fall dramatically.

Russia is a country on the rise, so is China.  Once their ties are embedded deeply enough to stabilize its economy, so too will Iran rise.

Together they will lead the central Asian landmass out of the nineteenth-century quagmire that exists thanks to British and American intervention in the region.  Putin’s speech made it clear that Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs in Europe.

In a less confrontational address, Chairman Xi said the same thing.

He gave lip service, like Putin, to climate change and carbon neutrality, focusing instead on pollution and sustainability.

Together they basically told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. 

I’ve followed Putin closely for nearly a decade now.  I got the feeling that if he was speaking to a college-level political science class and not a convocation of some of the most powerful people in the world he would been laughed in their faces.

But, unfortunately, he understands better than any of us having been the object of their aggression for so long, he had to treat them seriously as their grasp of reality and connectedness to the people they ruled was nearly severed.

At the end of his planned remarks, Klaus Schwab asked Putin about Russia’s troubled relationship with Europe and could it be fixed.  Putin pulled no punches. 

If we can rise above these problems of the past and get rid of these phobias, then we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations.

We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make this happen. But love is impossible if it is declared only by one side. It must be mutual.

I don’t get the sense from anything I’ve seen from the Biden Administration or the European Commission in Brussels that anyone heard a word he said.

=====================

What Is the Great Reset? Part I: Reduced Expectations and Bio-techno-feudalism

What Is the Great Reset. Part 1 Reduced Expectations and Bio-techno-feudalism  By Michael Rectenwald, Mises Institute, 18 December 2020

The Great Reset is on everyone’s mind, whether everyone knows it or not. It is presaged by the measures undertaken by states across the world in response to the covid-19 crisis. (I mean by “crisis” not the so-called pandemic itself, but the responses to a novel virus called SARS-2 and the impact of the responses on social and economic conditions.)

In his book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab writes that the covid-19 crisis should be regarded as an “opportunity [that can be] seized to make the kind of institutional changes and policy choices that will put economies on the path toward a fairer, greener future.”1 Although Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset for years, the covid crisis has provided a pretext for finally enacting it. According to Schwab, we should not expect the postcovid world system to return to its previous modes of operation. Rather, alternating between description and prescription, Schwab suggests that changes will be, or should be, enacted across interlocking, interdependent domains to produce a new normal.

So, just what is the Great Reset and what is the new normal it would establish?

The Great Reset means reduced incomes and carbon use. But Schwab and the WEF also define the Great Reset in terms of the convergence of economic, monetary, technological, medical, genomic, environmental, military, and governance systems. The Great Reset would involve vast transformations in each of these domains, changes which, according to Schwab, will not only alter our world but also lead us to “question what it means to be human.”2

In terms of economics and monetary policy, the Great Reset would involve a consolidation of wealth, on the one hand, and the likely issuance of universal basic income (UBI) on the other.3 It might include a shift to a digital currency,4 including a consolidated centralization of banking and bank accounts, immediate real-time taxation, negative interest rates, and centralized surveillance and control over spending and debt.

While every aspect of the Great Reset involves technology, the Great Reset specifically entails “the Fourth Industrial Revolution,”5 or transhumanism, which includes the expansion of genomics, nanotechnology, and robotics and their penetration into human bodies and brains. Of course, the fourth Industrial Revolution involves the redundancy of human labor in increasing sectors, to be replaced by automation. But moreover, Schwab hails the use of nanotechnology and brain scans to predict and preempt human behavior.

The Great Reset means the issuance of medical passports, soon to be digitized, as well as the transparency of medical records inclusive of medical history, genetic makeup, and disease states. But it could include the implanting of microchips that would read and report on genetic makeup and brain states such that “[e]ven crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk.”6

On the genomic front, the Great Reset includes advances in genetic engineering and the fusion of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics.

In military terms, the Great Reset entails the creation of new battle spaces including cyberspaces and the human brain as a battle space.7

In terms of governance, the Great Reset means increasingly centralized, coordinated, and expanded government and “governmentalities,” the convergence of corporations and states, and the digitalization of governmental functions, including, with the use of 5G and predictive algorithms, real-time tracking and surveillance of bodies in space or the “anticipatory governance” of human and systems behavior.8

That being said, “the Great Reset” is but a coordinated propaganda campaign shrouded under a cloak of inevitability. Rather than a mere conspiracy theory, as the New York Times has suggested,9 the Great Reset is an attempt at a conspiracy, or the “wishful thinking”10 of socioeconomic planners to have corporate “stakeholders”11 and governments adopt the desiderata of the WEF.

In order to sell this package, the WEF mobilizes the warmed-over rhetoric of “economic equality,” “fairness,” “inclusion,” and “a shared destiny,” among other euphemisms.12 Together, such phrases represent the collectivist, socialist political and ideological component of the envisioned corporate socialism13 (since economic socialism can never be enacted, it is always only political and ideological).

I’ll examine the prospects for the Great Reset in future installments. But suffice it to say for now that the WEF envisions a bio-techno-feudalist global order, with socioeconomic planners and corporate “stakeholders” at the helm and the greater part of humanity in their thrall. The mass of humanity, the planners would have it, will live under an economic stasis of reduced expectations, with individual autonomy greatly curtailed if not utterly obliterated. As Mises suggested, such planners are authoritarians who mean to supplant the plans of individual actors with their own, centralized plans. If enacted, such plans would fail, but their adoption would nevertheless exact a price.

Author:

Contact Michael Rectenwald

Michael Rectenwald was a professor of liberal studies at New York University (retired).

========================

Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset

Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset  From WinterOak.org.uk, Off-Guardian.org, 2 November 2020

Editor’s note: Click on link above to see the article with all the compelling graphics.

Winter Oak

Born in Ravensburg in 1938, Klaus Schwab is a child of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, a police-state regime built on fear and violence, on brainwashing and control, on propaganda and lies, on industrialism and eugenics, on dehumanisation and “disinfection”, on a chilling and grandiose vision of a “new order” that would last a thousand years.

Schwab seems to have dedicated his life to reinventing that nightmare and to trying to turn it into a reality not just for Germany but for the whole world.

Worse still, as his own words confirm time and time again, his technocratic fascist vision is also a twisted transhumanist one, which will merge humans with machines in “curious mixes of digital-and-analog life”, which will infect our bodies with “Smart Dust” and in which the police will apparently be able to read our brains.

And, as we will see, he and his accomplices are using the Covid-19 crisis to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will in what he terms a “Great Reset“.

Schwab is not, of course, a Nazi in the classic sense, being neither a nationalist nor an anti-semite, as testified by the $1 million Dan David Prize he was awarded by Israel in 2004.

But 21st century fascism has found different political forms through which to continue its core project of reshaping humanity to suit capitalism through blatantly authoritarian means.

This new fascism is today being advanced in the guise of global governance, biosecurity, the “New Normal”, the “New Deal for Nature” and the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

Schwab, the octogenarian founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, sits at the centre of this matrix like a spider on a giant web.

The original fascist project, in Italy and Germany, was all about a merger of state and business.

While communism envisages the take-over of business and industry by the government, which – theoretically! – acts in the interests of the people, fascism was all about using the state to protect and advance the interests of the wealthy elite.

Schwab was continuing this approach in a denazified post-WW2 context, when in 1971 he founded the European Management Forum, which held annual meetings at Davos in Switzerland.

Here he promoted his ideology of “stakeholder” capitalism in which businesses were brought into closer co-operation with government.

“Stakeholder capitalism” is described by Forbes business magazine as:

the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community, and society as a whole.”

Even in the context of a particular business, it is invariably an empty label. As the Forbes article notes, it actually only means that “firms can go on privately shoveling money to their shareholders and executives, while maintaining a public front of exquisite social sensitivity and exemplary altruism”.

But in a general social context, the stakeholder concept is even more nefarious, discarding any idea of democracy, rule by the people, in favour of rule by corporate interests.

Society is no longer regarded as a living community but as a business, whose profitability is the sole valid aim of human activity.

Schwab set out this agenda back in 1971, in his book Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau (Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering), where his use of the term “stakeholders” (die Interessenten) effectively redefined human beings not as citizens, free individuals or members of communities, but as secondary participants in a massive commercial enterprise.

The aim of each and every person’s life was “to achieve long-term growth and prosperity” for this enterprise – in other words, to protect and increase the wealth of the capitalist elite.

This all became even clearer in 1987, when Schwab renamed his European Management Forum the World Economic Forum.

The WEF describes itself on its own website as “the global platform for public-private cooperation”, with admirers describing how it creates “partnerships between businessmen, politicians, intellectuals and other leaders of society to ‘define, discuss and advance key issues on the global agenda’.”

The “partnerships” which the WEF creates are aimed at replacing democracy with a global leadership of hand-picked and unelected individuals whose duty is not to serve the public, but to impose the rule of the 1% on that public with as little interference from the rest of us as possible.

In the books Schwab writes for public consumption, he expresses himself in the two-faced clichés of corporate spin and greenwashing.

The same empty terms are dished up time and time again. In Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World Schwab talks of “the inclusion of stakeholders and the distribution of benefits” and of “sustainable and inclusive partnerships” which will lead us all to an “inclusive, sustainable and prosperous future”! [1]

Behind this bluster, the real motivation behind his “stakeholder capitalism”, which he was still relentlessly promoting at the WEF’s 2020 Davos conference, is profit and exploitation.

For instance, in his 2016 book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab writes about the Uberisation of work and the consequent advantages for companies, particularly fast-growing start-ups in the digital economy:

As human cloud platforms classify workers as self-employed, they are—for the moment—free of the requirement to pay minimum wages, employer taxes and social benefits”. [2]

The same capitalist callousness shines through in his attitude towards people nearing the end of their working lives and in need of a well-deserved rest:

Aging is an economic challenge because unless retirement ages are drastically increased so that older members of society can continue to contribute to the workforce (an economic imperative that has many economic benefits), the working-age population falls at the same time as the percentage of dependent elders increases”.[2]

Everything in this world is reduced to economic challenges, economic imperatives and economic benefits for the ruling capitalist class.

The myth of Progress has long been used by the 1% to persuade people to accept the technologies designed to exploit and control us and Schwab plays on this when he declares that “the Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a significant source of hope for continuing the climb in human development that has resulted in dramatic increases in quality of life for billions of people since 1800”.[2]

He enthuses:

While it may not feel momentous to those of us experiencing a series of small but significant adjustments to life on a daily basis, it is not a minor change—the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a new chapter in human development, on a par with the first, second and third Industrial Revolutions, and once again driven by the increasing availability and interaction of a set of extraordinary technologies.[1]

But he is well aware that technology is not ideologically neutral, as some like to claim. Technologies and societies shape each other, he says.

After all, technologies are tied up in how we know things, how we make decisions, and how we think about ourselves and each other. They are connected to our identities, worldviews and potential futures. From nuclear technologies to the space race, smartphones, social media, cars, medicine and infrastructure—the meaning of technologies makes them political. Even the concept of a ‘developed’ nation implicitly rests on the adoption of technologies and what they mean for us, economically and socially.[1]

Technology, for the capitalists behind it, has never been about social good but purely about profit, and Schwab makes it quite clear that the same remains true of his Fourth Industrial Revolution.

He enthuses:

Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies are truly disruptive—they upend existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering. They represent entirely new ways of creating value for organizations and citizens”.[1]

In case the meaning of “creating value” was not clear, he gives some examples: “Drones represent a new type of cost-cutting employee working among us and performing jobs that once involved real people”[1] and “the use of ever-smarter algorithms is rapidly extending employee productivity—for example, in the use of chat bots to augment (and, increasingly, replace) ‘live chat’ support for customer interactions”.[1]

Schwab goes into some detail about the cost-cutting, profit-boosting marvels of his brave new world in The Fourth Industrial Revolution.

He explains:

Sooner than most anticipate, the work of professions as different as lawyers, financial analysts, doctors, journalists, accountants, insurance underwriters or librarians may be partly or completely automated…
[…]
The technology is progressing so fast that Kristian Hammond, cofounder of Narrative Science, a company specializing in automated narrative generation, forecasts that by the mid-2020s, 90% of news could be generated by an algorithm, most of it without any kind of human intervention (apart from the design of the algorithm, of course).[2]

It is this economic imperative that informs Schwab’s enthusiasm for “a revolution that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another”.[2]

Schwab waxes lyrical about the 4IR, which he insists is “unlike anything humankind has experienced before”.[2]

He gushes:

Consider the unlimited possibilities of having billions of people connected by mobile devices, giving rise to unprecedented processing power, storage capabilities and knowledge access. Or think about the staggering confluence of emerging technology breakthroughs, covering wide-ranging fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, the internet of things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing, to name a few. Many of these innovations are in their infancy, but they are already reaching an inflection point in their development as they build on and amplify each other in a fusion of technologies across the physical, digital and biological worlds.[2]

He also looks forward to more online education, involving “the use of virtual and augmented reality” to “dramatically improve educational outcomes” [1], to sensors “installed in homes, clothes and accessories, cities, transport and energy networks” [2] and to smart cities, with their all-important “data platforms”.[2]

“All things will be smart and connected to the internet”, says Schwab, and this will extend to animals, as “sensors wired in cattle can communicate to each other through a mobile phone network”.[2]

He loves the idea of “smart cell factories” which could enable “the accelerated generation of vaccines” [1] and “big-data technologies”.[2]

These, he ensures us, will “deliver new and innovative ways to service citizens and customers”[2] and we will have to stop objecting to businesses profiting from harnessing and selling information about every aspect of our personal lives.

“Establishing trust in the data and algorithms used to make decisions will be vital,” insists Schwab. “Citizen concerns over privacy and establishing accountability in business and legal structures will require adjustments in thinking”.[2]

At the end of the day it is clear that all this technological excitement revolves purely around profit, or “value” as Schwab prefers to term it in his 21st century corporate newspeak.

Thus blockchain technology will be fantastic and provoke “an explosion in tradable assets, as all kinds of value exchange can be hosted on the blockchain”.[2]

The use of distributed ledger technology, adds Schwab, “could be the driving force behind massive flows of value in digital products and services, providing secure digital identities that can make new markets accessible to anyone connected to the internet”. [1]

In general, the interest of the 4IR for the ruling business elite is that it will “create entirely new sources of value” [1] and “give rise to ecosystems of value creation that are impossible to imagine with a mindset stuck in the third Industrial Revolution”. [1]

The technologies of the 4IR, rolled out via 5G, pose unprecedented threats to our freedom, as Schwab concedes:

The tools of the fourth industrial revolution enable new forms of surveillance and other means of control that run counter to healthy, open societies.”[2]

But this does not stop him presenting them in a positive light, as when he declares that “public crime is likely to decrease due to the convergence of sensors, cameras, AI and facial recognition software”. [1]

He describes with some relish how these technologies “can intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior”. [1]

Schwab predicts:

As capabilities in this area improve, the temptation for law enforcement agencies and courts to use techniques to determine the likelihood of criminal activity, assess guilt or even possibly retrieve memories directly from people’s brains will increase. Even crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk”. [1]

There are times when the WEF chief gets carried away by his passion for a sci-fi future in which “long-distance human space travel and nuclear fusion are commonplace”[1] and in which “the next trending business model” might involve someone “trading access to his or her thoughts for the time-saving option of typing a social media post by thought alone”.[1]

Talk of “space tourism” under the title “The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the final frontier” [1] is almost funny, as is his suggestion that “a world full of drones offers a world full of possibilities”.[1]

But the further the reader progresses into the world depicted in Schwab’s books, the less of a laughing matter it all seems.

The truth is that this highly influential figure, at the centre of the new global order currently being established, is an out-and-out transhumanist who dreams of an end to natural healthy human life and community.

Schwab repeats this message time and time again, as if to be sure we have been duly warned.

The mind-boggling innovations triggered by the fourth industrial revolution, from biotechnology to AI, are redefining what it means to be human,” [2]

The future will challenge our understanding of what it means to be human, from both a biological and a social standpoint”.[1]

Already, advances in neurotechnologies and biotechnologies are forcing us to question what it means to be human”.[1]

He spells it out in more detail in Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution[1]:

Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us. Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains. Exoskeletons and prosthetics will increase our physical power, while advances in neurotechnology enhance our cognitive abilities.

We will become better able to manipulate our own genes, and those of our children. These developments raise profound questions: Where do we draw the line between human and machine? What does it mean to be human?

A whole section of this book is devoted to the theme “Altering the Human Being”. Here he drools over “the ability of new technologies to literally become part of us” and invokes a cyborg future involving “curious mixes of digital-and-analog life that will redefine our very natures”. [1]

He writes:

These technologies will operate within our own biology and change how we interface with the world. They are capable of crossing the boundaries of body and mind, enhancing our physical abilities, and even having a lasting impact on life itself.”[1]

No violation seems to go too far for Schwab, who dreams of “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies”, “smart tattoos”“biological computing” and “custom-designed organisms”.[1]

He is delighted to report that “sensors, memory switches and circuits can be encoded in common human gut bacteria”,[1] that “Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body” and that “implanted devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals”.[1]

“Synthetic biology” is on the horizon in Schwab’s 4IR world, giving the technocratic capitalist rulers of the world “the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA”.[2]

The idea of neurotechnologies, in which humans will have fully artificial memories implanted in the brain, is enough to make some of us feel faintly sick, as is “the prospect of connecting our brains to VR through cortical modems, implants or nanobots”.[1]

It is of little comfort to learn that this is all – of course! – in the greater interests of capitalist profiteering since it “heralds new industries and systems for value creation” and “represents an opportunity to create entire new systems of value in the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.[1]

And what about “the bioprinting of organic tissues” [1] or the suggestion that “animals could potentially be engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and other forms of treatment”? [2]

Ethical objections, anyone?

It’s all evidently good for Schwab, who is happy to announce:

The day when cows are engineered to produce in its [sic] milk a blood-clotting element, which hemophiliacs lack, is not far off. Researchers have already started to engineer the genomes of pigs with the goal of growing organs suitable for human transplantation”.[2]

It gets even more disturbing. Ever since the sinister eugenics programme of the Nazi Germany into which Schwab was born, this science has been deemed beyond the pale by human society.

But now, however, he evidently feels eugenics is due a revival, announcing with regard to genetic editing:

That it is now far easier to manipulate with precision the human genome within viable embryos means that we are likely to see the advent of designer babies in the future who possess particular traits or who are resistant to a specific disease.”[2]

In the notorious 2002 transhumanist treatise I, Cyborg, Kevin Warwick predicts:

Humans will be able to evolve by harnessing the super-intelligence and extra abilities offered by the machines of the future, by joining with them. All this points to the development of a new human species, known in the science-fiction world as ‘cyborgs’. It doesn’t mean that everyone has to become a cyborg. If you are happy with your state as a human then so be it, you can remain as you are. But be warned – just as we humans split from our chimpanzee cousins years ago, so cyborgs will split from humans. Those who remain as humans are likely to become a sub-species. They will, effectively, be the chimpanzees of the future. [3]

Schwab seems to be hinting at the same future of a “superior” enhanced artificial transhuman elite separating from the natural-born rabble, in this particularly damning passage from 4IR:

We are at the threshold of a radical systemic change that requires human beings to adapt continuously. As a result, we may witness an increasing degree of polarization in the world, marked by those who embrace change versus those who resist it.

This gives rise to an inequality that goes beyond the societal one described earlier. This ontological inequality will separate those who adapt from those who resist—the material winners and losers in all senses of the words.

The winners may even benefit from some form of radical human improvement generated by certain segments of the fourth industrial revolution (such as genetic engineering) from which the losers will be deprived. This risks creating class conflicts and other clashes unlike anything we have seen before.[2]

Schwab was already talking about a “great transformation” back in 2016[2] and is clearly determined to do everything in his not inconsiderable power to bring about his eugenics-inspired transhumanist world of artifice, surveillance, control and exponential profit.

But, as revealed by his reference above to “class conflicts”, he is clearly worried by the possibility of “societal resistance”[1] and how to advance “if technologies receive a great deal of resistance from the public”.[1]

Schwab’s annual WEF shindigs at Davos have long been met by anti-capitalist protests and, despite the current paralysis of the radical left, he is well aware of the possibility of renewed and perhaps broader opposition to his project, with the risk of “resentment, fear and political backlash”.[1]

In his most recent book he provides a historical context, noting that “antiglobalization was strong in the run-up to 1914 and up to 1918, then less so during the 1920s, but it reignited in the 1930s as a result of the Great Depression”. [4]

He notes that in the early 2000s “the political and societal backlash against globalization relentlessly gained strength”,[4] says that “social unrest” has been widespread across the world in the past two years, citing the Gilets Jaunes in France among other movements, and invokes the “sombre scenario” that “the same could happen again”.[4]

So how is an honest technocrat supposed to roll out his preferred future for the world without the agreement of the global public? How can Schwab and his billionaire friends impose their favoured society on the rest of us?

One answer is relentless brainwashing propaganda churned out by the mass media and academia owned by the 1% elite – what they like to call “a narrative”.

For Schwab, the reluctance of the majority of humankind to leap aboard his 4IR express reflects the tragedy that:

the world lacks a consistent, positive and common narrative that outlines the opportunities and challenges of the fourth industrial revolution, a narrative that is essential if we are to empower a diverse set of individuals and communities and avoid a popular backlash against the fundamental changes under way”.[2]

He adds:

It is, therefore, critical that we invest attention and energy in multistakeholder cooperation across academic, social, political, national and industry boundaries. These interactions and collaborations are needed to create positive, common and hope-filled narratives, enabling individuals and groups from all parts of the world to participate in, and benefit from, the ongoing transformations.”[2]

One of these “narratives” whitewashes the reasons for which 4IR technology needs to be installed everywhere in the world as soon as possible.

Schwab is frustrated that “more than half of the world’s population—around 3.9 billion people—still cannot access the internet”,[1] with 85% of the population of developing countries remaining offline and therefore out of reach, as compared to 22% in the developed world.

The actual aim of the 4IR is to exploit these populations for profit via global techno-imperialism, but of course that cannot be stated in the propaganda “narrative” required to sell the plan.

Instead, their mission has to be presented, as Schwab himself does, as a bid to “develop technologies and systems that serve to distribute economic and social values such as income, opportunity and liberty to all stakeholders”.[1]

He piously postures as a guardian of woke liberal values, declaring:

Thinking inclusively goes beyond thinking about poverty or marginalized communities simply as an aberration—something that we can solve. It forces us to realize that ‘our privileges are located on the same map as their suffering’. It moves beyond income and entitlements, though these remain important. Instead, the inclusion of stakeholders and the distribution of benefits expand freedoms for all.”[1]

The same technique, of a fake “narrative” designed to fool good-thinking citizens into supporting an imperialist capitalist scheme, has been used extensively with regard to climate change.

Schwab is a great fan of Greta Thunberg, of course, who had barely stood up from the pavement after her one-girl protest in Stockholm before being whisked off to address the WEF at Davos.

He is also a supporter of the proposed global New Deal for Nature, particularly via Voice for the Planet, which was launched at the WEF in Davos in 2019 by the Global Shapers, a youth-grooming organisation created by Schwab in 2011 and aptly described by investigative journalist Cory Morningstar as “a grotesque display of corporate malfeasance disguised as good”.

In his 2020 book, Schwab actually lays out the way that fake “youth activism” is being used to advance his capitalist aims.

He writes, in a remarkably frank passage:

Youth activism is increasing worldwide, being revolutionized by social media that increases mobilization to an extent that would have been impossible before. It takes many different forms, ranging from non-institutionalized political participation to demonstrations and protests, and addresses issues as diverse as climate change, economic reforms, gender equality and LGBTQ rights. The young generation is firmly at the vanguard of social change. There is little doubt that it will be the catalyst for change and a source of critical momentum for the Great Reset.[4]

In fact, of course, the ultra-industrial future proposed by Schwab is anything other than green. It’s not nature he’s interested in, but “natural capital” and “incentivizing investment in green and social frontier markets”.[4]

Pollution means profit and environmental crisis is just another business opportunity, as he details in The Fourth Industrial Revolution:

In this revolutionary new industrial system, carbon dioxide turns from a greenhouse pollutant into an asset, and the economics of carbon capture and storage move from being cost as well as pollution sinks to becoming profitable carbon-capture and use-production facilities. Even more important, it will help companies, governments and citizens become more aware of and engaged with strategies to actively regenerate natural capital, allowing intelligent and regenerative uses of natural capital to guide sustainable production and consumption and give space for biodiversity to recover in threatened areas.[2]

Schwab’s “solutions” to the heart-breaking damage inflicted on our natural world by industrial capitalism involve more of the same poison, except worse.

Geoengineering is one of his favourites:

Proposals include installing giant mirrors in the stratosphere to deflect the sun’s rays, chemically seeding the atmosphere to increase rainfall and the deployment of large machines to remove carbon dioxide from the air.”[1]

And he adds:

New approaches are currently being imagined through the combination of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, such as nanoparticles and other advanced materials.”[1]

Like all the businesses and pro-capitalist NGOs backing the threatened New Deal for Nature, Schwab is utterly and profoundly ungreen.

For him, the “ultimate possibility” of “clean” and “sustainable” energy includes nuclear fusion[1] and he looks forward to the day when satellites will “blanket the planet with communications pathways that could help connect the more than 4 billion people still lacking online access”.[1]

Schwab also very much regrets all that red tape preventing the unhindered onward march of GM food, warning that:

global food security will only be achieved, however, if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops.”[1]

The new order envisaged by Schwab will embrace the entire world and so global governance is required in order to impose it, as he repeatedly states.

His preferred future “will only come about through improved global governance”[4] he insists. “Some form of effective global governance”[4] is needed.

The problem we have today is that of a possible “global order deficit”,[4] he claims, adding improbably that the World Health Organization “is saddled with limited and dwindling resources”.[4]

What he is really saying is that his 4IR/great reset society will only function if it imposed simultaneously everywhere on the planet, otherwise “we will become paralysed in our attempts to address and respond to global challenges”.[4]

He admits:

In a nutshell, global governance is at the nexus of all these other issues.”[4]

This all-englobing empire very much frowns on the idea of any particular population democratically deciding to take another path. These “risk becoming isolated from global norms, putting these nations at risk of becoming the laggards of the new digital economy”,[2] warns Schwab.

Any sense of autonomy and grassroots belonging is regarded as a threat from Schwab’s imperialist perspective and is due to be eradicated under the 4IR.

He writes:

Individuals used to identify their lives most closely with a place, an ethnic group, a particular culture or even a language. The advent of online engagement and increased exposure to ideas from other cultures means that identities are now more fungible than previously… Thanks to the combination of historical migration patterns and low-cost connectivity, family structures are being redefined.[2]

Genuine democracy essentially falls into the same category for Schwab. He knows that most people will not willingly go along with plans to destroy their lives and enslave them to a global techno-fascist system of exploitation, so giving them a say in the matter is simply not an option.

This is why the “stakeholder” concept has been so important for Schwab’s project. As discussed above, this is the negation of democracy, with its emphasis instead on “reaching out across stakeholder groups for solution building”.[1]

If the public, the people, are included in this process it is only at a superficial level. The agenda has already been pre-supposed and the decisions pre-made behind the scenes.

Schwab effectively admits as much when he writes:

We must re-establish a dialogue among all stakeholders to ensure mutual understanding that further builds a culture of trust among regulators, non-governmental organizations, professionals and scientists. The public must also be considered, because it must participate in the democratic shaping of biotechnological developments that affect society, individuals and cultures.[1]

So the public must “also” be considered, as an afterthought. Not even directly consulted, just “considered”! And the role of the people, the demos, will merely be to “participate” in the “shaping” of biotechnological developments.

The possibility of the public actually rejecting the very idea of biotechnological developments has been entirely removed thanks to the deliberately in-built assumptions of the stakeholder formula.

The same message is implied in the heading of Schwab’s conclusion to Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “What You Can Do to Shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.[1] The techno-tyranny cannot challenged or stopped, merely “shaped”.

Schwab uses the term “systems leadership” to describe the profoundly anti-democratic way in which the 1% imposes its agenda on us all, without giving us the chance to say ‘no’.

He writes:

Systems leadership is about cultivating a shared vision for change—working together with all stakeholders of global society—and then acting on it to change how the system delivers its benefits, and to whom. Systems leadership requires action from all stakeholders, including individuals, business executives, social influencers and policy-makers”.[1]

He refers to this full-spectrum top-down control as “the system management of human existence”[1] although others might prefer the term “totalitarianism”.

One of the distinguishing features of historical fascism in Italy and Germany was its impatience with the inconvenient restraints imposed on the ruling class (“the Nation” in fascist language) by democracy and political liberalism.

All of this had to be swept out of the way to allow a Blitzkrieg of accelerated “modernisation”.

We see the same spirit resurging in Schwab’s calls for “agile governance” in which he claims that “the pace of technological development and a number of characteristics of technologies render previous policy-making cycles and processes inadequate”.[1]

He writes:

The idea of reforming governance models to cope with new technologies is not new, but the urgency of doing so is far greater in light of the power of today’s emerging technologies… the concept of agile governance seeks to match the nimbleness, fluidity, flexibility and adaptiveness of the technologies themselves and the private-sector actors adopting them”.[1]

The phrase “reforming governance models to cope with new technologies” really gives the game away here. As under fascism, social structures must be reinvented so as to accommodate the requirements of capitalism and its profit-increasing technologies.

Schwab explains that his “agile governance” would involve creating so-called policy labs – “protected spaces within government with an explicit mandate to experiment with new methods of policy development by using agile principles” – and “encouraging collaborations between governments and businesses to create ‘developtory sandboxes’ and ‘experimental testbeds’ to develop regulations using iterative, cross-sectoral and flexible approaches”.[1]

For Schwab, the role of the state is to advance capitalist aims, not to hold them up to any form of scrutiny. While he is all in favour of the state’s role in enabling a corporate take-over of our lives, he is less keen about its regulatory function, which might slow down the inflow of profit into private hands, and so he envisages “the development of ecosystems of private regulators, competing in markets”.[1]

In his 2018 book, Schwab discusses the problem of pesky regulations and how best to “overcome these limits” in the context of data and privacy.

He comes up with the suggestion of

public-private data-sharing agreements that ‘break glass in case of emergency’. These come into play only under pre-agreed emergency circumstances (such as a pandemic) and can help reduce delays and improve the coordination of first responders, temporarily allowing data sharing that would be illegal under normal circumstances.” [1]

Funnily enough, two years later there was indeed a “pandemic” and these “pre-agreed emergency circumstances” became a reality.

This shouldn’t have been too much of a surprise for Schwab, since his WEF had co-hosted the infamous Event 201 conference in October 2019, which modelled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.

And he wasted little time in bringing out a new book, Covid-19: The Great Reset, co-authored with Thierry Malleret, who runs something called the Monthly Barometer, “a succinct predictive analysis provided to private investors, global CEOs and opinion- and decision-makers”.[4]

Published in July 2020, the book sets out to advance “conjectures and ideas about what the post-pandemic world might, and perhaps should, look like”.[4]

Schwab and Malleret admit that Covid-19 is “one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years”, adding that “the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics”.[4]

They add:

It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.” [4]

Yet, incredibly, this “mild” illness is simultaneously presented as the excuse for unprecedented social change under the banner of “The Great Reset”!

And although they explicitly declare that Covid-19 does not constitute a major “shock”, the authors repeatedly deploy the same term to describe the broader impact of the crisis.

Schwab and Malleret place Covid-19 in a long tradition of events which have facilitated sudden and significant changes to our societies.

They specifically invoke the Second World War:

World War II was the quintessential transformational war, triggering not only fundamental changes to the global order and the global economy, but also entailing radical shifts in social attitudes and beliefs that eventually paved the way for radically new policies and social contract provisions (like women joining the workforce before becoming voters).

There are obviously fundamental dissimilarities between a pandemic and a war (that we will consider in some detail in the following pages), but the magnitude of their transformative power is comparable. Both have the potential to be a transformative crisis of previously unimaginable proportions”.[4]

They also join many contemporary “conspiracy theorists” in making a direct comparison between Covid-19 and 9/11:

This is what happened after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. All around the world, new security measures like employing widespread cameras, requiring electronic ID cards and logging employees or visitors in and out became the norm. At that time, these measures were deemed extreme, but today they are used everywhere and considered ‘normal’”.[4]

When any tyrant declares the right to rule over a population without taking their views into account, they like to justify their dictatorship with the claim that they are morally entitled to do so because they are “enlightened”.

The same is true of the Covid-fuelled tyranny of Schwab’s great reset, which the book categorises as “enlightened leadership”, adding:

Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes. They will, in effect, make ‘good use’ of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste”.[4]

The global capitalist ruling elite have certainly been doing their best to “take advantage of the shock inflicted by the panic”, assuring us all since the very earliest days of the outbreak that, for some unfathomable reason, nothing in our lives could ever be the same again.

Schwab and Malleret are, inevitably, enthusiastic in their use of the New Normal framing, despite their admission that the virus was only ever “mild”.

“It is our defining moment”, they crow. “Many things will change forever”. “A new world will emerge”. “The societal upheaval unleashed by COVID-19 will last for years, and possibly generations”.

Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never.”

They even go as far as proposing a new historical separation between “the pre-pandemic era” and “the post-pandemic world”.[4]

They write:

Radical changes of such consequence are coming that some pundits have referred to a ‘before coronavirus’ (BC) and ‘after coronavirus’ (AC) era. We will continue to be surprised by both the rapidity and unexpected nature of these changes – as they conflate with each other, they will provoke second-, third-, fourth- and more-order consequences, cascading effects and unforeseen outcomes. In so doing, they will shape a ‘new normal’ radically different from the one we will be progressively leaving behind. Many of our beliefs and assumptions about what the world could or should look like will be shattered in the process.[4]

Back in 2016, Schwab was looking ahead to “new ways of using technology to change behavior”[2] and predicting:

The scale and breadth of the unfolding technological revolution will usher in economic, social and cultural changes of such phenomenal proportions that they are almost impossible to envisage”.[2]

One way in which he had hoped his technocratic agenda would be advanced was, as we have noted, through the phoney “solutions” to climate change proposed by fake green capitalists.

Under the title “environmental reset”, Schwab and Malleret state:

At first glance, the pandemic and the environment might seem to be only distantly related cousins; but they are much closer and more intertwined than we think.” [4]

One of the connections is that both the climate and virus “crises” have been used by the WEF and their like to push their agenda of global governance. As Schwab and his co-author put it, “they are global in nature and therefore can only be properly addressed in a globally coordinated fashion”.[4]

Another link is the way that the “the post-pandemic economy” and “the green economy”[4] involve massive profits for largely the same sectors of big business.

Covid-19 has evidently been great news for those capitalists hoping to cash in on environmental destruction, with Schwab and Malleret reporting:

The conviction that ESG strategies benefited from the pandemic and are most likely to benefit further is corroborated by various surveys and reports. Early data shows that the sustainability sector outperformed conventional funds during the first quarter of 2020.”[4]

The capitalist sharks of the so-called “sustainability sector” are rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of all the money they stand to make from the Covid-pretexted great fascist reset, in which the state is instrumentalised to fund their hypocritical profiteering.

Note Schwab and Malleret:

The key to crowding private capital into new sources of nature-positive economic value will be to shift key policy levers and public finance incentives as part of a wider economic reset”.[4]

A policy paper prepared by Systemiq in collaboration with the World Economic Forum estimates that building the nature-positive economy could represent more than $10 trillion per year by 2030… Resetting the environment should not be seen as a cost, but rather as an investment that will generate economic activity and employment opportunities.” [4]

Given the intertwining of climate and Covid crises set out by Schwab, we might speculate that the original plan was to push through the New Normal reset on the back of the climate crisis.

But evidently, all that publicity for Greta Thunberg and big business-backed Extinction Rebellion did not whip up enough public panic to justify such measures.

Covid-19 serves Schwab’s purposes perfectly, as the immediate urgency it presents allows the whole process to be speeded up and rushed through without due scrutiny.

This crucial difference between the respective time-horizons of a pandemic and that of climate change and nature loss means that a pandemic risk requires immediate action that will be followed by a rapid result, while climate change and nature loss also require immediate action, but the result (or ‘future reward’, in the jargon of economists) will only follow with a certain time lag.[4]

For Schwab and his friends, Covid-19 is the great accelerator of everything they have been wanting to foist upon us for years.

As he and Malleret say:

The pandemic is clearly exacerbating and accelerating geopolitical trends that were already apparent before the crisis erupted.” [4]

The pandemic will mark a turning point by accelerating this transition. It has crystallized the issue and made a return to the pre-pandemic status quo impossible.” [4]

They can barely conceal their delight at the direction society is now taking:

The pandemic will accelerate innovation even more, catalysing technological changes already under way (comparable to the exacerbation effect it has had on other underlying global and domestic issues) and ‘turbocharging’ any digital business or the digital dimension of any business.[4]
[…]
With the pandemic, the ‘digital transformation’ that so many analysts have been referring to for years, without being exactly sure what it meant, has found its catalyst. One major effect of confinement will be the expansion and progression of the digital world in a decisive and often permanent manner.

In April 2020, several tech leaders observed how quickly and radically the necessities created by the health crisis had precipitated the adoption of a wide range of technologies. In the space of just one month, it appeared that many companies in terms of tech take-up fast-forwarded by several years.[4]

Fate is obviously smiling on Klaus Schwab as this Covid-19 crisis has, happily, succeeded in advancing pretty much every aspect of the agenda he has been promoting over the decades.

Thus he and Malleret report with satisfaction that “the pandemic will fast-forward the adoption of automation in the workplace and the introduction of more robots in our personal and professional lives”.[4]

Lockdowns across the world have, needless to say, provided a big financial boost to those business offering online shopping.

The authors recount:

Consumers need products and, if they can’t shop, they will inevitably resort to purchasing them online. As the habit kicks in, people who had never shopped online before will become comfortable with doing so, while people who were part-time online shoppers before will presumably rely on it more. This was made evident during the lockdowns.

In the US, Amazon and Walmart hired a combined 250,000 workers to keep up with the increase in demand and built massive infrastructure to deliver online. This accelerating growth of e-commerce means that the giants of the online retail industry are likely to emerge from the crisis even stronger than they were in the pre-pandemic era.[4]

They add:

As more and diverse things and services are brought to us via our mobiles and computers, companies in sectors as disparate as e-commerce, contactless operations, digital content, robots and drone deliveries (to name just a few) will thrive. It is not by accident that firms like Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix or Zoom emerged as ‘winners’ from the lockdowns.[4]

By way of corollary, we might suggest that it is “not by accident” that governments which have been captured and controlled by big business, thanks to the likes of the WEF, have imposed a “new reality” COV under which big businesses are the “winners”…

The Covid-inspired good news never stops for all the business sectors which stand to benefit from the Fourth Industrial Repression.

The pandemic may prove to be a boon for online education,” Schwab and Malleret report. “In Asia, the shift to online education has been particularly notable, with a sharp increase in students’ digital enrolments, much higher valuation for online education businesses and more capital available for ‘ed-tech’ start-ups… In the summer of 2020, the direction of the trend seems clear: the world of education, like for so many other industries, will become partly virtual.[4]

Online sports have also taken off:

For a while, social distancing may constrain the practice of certain sports, which will in turn benefit the ever-more powerful expansion of e-sports. Tech and digital are never far away!” [4]

There is similar news from the banking sector:

Online banking interactions have risen to 90 percent during the crisis, from 10 percent, with no drop-off in quality and an increase in compliance.” [4]

The Covid-inspired move into online activity obviously benefits Big Tech, who are making enormous profits out of the crisis, as the authors describe:

The combined market value of the leading tech companies hit record after record during the lockdowns, even rising back above levels before the outbreak started… this phenomenon is unlikely to abate any time soon, quite the opposite.” [4]

But it is also good news for all the businesses involved, who no longer have to pay human beings to work for them. Automation is, and has always been, about saving costs and thus boosting profits for the capitalist elite.

The culture of the fascist New Normal will also provide lucrative spin-off benefits for particular business sectors, such as the packing industry, explain Schwab and Malleret.

The pandemic will certainly heighten our focus on hygiene. A new obsession with cleanliness will particularly entail the creation of new forms of packaging. We will be encouraged not to touch the products we buy. Simple pleasures like smelling a melon or squeezing a fruit will be frowned upon and may even become a thing of the past.”[4]

The authors also describe what sounds very much like a technocratic profit-related agenda behind the “social distancing” which has been such a key element of the Covid “reset”.

They write:

In one form or another, social- and physical-distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. After a while, the enduring concerns about technological unemployment will recede as societies emphasize the need to restructure the workplace in a way that minimizes close human contact.

Indeed, automation technologies are particularly well suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions. Our lingering and possibly lasting fear of being infected with a virus (COVID-19 or another) will thus speed the relentless march of automation, particularly in the fields most susceptible to automation.[4]

As previously mentioned, Schwab has long been frustrated by all those tiresome regulations which stop capitalists from making as much money as they would like to, by focusing on economically irrelevant concerns such as the safety and well being of human beings.

But – hooray! – the Covid crisis has provided the perfect excuse for doing away with great swathes of these outmoded impediments to prosperity and growth.

One area in which meddlesome red tape is being abandoned is health. Why would any right-minded stakeholder imagine that any particular obligation for care and diligence should be allowed to impinge on the profitability of this particular business sector?

Schwab and Malleret are overjoyed to note that telemedicine will “benefit considerably” from the Covid emergency:

The necessity to address the pandemic with any means available (plus, during the outbreak, the need to protect health workers by allowing them to work remotely) removed some of the regulatory and legislative impediments related to the adoption of telemedicine.” [4]

The ditching of regulations is a general phenomenon under the New Normal global regime, as Schwab and Malleret relate:

To date governments have often slowed the pace of adoption of new technologies by lengthy ponderings about what the best regulatory framework should look like but, as the example of telemedicine and drone delivery is now showing, a dramatic acceleration forced by necessity is possible.

During the lockdowns, a quasi-global relaxation of regulations that had previously hampered progress in domains where the technology had been available for years suddenly happened because there was no better or other choice available. What was until recently unthinkable suddenly became possible… New regulations will stay in place.[4]

They add:

The current imperative to propel, no matter what, the ‘contactless economy’ and the subsequent willingness of regulators to speed it up means that there are no holds barred.” [4]

“No holds barred”. Make no mistake: this is the language adopted by capitalism when it abandons its pretence at liberal democracy and switches into full-on fascist mode.

It is clear from Schwab and Malleret’s work that a fascistic merging of state and business, to the advantage of the latter, underpins their great reset.

Phenomenal sums of money have been transferred from the public purse into the bulging pockets of the 1% since the very start of the Covid crisis, as they acknowledge:

In April 2020, just as the pandemic began to engulf the world, governments across the globe had announced stimulus programmes amounting to several trillion dollars, as if eight or nine Marshall Plans had been put into place almost simultaneously.
[…]
COVID-19 has rewritten many of the rules of the game between the public and private sectors […] The benevolent (or otherwise) greater intrusion of governments in the life of companies and the conduct of their business will be country- and industry-dependent, therefore taking many different guises.
[…]
Measures that would have seemed inconceivable prior to the pandemic may well become standard around the world as governments try to prevent the economic recession from turning into a catastrophic depression.
[…]
Increasingly, there will be calls for government to act as a ‘payer of last resort’ to prevent or stem the spate of mass layoffs and business destruction triggered by the pandemic. All these changes are altering the rules of the economic and monetary policy ‘game’.[4]

Schwab and his fellow author welcome the prospect of increased state powers being used to prop up big business profiteering.

They write:

One of the great lessons of the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.”[4]

And they add:

Looking to the future, governments will most likely, but with different degrees of intensity, decide that it’s in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role.”[4]

The idea of rewriting the rules of the game is, again, very reminiscent of fascist language, as of course is the idea of permanently increasing the role of the state in helping the private sector.

Indeed, it is worth comparing Schwab’s position on this issue with that of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who responded to economic crisis in 1931 by launching a special emergency body, L’Istituto mobiliare italiano, to aid businesses.

He declared this was:

a means of energetically driving the Italian economy towards its corporative phase, which is to say a system which fundamentally respects private property and initiative, but ties them tightly to the State, which alone can protect, control and nourish them”.[5]

Suspicions about the fascistic nature of Schwab’s great reset are confirmed, of course, by the police-state measures that have been rolled out across the world to ensure compliance with “emergency” Covid measures.

The sheer brute force that never lies far beneath the surface of the capitalist system becomes increasingly visible when it enters it fascist stage and this is very much in evidence in Schwab and Malleret’s book.

The word “force” is deployed time and time again in the context of Covid-19. Sometimes this is in a business context, as with the statements that “COVID-19 has forced all the banks to accelerate a digital transformation that is now here to stay” COVD or that “the micro reset will force every company in every industry to experiment new ways of doing business, working and operating”. [4]

But sometimes it is applied directly to human beings, or “consumers” as Schwab and his ilk prefer to think of us.

During the lockdowns, many consumers previously reluctant to rely too heavily on digital applications and services were forced to change their habits almost overnight: watching movies online instead of going to the cinema, having meals delivered instead of going out to restaurants, talking to friends remotely instead of meeting them in the flesh, talking to colleagues on a screen instead of chit-chatting at the coffee machine, exercising online instead of going to the gym, and so on
[…]
Many of the tech behaviours that we were forced to adopt during confinement will through familiarity become more natural. As social and physical distancing persist, relying more on digital platforms to communicate, or work, or seek advice, or order something will, little by little, gain ground on formerly ingrained habits.[4]

Under a fascist system, individuals are not offered the choice as to whether they want to comply with its demands or not, as Schwab and Malleret make quite clear regarding so-called contact-tracing:

No voluntary contact-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system; if any individual refuses to download the app (and therefore to withhold information about a possible infection, movements and contacts), everyone will be adversely affected.” [4]

This, they reflect, is another great advantage of the Covid crisis over the environmental one which might have been used to impose their New Normal:

While for a pandemic, a majority of citizens will tend to agree with the necessity to impose coercive measures, they will resist constraining policies in the case of environmental risks where the evidence can be disputed.” [4]

These “coercive measures”, which we are all expected to go along with, will of course involve unimaginable levels of fascistic surveillance of our lives, particularly in our role as wage slaves.

Write Schwab and Malleret: “The corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does. The trend could take many different forms, from measuring body temperatures with thermal cameras to monitoring via an app how employees comply with social distancing”. (135)

Coercive measures of one kind or another are also likely to be used to force people to take the Covid vaccines currently being lined up.

Schwab is deeply connected to that world, being on a “first-name basis” with Bill Gates and having been hailed by Big Pharma mainstay Henry McKinnell, chairman and CEO of Pfizer Inc, as “a person truly dedicated to a truly noble cause”.

So it is not surprising that he insists, with Malleret, that “a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available”.[4]

He adds:

“The next hurdle is the political challenge of vaccinating enough people worldwide (we are collectively as strong as the weakest link) with a high enough compliance rate despite the rise of anti-vaxxers.” [4]

“Anti-vaxxers” thus join Schwab’s list of threats to his project, along with anti-globalization and anti-capitalist protesters, Gilets Jaunes and all those engaged in “class conflicts”, “societal resistance” and “political backlash”.

The majority of the world’s population have already been excluded from decision-making processes by the lack of democracy which Schwab wants to accentuate through his stakeholderist corporate domination, his “agile governance”, his totalitarian “system management of human existence”.

But how does he envisage dealing with the “sombre scenario” of people rising up against his great new-normalist reset and his transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution?

What degree of “force” and “coercive measures” would he be prepared to accept in order to ensure the dawning of his technocratic new age?

The question is a chilling one, but we should also bear in mind the historical example of the 20th century regime into which Schwab was born.

Hitler’s new Nazi normal was meant to last for a thousand years, but came crashing down 988 years ahead of target.

Just because Hitler said, with all the confidence of power, that his Reich would last for a millennium, this didn’t mean that it was so.

Just because Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret and their friends say that we are now entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution and our world will be changed forever, this doesn’t mean that it is so.

We don’t have to accept their New Normal. We don’t have to go along with their fearmongering. We don’t have to take their vaccines. We don’t have to let them implant us with smartphones or edit our DNA. We don’t have to walk, muzzled and submissive, straight into their transhumanist hell.

We can denounce their lies! Expose their agenda! Refuse their narrative! Reject their toxic ideology! Resist their fascism!

Klaus Schwab is not a god, but a human being. Just one elderly man. And those he works with, the global capitalist elite, are few in number. Their aims are not the aims of the vast majority of humankind.

Their transhumanist vision is repulsive to nearly everyone outside of their little circle and they do not have consent for the technocratic dictatorship they are trying to impose on us.

That, after all, is why they have had to go to such lengths to force it upon us under the false flag of fighting a virus. They understood that without the “emergency” justification, we were never going to go along with their warped scheme.

They are scared of our potential power because they know that if we stand up, we will defeat them. We can bring their project crashing down before it has even properly started.

We are the people, we are the 99%, and together we can grab back our freedom from the deadly jaws of the fascist machine!

NOTES:

[1] Klaus Schwab with Nicholas Davis, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World (Geneva: WEF, 2018), e-book.

[2] Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: WEF, 2016), e-book.

[3] Kevin Warwick, I, Cyborg (London: Century, 2002), p. 4. See also Paul Cudenec, Nature, Essence and Anarchy (Sussex: Winter Oak, 2016).

[4] Klaus Schwab, Thierry Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset (Geneva: WEF, 2020), e-book. Edition 1.0.

[5] Benito Mussolini, cit. Pierre Milza and Serge Berstein, Le fascisme italien 1919-1945 (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1980), p. 246.

=====================

Previous articles 

  • UN plans New World Order via climate change

‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’, death of freedom

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy and the individual with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control.  Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth is alive and well. The following articles provide evidence.

Links to more articles follow the four below

Dr Peter Ridd Reflects On Aussie High Court Freedom Of Speech Defeat

Dr Peter Ridd Reflects On Aussie High Court Freedom Of Speech Defeat  By John O’Sullivan, principia-scientific.com,  16 October 2021

Sky News Australia reported (October 13, 2021) that “The High Court’s ruling against former James Cook University professor Peter Ridd is a blow to every Australian who values freedom of expression.” Peter Ridd gives his response below.

In 2018 Professor Ridd was fired by his university after criticising the work of a colleague studying the Great Barrier Reef. In an email to a journalist, he said the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority “is grossly misusing some scientific ‘data’ to make the case that the Great [B]arrier Reef is greatly damaged”.

This led to a protracted and extremely expensive court battle that ultimately went the way of the employer and against Ridd and the concept of free speech.

Peter writes:

It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that we have lost the appeal in the High Court. We lost, in my opinion, because JCU’s work contract, under which I was employed, effectively kills academic freedom of speech – and the contract is effectively the law.

So, JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave.

I often ask myself, if I knew what was going to happen, would I have handled that fateful interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin in 2017 differently. Would I still say that, due to systemic quality assurance problems, work from a couple of Great Barrier Reef science institutions was “untrustworthy”?

It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs.

All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.

This is just a small battle in a much bigger war. It was a battle which we had to have and, in retrospect, lose. JCU’s and almost every other university in Australia and the western world are behaving badly. We have shown how badly.

Decent people and governments can see the immense problem we have. The universities are not our friends. Only when the problem is recognised will public pressure force a solution.

The failure of our legal action, and JCU’s determination to effectively destroy academic freedom of speech, demonstrates that further legislation is required to force universities to behave properly – especially if they are to receive any public funding. The Commonwealth government introduced excellent legislation in parliament early this year, partly in response to our legal case, to bolster academic freedom of speech. It is an excellent step in the right direction. If my case had been fought under this legislation, I would have had a better chance of winning. But it would still have been far from certain. There would still have been a clash between the new legislation and the work agreement.

There needs to be major punishment against universities for infringement of academic freedom of speech, such as fines or losing their accreditation. There needs to be active policing and investigations of the universities to make sure they comply and do not threaten academics with expensive legal action to stop the university’s behaviour becoming public. Universities must be told that they cannot spy on academic’s email communications (this should only be done by the police) or use secrecy directives to silence and intimidate staff. And all this protection for academics MUST be written into the work contracts to put the matter beyond legal doubt.

I am very mindful that I asked for, and received, donations of about $1,500,000 (in two GoFundMe campaigns of around $750k#) for the legal battle – from over 10,000 people. And I lost. Some of those donations were from people who have very slender financial resources. All I can say is that it weighs heavily on my conscience, but I hope they agree that it was still worth the battle.

A last thank you

I would like to express, one last time, my thanks to Stuart Wood AM QC, Ben Jellis, Ben Kidston, Colette Mintz, Mitchell Downes, Amelia Hasson and the rest of the team. They were fabulous. They did everything that was possible.

Thanks also to John Roskam, Gideon Rozner, Evan Mulholland, Morgan Begg and the Institute of Public Affairs. They backed me when things got tough. They are one of the few institutions in the country that will fight on issues of freedom of speech. I’d like to make a special mention of the IPA’s Jennifer Marohasy. She has been a great support over many years and played a crucial role in the critical early days of this fight.

Thanks to the National Tertiary Education Union. They supported the cause in court, even though my views on the Reef may well be opposed to the views of many of their members.

There are many politicians who have gone into bat on my behalf such as Matt Canavan, George Christensen, Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, Gerard Rennick, Malcolm Roberts, Dan Tehan, and Alan Tudge (in alphabetical order). They obviously could not interfere with the legal proceedings, but were instrumental in bringing in the new academic freedom legislation.

There are many journalists and bloggers who helped spread the word, but I would particularly like to thanks Graham Lloyd from The Australian, Jo Nova, and Anthony Watts (WUWT).

There are also many other people, far too many to list, that I am thankful to. They will know who they are.

And finally, thanks to my family, and especially Cheryl.

===================

The Pro-China Firebrand at the ‘Lancet’

The Pro-China Firebrand at the ‘Lancet’  By Stewart Justman, Quadrant Magazine, 11 October 2021

“A dangerous myth has been cloaked around the young body of global health. It is a myth that hides uncomfortable truths about inequalities of power. It is a deception that erases important histories, marginalises already neglected peoples, and prevents accurate understanding of why progress towards sustainable health improvements in some of the most resource-poor settings is so slow and erratic.” Is the author perhaps a junior professor of sociology or English trying to master the use of academic conjuring words like “marginalise” and “sustainable”? No, the author is Richard Horton, editor of one of the world’s foremost medical journals, the Lancet, discussing “Frantz Fanon and the Origins of Global Health”.

Do not be surprised if you find in the Lancet these days an editorial framed in the standard idiom of social justice. In the example at hand, Horton dismisses the “dangerous myth” that the ideal of global health traces back to anything other than the struggle against colonialism, identifies “forces inimical to health”, and finally eulogises the author of “the first manifestoes” on the topic of the health of the world’s people: the psychiatrist Frantz Fanon. While Horton decries oppression and honours Fanon as a founder of the concept of global health, he doesn’t mention Fanon’s celebrated theory that the exercise of violence is itself profoundly healthful for the oppressed. “At the individual level,” declares Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth, “violence is a cleansing force. It rids the colonised of their inferiority complex, of their passive and despairing attitude. It emboldens them and restores their self-confidence.” Evidently the editor of the Lancet was reluctant to indulge his hatred of colonialism and his love of provocation to the point of romanticising the act of killing.

In general, Horton finds no conflict between incendiarism and editing a medical journal. As he has made clear in interviews, he believes the two go hand in hand and takes pride in offending those who think otherwise. “I feel very strongly that we should be using the Lancet as a platform for advocacy,” he said recently. “There’s not much point in publishing science unless you do something with it.” Of course, by advocacy Horton doesn’t mean the advocacy of just anything, and by doing something he doesn’t mean doing just anything. He means crusading on behalf of a new world order overseen by persons like himself. Possessed of a neo-Marxist mentality, he deals in accusation and prophecy, and looks forward to the day when history transcends and overcomes the sovereignty of Western nations. In the meantime he mounts his soapbox to extol one of the founders of global health while muting this figure’s famous idealisation of violence as an instrument of health.

In the midst of the Covid crisis, Horton issued a diatribe similar in spirit to his eulogy of Fanon, now focused on the pandemic and expanded to the length of a short book: The COVID-19 Catastrophe: What’s Gone Wrong and How to Stop it Happening Again. While Covid’s differential impact on the poor and minorities supports his indictment of inequality, the emphasis of the book falls not so much on the human costs of the pandemic as on its mismanagement by the authorities in Western democracies—a tale of all but criminal irresponsibility, in his telling. According to Horton, Covid became a catastrophe not because of the pathogen’s lethality per se but because of the denial of its lethality by persons in high places, the unpreparedness of Western states, and their neglect and betrayal of the ideal (or as he puts it at one point, the “story”) of globalism. Only after bitterly indicting Western authorities for their mishandling of Covid does Horton make clear just how much about the virus remained unknown as he penned the indictment itself.

In all, Horton believes the West’s bumbling response to Covid compares shamefully with the swift, effectual measures taken in China—a record of honour marred only by the muzzling and humiliation of the ophthalmologist in Wuhan who first reported the new virus. When Horton quotes approvingly the claim that Covid has undermined trust in “governments” and exposed their “impotence”, he tacitly but emphatically excludes the government of China from this damning assessment. And while he does print in full a desperate appeal from an anonymous Chinese correspondent on behalf of those badly hurt by anti-Covid measures imposed from above, he follows it with his own shining endorsement of Chinese “policymakers”.

Western democracy not only looks bad in Horton’s pages, it seems to lose its very legitimacy. Astonishingly, Horton agrees in passing with the description of life in an affluent democratic society as “servitude” and exhorts his readers one and all to “work hard to cultivate our sensibility for intolerance”, an imperative that cannot be reconciled with democracy. But China receives Horton’s heartfelt affirmation. He quotes in all seriousness the World Health Organisation’s fulsome praise of “the deep commitment of the Chinese people to collective action in the face of this common threat [of COVID-19]”.

“The deep commitment of the Chinese people”: here is the authentic voice of propaganda. As everyone knows or ought to know, the containment measures adopted in China in response to COVID-19 were mandated by the Communist Party, exercising its formidable police powers. At this point in his polemic, Horton, fearless speaker of truth to power, becomes an apologist for a one-party state. Why does he seem to have a soft spot for China? Perhaps because China, like Fanon’s Africa, was once subjected to colonial power. Putting himself “in the position of Chinese policymakers”, he notes that “after a century of humiliation at the hands of a colonially minded West, China, proud of its 5000-year-old civilisation, finally achieved independence in 1949. The country grew erratically and with terrifying mistakes under Mao Zedong, but he at least succeeded in establishing secure national borders.” Just as Horton’s tone of accusation disappears before the concerted power of the Chinese Communist Party, so his explicit disdain of the nation-state and his proclamation that “sovereignty is dead” give way to a defence of the nation of China, secure within its borders.

In Horton’s view, it seems China as a whole underwent a Fanonian transformation as it passed from colonial subjection to the self-confidence of a nation that knows its own power. China too has overcome its historical inferiority complex and found its strength and voice. What explains its emergence? In Horton’s telling, China’s rise to power is predicated squarely on “the territorial independence and integrity won by Mao”. Thus, the very sovereignty that Horton judges a fallacy and a danger in Western nations constitutes in China an asset so precious that it offsets, somehow, “terrifying mistakes”. Note that while Horton may or may not impute the “mistakes” of the Mao era to Mao, he does credit Mao with a historic achievement that seems to mitigate them, whatever they are.

What are they? Presumably the mistakes include Mao’s imposition on China of a murderous famine, under the name of the Great Leap Forward (1958 to 1962), that ranks among the darkest episodes in human history. Whereas the salubrious nature of violence works “at the individual level” to transform the oppressed into self-confident agents according to Horton’s hero Fanon, the cataclysm of the Great Leap Forward represents, so Horton implies, a sort of by-product of the process that enabled a once-backward China to become the power it now is: one confident enough to act with dispatch when COVID-19 made its appearance, thus preventing a potential catastrophe from blowing up into an actual one. In particular, Horton’s China is now confident enough to learn from its own mismanagement of the SARS outbreak of 2003 and avoid the same missteps the second time around—not that it lost legitimacy in Horton’s eyes by bungling its response to SARS. But if the Chinese policy of suppressing information about SARS in 2003 constitutes a mistake, who would put orchestrating a massive famine in the same category?

Bear in mind the magnitude of the “terrifying mistakes” Horton does not specify. The fact is that while no one can say with any certainty how many died at Mao’s hands, the total appears to be about 40 million (mostly but not exclusively during the Great Leap Forward), making him one of a sanguinary century’s worst butchers. If, as Horton argues, Donald Trump should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for shutting off US funding of the WHO, then what about a man responsible for the murder—knowing and intentional, not inadvertent—of tens of millions of his fellows? Why is Trump’s action a crime but a famine authored by Mao a misstep?

Just as Horton plays with fire by making a hero of Fanon, he floats the opinion that we are all communists now but not that kind of communist, that we must strive to become more intolerant but only in the most humane sense, that Mao enabled the rise of China despite certain “mistakes” made “under” him. This sort of incendiary play with words clearly does not comport with the ethos of medicine. Horton’s use of Covid to delegitimise Western democracies (because they failed their first responsibility), even as he paints a one-party state as a model of civic responsibility, represents an act of great hubris.

Perhaps the root of the problem is that Horton as an editorialist thinks not like a doctor but an ideologue, reiterating fixed ideas, glorifying on the one hand and vilifying on the other, gravitating towards utopia like a Marxist of old predicting or decreeing the future. At all times he uses his medical identity to accredit political judgments, as if disputing the latter were tantamount to denying medical knowledge. The shoemaker was told to stick to his last. Maybe it would be better for all concerned if Horton resigned his position as prosecutor of the Western world and stuck to medicine.

Stewart Justman lives in Montana. A prolific writer, he is the author of The Nocebo Effect: Overdiagnosis and Its Costs (2015).

=======================

The Great Forces within the Individual

The Great Forces within the Individual  By Jon Rappoport, 21 July 2021

From my notes for The Underground: “Whatever the core problem of The Individual might be, DATA is not the answer. A system is not the answer. Neutral sanitized language is not the answer. These modern affectations eat away at the electric forces of the soul…”

THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BEYOND ANY MODERN DESCRIPTION…

This is not a power that never existed before. This is not new for the individual. This is what has been sidelined and lost and forgotten and buried miles below the surface.

I’m talking about towering creative power, not “doily power” or “Easter egg decorating power.”

In Jonathan Swift’s novel, Gulliver’s Travels, Gulliver is captured by a tiny race of Lilliputians. In modern society, Gulliver voluntarily shrinks himself down to the size of a Lilliputian.

Contrary to the weak flaccid and madhouse principles of modern psychology, ACTUAL psychology would deal with two towering impulses within the individual:

Creation and destruction. The impulse to create and the impulse to destroy.

Modern civilization has the hidden goal of wiping out both of these impulses; instead, substituting top-down control. CONTROL.

The individual today is viewed by The Manipulators as a social construct, to be profiled, grouped, poked, tested, subjected to stimuli like a dog in a lab, re-engineered.

Indeed, many abject individuals see themselves as cogs in a social apparatus, and approve of the arrangement.

The preeminently successful hundred-year-plus program for embedding control is medical. I have exposed the details of the program for the past 40 years. You could sum it up as toxification and pacification and technological chaining of the body and brain.

CONTROL is the elite solution to the twin impulses of creating and destroying. Wipe them both out. Bury them. “They resist organization. They’re wild cards. They cut through all the rules and regulations of society.”

If you want pictures of creation and destruction in action, above the level of ordinary civilization, look to the stories co-opted by religions; the battles among the ancient Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Norse gods, and so on. This is creative and destructive power unleashed, on a grand scale, and at some point it became unacceptable. Instead…

Modern civilization developed. Modern society. Modern culture. Modern behavior. Modern organization.

Submission. Freedom granted by governments as “liberty,” meaning limited freedom within the context and constraints enacted by “the people’s representatives.” A whole host of fictions arose. “Worship the god we tell you to worship.” “Believe only in power that exists ELSEWHERE.”

Consciousness is a placid lake, some theorists claim. Lie on your back, float in the collective infinite. As if THIS would erase the twin towers of creation and destruction in the individual psyche. Pathetic.

Two things are now happening across the whole world. The expansion of top-down brutal control, and the emergence of the destructive impulse coming to the fore like a common currency.

The creative impulse is buried so deep in most individuals, they wouldn’t recognize it if you put it on a plate and served it for supper. They wouldn’t know what you were talking about. They certainly wouldn’t understand that a creative renaissance was absolutely necessary to offset what is happening in the world now.

If you referred them to giants like Michelangelo or Da Vinci or Beethoven or Mahler or Melville or Whitman or Goya or Stravinsky or Charlie Parker, they would think you were reciting the names of creatures from another planet. They might suspect you were trying to tear down God from his throne (the very God organized religions tell you is the True One).

Here is a clue. The most successful entertainment organization in the world, Disney/Marvel, has been producing one epic after another featuring mythological characters come to life as super-heroes and villains engaging in planetary and galactic battles of creation-and-destruction; millions of people watch these special-effect tales on screens, mesmerized and energized by the scale of the conflicts (very much like the Olympic gods at war with one another).

It’s no accident that humans crave these movies. They reflect (however cartoonishly) what is going on in the human psyche; the impulses of creation and destruction. The movies unearth what has been buried.

Under hundreds of layers of conditioning, the real psychology of the individual has everything to do with how these two towering impulses are dealt with BY the individual himself.

“Oh no, I’m not involved with those…impulses. I’m a card-carrying member of society. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m small, I’m trying to fit in, unless I’m against fitting in, in which case I’m dedicated to rejecting the proposal to install a traffic light at the corner of Main and Broadway…”

SMALLNESS is the overriding proposition. Every problem and solution has to be defined and worked out within a shrunken strangulating context.

Therefore, you can see all sorts of grotesquely played-out melodramas that unconsciously give vent to creative-destructive- impulse leaks from the individual.

The bloviating businessman who peddles cheap crap for a living parades around as if he were a living pillar of charity in his community, while he turns the screws on his employees by paying them a bare living wage and, privately, delights in their misfortune. Small stage play of creation and destruction.

Ditto for the grifter-politician who swears dedication to the groups he’s creating for the betterment of his people, knowing these causes will lead to further impoverishment and crime and, ultimately, submission and surrender. Create and destroy.

I could name and describe hundreds of small accommodations and expressions which attempt to mediate between the creating and destroying impulses within the individual.

Their smallness is just a cover for the Niagara-forces these impulses actually embody.

“If I shrink myself down, my impulses will shrink, too.”

It doesn’t work that way.

The impulses never shrink.

This is the problem. The titanic trying to become tiny.

Creation and destruction make up an existential situation within the individual and his psyche. How will he approach the situation? Not with easy answers, I can assure you. Not with a quick 10-minute fix—the favorite remedy-style of the modern age. Not with a pill. Not with grass-fed beef. Not with a medical mask. Not with a fear of germs. Not with meditation. Not with a group. Not with algorithms. Not with computers. Not with a brain-machine interface or nanoparticles or organized human anthills of the 21st century. Not with churches.

With CONTROL taking center stage in new forms, and on the march, the first great undertaking is the recognition that CREATIVE POWER has always existed within the individual. And that power needs expression. On a scale that reflects its magnitude.

Impossible?

Fortunately, in the work of artists I mentioned above, and in the work of many others of the same size, there are worlds to explore. These artists are not dead. Their work isn’t dead…

You want to know the beginning?

You’re sitting on top of a grassy mountain

And you know you could build a city in the valley

You could destroy a city in the valley

You could do both

You know it…like a boiling pepper in the mind, like an ice cube in the liver, like a steamroller, a traitor on trial, a saint in a cave, a god with his sword, a tiger pacing in his cage

You’re going to approach these two forces inside you

You’re going to walk around them and through them and sniff titanic waves and sink to the bottom of lost ships and come up out of the foam

You’re not going to run away into a little box and read the law for the next thousand years and join the society of obedient babbling idiots wearing thin lips

You’re going to burn away the strangulating false fronts

You’re going to know you can invent a city or destroy one

You’re going to come to grips with that

You’re not going to automatically jump ahead and say you’re a citizen of the realm

You’re not going to say there is nothing you want to destroy

You’re not going to remain two-dimensional for the next thousand years

Coming to grips with, and seeing the impulse to destroy within yourself is completely different from giving vent to, and enacting that impulse. The people who go around destroying are not coming to grips with anything.

On the other hand, imagine an innovative architect who is designing buildings no one has ever seen before. In his sketches, in his plans, he creates and destroys. He looks at his work in progress, and he decisively obliterates whole sections that don’t fit his vision and his instincts. He creates new wings of a building in his drawings and wipes some of them out. By the alive process of creating and destroying he arrives at what he wants to make real in the world.

I’ve known many aspiring artists who stall at the gate and never get off the ground, because they’re afraid that, if they put words on the page or shapes on the canvas, those words and shapes will have to remain there forever. To put it another way, they can’t conceive of destroying what they create. They believe “destruction is bad.” So they never create anything.

I’ve known painters who look at what they’ve put on the canvas for days and months; they keep looking; they’re not satisfied; but they’re afraid to wipe out a whole section. They’re afraid because they don’t realize they can create endlessly. They don’t realize that destroying half of a painting will lead to a new painting.

Civilization and society have always tried to define the limits of the creative process, as in: REDUCTION. Boil it down. Make it less. Make it smaller. Hem it in. Summarize it. Claim the individual creator should, first and foremost, be a citizen. A creature inside the system. This is a sick joke. And every artist of reality has rejected the joke with a mere dismissive glance.

The prescribed default position of the modern individual is: “I neither create nor destroy; I’m neutral; I adjust; whatever real power is, it resides outside myself; there is no larger context in which I can conceive of ACTION; if I feel deficient, I join a group.”

And people wonder why they have problems they can’t quite put their finger on. They wonder why their energies seem to be diminishing.

Consider the case of Nikola Tesla. The popularized story has it that he could see, in his imagination, all the complex moving parts of the energy devices he was inventing before he even made a preliminary sketch, much less a working prototype. It was all there in his mind. Magic. Genius.

I guarantee that was the not the whole story. Whether in his mind, on paper, or in prototype, he created and destroyed many models, before he arrived at one he believed would work to unleash and harness awesome amounts of force and energy.

He didn’t have an iota of worry about destroying what was unworkable. He wasn’t looking for a compromise or a shoddy but sellable piece of goods. He was focused on the far shore. Nothing less than the redirecting and transforming of Nature’s Flow.

And with each progressive step, there were spontaneous unexplainable insights that allowed him to move forward. His vision was Promethean. He wasn’t “neutral” or “objectively scientific” like some mechanical-minded little lab researcher trying to squeeze out a tiny extension of what was already known in order to publish a paper and secure a job.

The irony is, if Tesla had produced a working prototype that tapped into the Earth’s power and brought energy to every person on the planet, how many people would have said, “I want to operate and EXPRESS the great forces I have, as Tesla did,” versus…

“Thank you, Nikola, for the free energy. Now I can receive these gifts and sit back and enjoy them…I don’t have to look inside myself and see what is there…”

“I’m a Gulliver who is opting to be a Lilliputian.”

“Does anybody have a drug I can use to forget what I really am? A drug like Alice took to shrink down, outside the little door to Wonderland?”

Yes. It’s called modern civilization. You can go through the Clockwork Orange door. The DARPA mind control door. The medical-drug and vaccine door. The street drug door. The education system door. The media door. The good behavior gold star on the blackboard door…

(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)

=======================

A slow-moving coup in New Zealand towards apartheid

A slow-moving coup in New Zealand towards apartheid  By Muriel Newman, nzcpr.com, 26 June 2021

A slow-moving coup is underway in New Zealand. Unlike most coups, the transfer of power through non-democratic means that’s taking place is being orchestrated by the Prime Minister.

Under the guise of implementing the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples, Jacinda Ardern is planning to replace democracy with Maori tribal rule by 2040.

This objective is clearly set out in He Puapua, the report that the PM commissioned in 2019 and then deliberately kept hidden from her then coalition partner New Zealand First.

The former Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters confirmed this in a speech he gave last Sunday: “This Government is enabling a wave of rights-based activism in-and-outside of government. Everything in 2021 is now rights-based, or indigenous rights demanding co-governance. In 2019 a report called ‘He Puapua‘ came to Government but was never shown to one NZ First Cabinet Minister. This report was deliberately suppressed. In short, this report is a recipe for Maori separatism, they knew it and that’s why they suppressed it till after the election in the full knowledge that NZ First is for one flag, one country, one law. It was a gesture of ingratitude and bad faith.”

It’s not just NZ First that would have opposed the plan. Had the Labour Party revealed its intentions before the election, it may not have gained an absolute majority, and NZ First may have retained its place in Parliament.

The reality is that a majority of New Zealanders do not want to be divided by race. Their opposition to separatism is evident in the polls over the years that have rejected Maori seats on councils.

Widespread opposition to separatism is why He Puapua is being rolled out in secret.

Labour’s ‘official’ justification for the introduction of tribal rule is that a ‘partnership’ exists between ‘Maori’ and the Crown. While democratic power in a representative democracy like New Zealand is proportional – based on one person one vote – separatists claim the existence of a Treaty ‘partnership’ entitles the 15 percent of New Zealanders who declare ‘Maori’ heritage, to 50 percent of the right to govern.

Canterbury University law lecturer David Round has outlined the danger: “The Treaty is now regularly interpreted to mean a partnership of equals. Maori are not to be subject to the Crown, but are to be its partner. This partnership is a fundamental subversion of democracy. Special reserved Maori seats on local bodies, and even in parliament itself, are just the start. Maori are claiming their involvement in decision making should not be on the basis of one person one vote, but instead on 50:50 representation.  Some are already clamouring for a separate Maori house of parliament whose consent would be required for any laws. They seem to be united in expecting representation well in excess of what their proportion of the population would entitle them to. That is what they are demanding in proposals for ‘co-governance’ ~ equal numbers to all other interests combined. That is what they will be seeking everywhere; and once they have this 50:50 representation, then they will form an unassailable voting bloc. Then we will be forever at their mercy.”

As David says, the claim of a Treaty partnership is a fundamental subversion of democracy, since it is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects. By definition, the Crown is supreme, and the people are subject to her laws.

Furthermore, if 15 percent of the population are given the right to wield 50 percent of government power – including the right of veto, they would gain a disproportionately greater representation than all other New Zealanders. Since this would result in a significant dilution of the democratic representation of the 85 percent majority, the partnership concept is fundamentally discriminatory and in breach of New Zealand’s Bill of Rights.

To ensure the public don’t find out that the Treaty partnership concept is a fraud, Jacinda Ardern is now using taxpayer funding to ‘buy’ media cooperation. The recently announced $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund requires participants to not only accept the partnership lie, but to ‘actively’ promote it.

To qualify for the Fund three objectives must be met by recipients, the third of which requires them to: “Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti partner.”

Using public money to require New Zealand’s so-called independent Fourth Estate to support a radical political agenda to replace New Zealand democracy with tribal rule – is a scandal.

Attempts to undermine the authority of the Crown can be described as sedition – is this what the media are now being paid to engage in?

To achieve Maori sovereignty by 2040, He Puapua not only requires the recognition of Treaty partnerships, but two other major constitutional changes are needed: the first is to introduce ‘tikanga’, or Maori customary practice, into our law, and the second is to include the Treaty of Waitangi in a new written constitution.

The tikanga question is especially relevant since a High Court Judge has just ruled that tikanga trumps the Common Law in a claim lodged under the Marine and Coastal Area Act. The Edwards judgment is expected to not only set a precedent for the 200 other claims lodged in the High Court, and 350 claims lodged with the Crown for direct negotiation, but it has far wider implication for New Zealand law.

By prioritising tikanga values over the common law test of ‘exclusive’ use and occupation set out in the Act, Justice Churchman has opened the door for tribal control of virtually the entire coastline.

This is not what Parliament intended when the Marine and Coastal Area Act was introduced 2011. At that time New Zealanders were assured that if customary title existed at all, it would only be in remote areas of the coast.

That’s why the Churchman decision has now been referred to the Court of Appeal – in the hope that the stringent common law tests set out in the Act will, as intended, become requirements that must be satisfied if customary title is to be awarded. If you would like to support our Court of Appeal fundraiser, please click HERE.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Dr John Robinson, a research scientist and historian, who has written extensively about the danger of incorporating tikanga into our legal system, has examined the judgement of Peter Churchman in the Edwards case, and is deeply concerned:

“This is just one of many recent examples of the increasing division of New Zealand society, governance, law, and much more based on ‘tikanga’ and ‘matauranga Maori’ (Maori culture, ‘Maori concepts, knowledge, values and perspectives’), where features of pre-contact Maori society have been written into law.

“What is this ‘tikanga’?  The meaning today is deliberately confused, with no clarity as to whether traditional Maori ways are implied (which would include inter-tribal warfare, cannibalism, slavery and other primitive customs) or whether it is a modern version, transformed around 1840 by the widespread shift to Christianity and further cultural development since. Further confusion comes from the recent rewriting of history and the invention of new meanings to words. The resulting confusion allows Maori authorities to claim that they alone can interpret and explain New Zealand common law; we are required to sit silently on the side-line and accept whatever they pronounce: the meaning of the law belongs to this minority alone.”

Dr Robinson points out the danger of introducing into our legal system a concept that can mean whatever those promoting it want it to mean, and he outlines five core values identified in the Churchman judgment as underpinning tikanga: whanaungatanga – the obligations of kinship; kaitiakitanga – the obligation to care for one’s own; mana – the obligations of leadership; tapu – social control; and utu – reciprocity.

He then warns of the danger of incorporating tikanga into our law: “The coupled whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga permit, indeed instruct, priority to members of an extended family. This, the granting of favours to friends, is corruption, henceforth to be sanctioned in central government, local government and in the civil service. The insistence that tikanga is a guide to behaviour in the public sphere is an open invitation to nepotism, practically a directive.

“Remember, this is law for the governing of society. The centrality of family, whanau, both present and previous, opens the way to inherited position and rights determined by ancestry. We cannot be equal when those in power base their judgements in part on extended family links. Yet this is intended to be a core feature of New Zealand law.”

This raises questions about our expectations of elected representatives – should Members of Parliament and local body councillors, for example, recuse themselves when dealing with laws that would enrich their extended family. Such conflict-of-interest concerns are a key reason local communities oppose the appointment of tribal representatives onto council committees with full voting rights. Not only do they totally undermine the democratic representation of local councils, but unless these nominees recuse themselves from decisions relating to their tribal interests, they will be able to influence the vote in their own favour.

Preventing the “corruption” Dr Robinson warns about is a critical issue that needs to be addressed when considering the control of New Zealand’s fresh water supplies, given that iwi groups are already claiming ‘partnership’ rights to co-govern decision-making in Labour’s planned reforms.

In his judgment, Justice Churchman makes the distinction between the traditional approach to the law, which sets the rules of law on the one hand, and the underlying values on the other – and tikanga: “In tikanga Maori, the real challenge is to understand the values because it is these values which provide the primary guide to behaviour and not necessarily any ‘rules’ which may be derived from them.”

But as Dr Robinson warns, “The values of traditional Maori society led to widespread killing and a complete collapse before the British were called upon to provide law. The values of the tikanga of today are totally unclear and conflict with those of civilised society. Only a fool would accept these prescriptions.”

If the He Puapua goal of embedding tikanga into the legal system is achieved, the implications – as the Churchman judgement shows – are so destabilising that it is difficult to see how the Common Law can survive.

Finally, when it comes to the question of whether New Zealand needs a new constitution, the Churchman decision highlights the danger.

Under our present ‘unwritten’ constitution Parliament is supreme – if the government get things wrong, they can be held accountable and voted out. But if New Zealand were to introduce a new ‘written’ constitution – as proposed in He Puapua – the judiciary, not Parliament, would be supreme. And if Judges got things wrong, there would be nothing anyone could do.

In 2013, a $4 million attempt by the Maori Party to introduce a Treaty of Waitangi constitution – which would have delivered a perpetual supply of wealth and power to the tribal elite – failed. The NZCPR led the opposition through our Independent Constitutional Review Panel – you can read our final report A House Divided HERE.

I will leave the last word to David Round, who was the Chairman: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Treaty industry is now the self-perpetuating vehicle by which a small greedy and power-hungry clique practises a gigantic con-job on the people of New Zealand. It is time ~ it is long past time ~ that we shake ourselves free from the baleful spell the Treaty industry has cast upon our nation, and calmly and clearly assess the good and ill it has actually done. Our country stands now at a crossroads. To introduce the Treaty into our constitution, with all its inevitable consequences, would be to commit ourselves irrevocably to the path of racial discrimination and hatred, social disruption, poverty and civil strife.”

========================

NEW ZEALAND PM GIVES A MASTERCLASS IN PROPAGANDA

NEW ZEALAND PM GIVES A MASTERCLASS IN PROPAGANDA  By Dr Muriel Newman, 11 June 2021

“It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”
– President Abraham Lincoln

When Jacinda Ardern took office in 2017, she promised her government would be the most open and transparent New Zealand had seen.

In her first formal speech to Parliament she pledged: “This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information.”

Since that time, the Government’s “iron grip” on the control of information has tightened and it is harder now than ever to get information.

This is the view of one of New Zealand’s most experienced political journalists, Stuff’s Andrea Vance, who last weekend explained, “In my 20-year plus time as a journalist, this Government is one of the most thin-skinned and secretive I have experienced. Many of my colleagues say the same… It’s now very difficult for journalists to get to the heart and the truth of a story. We are up against an army of well-paid spin doctors. At every level, the Government manipulates the flow of information… Even squeezing basic facts out of an agency is a frustrating, torturous and often futile exercise.”

She explains that since “the current Government took office, the number of communications specialists have ballooned. Each minister has at least two press secretaries. Ardern has four.”

The team assisting the Prime Minister to shape her public image is headed by her chief press secretary, Andrew Campbell, with former Stuff business editor Ellen Read as his deputy. Essentially, they handle incoming questions for the prime minister, help with speech writing, set up interviews and press conferences, and accompany the PM through media engagements.

In addition, the prime minister’s office not only controls what other members of the Cabinet are saying, but they go to great lengths to “make sure their audience is captured, starting the week and cementing the agenda with a conference call with political editors”.

It is not just politicians that have press secretaries – so too do government departments, and under our PR-savvy Prime Minister, the number is skyrocketing.

In the year Labour took office, the Ministry for the Environment had 10 PR staff – they now have 18. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade more than doubled their staff – up to 25. MBIE blew out from 48 staff to 64, with the New Zealand Transport Agency, which had 26 communications staff five years ago, now employing a staggering 72!

With this PR army promoting an image of government benevolence and attempting to block unwanted scrutiny, even basic requests for information are now being denied.

Andrea Vance describes how attempts by two senior journalists to interview Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta, at a time of intense interest in the China-Australia-New-Zealand relationship, were refused – not because of geo-political sensitivities, nor a diary clash, but because “the paranoid and hyper-sensitive minister objected to taking questions from two journalists at once.”

That same Minister, with her local government hat on, had released radical proposals for ‘three waters’ reforms that would essentially centralise the management of drinking water, wastewater, and storm water operations from local councils to mega-agencies, with 50 percent control allocated to private sector tribal corporations. Yet, she “refused to answer detailed questions about the proposed changes”, agreeing to only one interview – with a ‘friendly’ state broadcaster. The whole debacle represented “a serious blow to accountability”.

It turns out that journalists who ask hard questions and challenge the Government’s spin are increasingly being side lined – refused interviews, excluded from press conferences, and ignored at media stand-ups.

Government departments are also being obstructive, refusing to answer Official Information Requests unless ordered to do so by the Ombudsman. As a result, queries that should have been responded to within 20 working days are taking months to answer with much of the information, when it is eventually released, heavily redacted.

These are not the actions of the open and transparent government promised by Jacinda Ardern, but of an increasingly totalitarian regime.

In her article Andrea Vance asks why the difficulties faced by journalists should matter to the public: “Why should you care?”

She then explains, “Because the public’s impression of this government is the very opposite. They see a prime minister that has captivated the world with her ‘authentic’ communication style, intimate social media postings, daily Covid briefings and proactive releases of Cabinet papers. It is an artfully-crafted mirage, because the reality is very different. This is a Government that is only generous with the information that it chooses to share.”

Jacinda Ardern is, of course, a public relations graduate, with a Bachelor of Communication Studies in Public Relations and Political Science from Waikato University.

As a result, when faced with a pandemic and an election in 2020, Prime Minister Ardern’s confidence in the power of PR led her to employ an army of communications experts to help her win the Covid-PR war and the election.

As George Orwell said, if you control the language, you can control the mind, and that is certainly how it all played out. Using carefully crafted lines like “the team of 5 million”, Jacinda Ardern was able to persuade the nation that she was saving lives – and deserved to be re-elected.

Official information revealed that by the end of May 2020, the cost of the PM’s public relations campaign – which had built a formidable propaganda machine involving 28 advertising, marketing and communications contractors – was a staggering $16 million dollars: “The majority was to two firms who are listed as communications directors by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Clemenger BBDO was paid $3m for its role, which involved the clear and concise messaging such as ‘stay home, save lives’. But the biggest earner OMD, a multinational advertising firm… was paid $12m for its role in the response.”

It turns out that everything from “go hard, go early” to the “be kind to each other” messaging was carefully planned, tested, and executed by experts.

At the time, Newstalk ZB’s Mike Hosking was scathing that so much money was being spent on ‘spin’: “Extraordinary, isn’t it? It shows just how much we got played by a government that was as desperate to score points as it was to actually address a health crisis. Is communication important? Of course. But do you need to pay $16 million for it? No. This wasn’t simple instruction that any government can come up with, this was clearly a highly planned, seriously worked over piece of strategy designed for maximum political impact.

“And the irony is, from the advertising agencies point of view, it worked. We got sucked in, followed orders and came out hailing the Prime Minister with a 59 percent share in a poll. Value for money then? Or a master piece of fantastically expensive spin? Again, we were played like a fiddle.”

Stuff’s Political Editor Luke Malpass agreed: “The Ardern Government has been delivering a masterclass in propaganda since Covid began. It has presented the plan that it formulated as the only feasible option, set up rules and language to prosecute that agenda and rhetorically crushed all opposition. That was buttressed over the months by the fact that the Government’s plan was sound, effectively carried out and delivered comparatively very good results. Labour won a crushing election victory off the back of it.”

Indeed, the $16 million of taxpayers’ money bought Labour a masterly election campaign – by keeping the country’s focus on the virus, and constantly repeating the mantra that it was our team of 5 million that defeated it, they communicated a powerful party line: by sticking together we won the Covid battle and by staying with Labour we will win the battle to rebuild our nation.

Labour’s regular election year focus group polling would have told them that to win over ‘soft’ National voters they needed to shift into the political centre ground and temper their socialist ambitions. As a result, Labour based their election manifesto on their 2017 agenda, and used conservative slogans such as a ‘strong and stable’ government and a ‘steady pair of hands’.

Their PR machine was evident on the campaign trail as political commentator Richard Harman explained at the time: “On the road with Ardern, they had a much more experienced and substantial team. They had two press secretaries with the Prime Minister; National had one. Labour had a professional video crew for social media; National had a staffer with an iPhone. Labour had its former party president and Minister, Ruth Dyson, as its advance person carefully setting up events that Ardern was going to and checking them out to avoid pitfalls. There was little evidence of any advance work [by National].”

After the election, Jacinda Ardern acknowledged that her support had come from across the political spectrum, “To those amongst you who may not have supported Labour before… I say thank you. We will not take your support for granted. And I can promise you, we will be a party that governs for every New Zealander.”

In a media conference the next day, she specifically reassured New Zealanders about the agenda she intended to roll out, saying, “None of it will be new, because we laid the foundations for these next three years in the previous three years.”

But the truth is that much of what Jacinda Ardern has done since the election is new to the public. Not only was her He Puapua report – which provides a blueprint for Maori sovereignty over New Zealand by 2040 – not disclosed to the voters during the campaign, but it’s public release was deliberately delayed until after the election.

It is in this politically-charged environment, that this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, journalist Graham Adams outlines the difficulties in holding a Prime Minister to account, who is PR-driven and, it seems, is prepared to ‘bend the truth beyond breaking point’:

“Jacinda Ardern has offered herself as a hostage to fortune by repeatedly denying that the doctrine of ‘white privilege’ is being taught in schools, or that the teaching curriculum mentions it anywhere, or that it is part of her ‘government’s agenda’.

“She has conceded that white privilege… might have been taught by a teacher somewhere at some time in some school but insists it isn’t official policy.

“In denying that discussing white privilege is an approved part of teaching in schools, evidence shows she may have been bending the truth beyond breaking point. The official education document Te Hurihanganui mentions ‘white privilege’ in its opening paragraphs. The government has funded the programme to the tune of $42 million. Launched in October 2020, it has now been established in numerous schools in Nelson, Te Puke, Porirua and Southland, with more to come.”

Graham points out “For someone who prides herself on mastering the details of her government’s policies, it’s impossible to believe Ardern is simply ill informed or forgetful about Te Hurihanganui’s existence or what it recommends.”

He wonders whether the motivation for the PM’s repeated denials – that leave her open to charges of lying – could be that Labour’s polling is showing a high degree of public disquiet over anti-racism programmes in schools and the imposition of the He Puapua plan for tribal rule.

Perhaps this means the Ardern Government’s “artfully-crafted mirage” that Andrea Vance so eloquently describes, is finally starting to fracture.

Certainly, the fact that the Government is rolling out the radical He Puapua in secret, instead of openly, indicates that even Labour supporters are becoming concerned. If they really understood the truth – the serious threat to democracy that the PM’s separatist agenda represents and the deeply divided society it would create – their opposition and sense of betrayal would intensify.

On this issue, we the majority have the mandate – Jacinda Ardern does not.

=====================

Capitalism Is A Misanthropic, Dystopian Religion

Capitalism Is A Misanthropic, Dystopian Religion  By Caitlin Johnstone, 11 May 2021

Capitalism is a misanthropic, dystopian religion. By “capitalism” I mean this or any other possible system wherein mass-scale human behaviour is driven by the pursuit of capital. By “religion” I mean organized collective faith-based belief system.

In times past the dominant religions had names like “Christianity” or “Islam”, which were used to promote doctrines that shaped societies, dominated civilizations, and built entire empires. Theocratic institutions laboured on behalf of the powerful to bend entire continents to their will, using narratives about beneficent invisible deities as cover. Nowadays the dominant religion is called capitalism, and the theocratic institutions are called governments, and the beneficent deity is called the invisible hand of the market.

In the old religions, people would gather once a week in a building to be indoctrinated by clergymen. In the new religion the clergymen come to indoctrinate you right in the comfort of your own home on screens showing news, TV shows, and Hollywood movies.

And capitalism, like most other religions, has a very bleak view of humanity. Its most vocal zealots talk a lot about “human nature”, which they insist is greedy, self-centred, and competitive.

This belief, like other religious beliefs, is based entirely on blind faith, and it is false. The belief that humans are inherently greedy, self-centred and competitive only feels true to someone who is greedy, self-centred and competitive. As EW Howe said, a thief believes everybody steals.

They claim to be describing “human nature”, but in reality they are only describing their own nature.

The Problem Isn’t Human Nature, The Problem Is A Few Manipulative Sociopaths

“This is an important distinction, because it means we’re not up against some intrinsic aspect of our being here.”

Human nature is not inherently greedy, self-centred and competitive. I look within myself and find an abundance of kindness, caring, and an eagerness to collaborate, and the same is true for many of us. The problem is that some people are greedy, self-centred and competitive, and the very worst of them have succeeded in indoctrinating the rest of us into a religion which upholds these things as virtues instead of severe character flaws. You’re not an exploitative predator, you’re an industrious job creator. You’re not a manipulative sociopath, you’re a senior fellow at an esteemed Washington think tank.

So this religious belief about “human nature” is false. But it’s also a self-fulfilling prophecy which creates the world it describes.

Because capitalist doctrine insists that humans are inherently greedy, self-centred and competitive, its believers cannot imagine any solution to our problems that isn’t driven by greed, selfishness and competition. The idea that we can transcend our propagandized conditioning, our cultural mind viruses and our egoic thought patterns enough to move from our competition-based system into a collaboration-based one looks ridiculous to them, because they believe our nature can only ever be at war. At war with each other, and at war with our ecosystem.

To a thoroughly capitalism-indoctrinated mind, the idea that we can transcend our self-destructive, exploitative, ecocidal patterning and move into collaboration with each other and with our ecosystem to create a healthy, harmonious world looks like childish nonsense. So instead they promote the far more mature and realistic idea that our world will be saved by greedy, union-busting tech oligarchs like Elon Musk.

The Unspoken Premise Of Modern Capitalism Is That The World Will Be Saved By Greedy Tech Oligarchs

“The plutocratic class are not good custodians of our world. They are not good people. They are not wise. They are not even particularly intelligent.”

So now here we are, with the dominant narratives of our age driving us toward nuclear war and climate collapse via the self-fulfilling prophecy that to do otherwise is impossible. The paranoid, misanthropic, eat-or-be-eaten worldview that the capitalist religion has indoctrinated us into espousing has us scrambling over each other for table scraps, stepping on our neighbour’s head to keep our own head above water, saying “If I don’t steal it, someone else will,” and killing the ecosystem we depend on for survival just to make a few bucks, instead of escaping this dystopian death cult and moving toward health.

They are lying to us when they tell us it needs to be this way. The economists are lying. The pundits are lying. The TV shows are lying. The Hollywood movies are lying. Lord of the Flies was lying.

Lord of the Flies came out in 1954, smack-dab in the middle of probably the most culturally dead decade in living memory, a work of fiction which insisted that even innocent children would terrorize and murder each other if left uncommanded by civilizing adult discipline. In 1965 a group of British schoolboys were marooned for 15 months on an island considered uninhabitable, and by the time they were discovered “the boys had set up a small commune with food garden, hollowed-out tree trunks to store rainwater, a gymnasium with curious weights, a badminton court, chicken pens and a permanent fire, all from handiwork, an old knife blade and much determination.” The fiction could not have been more different from the reality.

It does not need to be this way. We do not need to remain locked in this vicious, competition-driven model until we kill ourselves off praying that Daddy Elon will save us and send us to Mars. The rules are all made up, and we can change them whenever we want if enough of us decide that a better world is possible. Money is a conceptual construct. Governments only exist to the extent that we all collectively agree they do. Our entire society is made of narrative. Our world is the product of human imagination.

And we are free to re-imagine it if we want to.

==========================

Port Arthur, Australia – correcting the official narrative of lies

Port Arthur, Australia – correcting the official narrative of lies  By Gil May, posted by CairnsNews.com, 28 April 2021

This letter to the editor was sent to The Courier Mail, News Corp, but not known if it was published: In response to the article by Ellen Whinnett, Courier Mail, on Port Arthur 17 April 2021 “Port Arthur Facts Released By Deeply Concerned Members Of The Tasmanian Bureaucracy”

I always enjoy your articles written by Ellen Whinnett but must comment on Pt Arthur, there is so much more to this story.

I had a chance meeting with a lady in a café years ago. Her name was (the late) Wendy Scurr, she was a tour guide at Pt Arthur on the day of the shooting, she was having refreshment in the kitchen of the Broad Arrow café when the shooting started.

She looked over the counter to see what was happening, she did not recognise the shooter who was shooting from the hip pointing the gun and shooting and not with the gun at his shoulder where you look along the barrel to sight it.  She knows Martin Bryant and said it was not him, she was not allowed to give evidence, the police told her she was not needed that they had more than enough evidence already?

She and the others working in the kitchen hid behind the counters.  At that time there was a local resident and retired police detective with his wife and another couple who were their guests seated at a table in the corner, they put two tables up as a barricade and hid behind them — the detective knew Martin very well and said unequivocally that it was not him as the shooter had a deeply pock marked face, he also noted the gun being fired from the hip and killing people without sighting it.  The Police refused to let him give evidence?

We all commented at the time that PM Howard and the press were in breach of law stating Bryant was definitely guilty, guilt can only be determined by a court — those words led to the condemnation of him in everyone’s eyes.  There should have been charges laid over that issue, but it was ignored as many issues are to protect others.  Bryant was guilty and may he rot in Hell was universally accepted, long before any Court or Inquest procedure.

At all times understand he is intellectually disabled with a mind of about a 11-year-old. The law requires that he must have a guardian with him at all times, that never occurred and other serious breaches occurred, but as he was already declared guilty, application of law, procedures and requirements did not matter.

Whether Martin Bryant is guilty or not he should have been afforded due legal process as mandated by the Constitution and a full coronial inquiry should have been held, which on the finding of the limited inquiry held in Tasmania may well have uncovered a great deal more evidence of frightening consequence to the people — so was blocked.

Two Victorian politicians who were family friends of long standing told me their inquiry identified the serial number of AR15 used in the shooting was traced back to the 1987 Melbourne gun amnesty , the firearm originally owned by (Bill Drysdale from Yae, VictoriaEd ) was acquired by the Victoria S.O.G’s which is not unusual, they get to keep certain firearms and use them for police work, the part that is not okay is the firearm ending up in Port Arthur nine years later. They said it was common knowledge governments were involved — they (politicians) were told they would face police and ATO investigation into every aspect of their lives and lose their seat in Parliament if they spoke out?

The question we all must ask is how did an 11-year-old organise and carry out the incidents — what incidents you ask. So, I identify just a few hereunder that I found of extreme concern with all pointing to a very, very, well planned, and organised incident.   After reading them, check them out for authenticity, satisfy your own analytical thinking to make sure that I am not misleading you.

Maybe I should tell you what aroused my interest: In the press reports at the time were too many giving widely conflicting information and facts — logic is they should have all been very similar as they all reported the same incident, but there were many factual variances — in such cases as still occurs in reporting I take the view of ‘watch this space and be very observant’ for more information will eventually arise — as it always does and the press try to hide the original stuff-ups and false writings.

The commonwealth bank employee that was in the cafe recognized the gunman and stood up and yelled “not in here” before the gunman shot and killed him (he was also an ex ASIO agent)

22 body refrigerated mortuary truck parked near Port Arthur prior to the incident

Investigations that do not answer all base questions on how an issue originated cannot get a correct answer.  Highly suspicious individual sections must be examined in minute detail and those involved tested under oath. Indelible evidentiary material fully identifies prior planning for the delivery of an Embalming Box and equipment to be on sight: and for the purchase and special construction of a Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with 22-body refrigerated Mortuary – the only one in Australia. The orders for these items the ‘Embalming Box and equipment’ and the ‘22-body refrigerated Mortuary  Truck’ would have had to be placed months before the event for them to have been on-site waiting for the Port Arthur massacre to occur.  Read more on this truck [HERE]

FACT 1. Those who placed the orders knew of the planned event.

  • Why have AFP, Government and Press NOT demanded a Royal Commission and STEPHEN SHANE PARRY put under oath to explain his apparent prior knowledge to order and have on site an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident?
  • Stephen Parry former President of the Senate wrote within: –

AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report appears on pages 104 to 119 of said book. On the top of page 104, the name Stephen Parry as Team Leader wrote on Page 112. “I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment. The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well. I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.”

He says that the funeral services company Nelson Brothers had: “organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident.” There is no uncertainty in his words. Said equipment was large, possessed significant design specifications, and was made prior to and for the incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania. He knew this in 1997. He possibly knew these facts in 1996 at the time he worked as the leader of a team responsible for embalming bodies (c.25) of the victims of the Port Arthur shooting incident.

Q.2. Why did the Tasmanian Government order in June 1995 and have specially built a 22-body refrigerated Mortuary Truck the only one in Australia, ten months before the Port Arthur massacre; and was placed on sale in September 1999? Why has no one been put under oath to explain why this was ordered and delivered prior to the event, who ordered and paid for it?

Mortuary truck for sale

The actual advertisement and photograph:

22-BODY VEHICLE FOR SALE

Genuine Enquiries Only

Vehicle for Sale. Genuine Enquiries only.  Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with refrigerated body, holds 22, this vehicle was primarily used as the disaster vehicle in the Port Arthur Massacre. This vehicle is currently for sale and all reasonable offers will be considered. The vehicle has value as not only a refrigerated unit for body removal, it is the only one of its kind in the entire country. The memorabilia value of it for anyone making a movie/series or writing a book on Port Arthur is limitless. Not only would the purchaser be getting the disaster vehicle, but the whole Port Arthur Story would be given as well.

This vehicle is currently for sale and all REASONABLE OFFERS will be considered.

FACT.2.

The Mortuary Truck was ordered ten months beforehand — who placed the order and who paid for it, and who got the money from the sale of it?

Ellen, now some heavy thinking for you — How did an intellectually handicapped boy with a low IQ organise the following.

  1.      Nelson Brothers in Victoria had special big-job embalming equipment “manufactured ready for the incident.” Why did the government specially order such beforehand?
  2.      Martin Bryant organised for senior Port Arthur staff to go away on a Work Seminar so they wouldn’t get hurt.
  3.      He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in place two days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.
  4.      He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch up all the wounded quickly.
  5.      He arranged for helicopter pilots – usually unavailable – to be available that Sunday.
  6.      He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was at a service station 57 kilometres away.
  7.      He decoyed the local police to be at the opposite end of the peninsula at the exact moment the shooting began.
  8.      He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there at 12.45pm.
  9.      He managed not to look like himself – as if wearing a woman’s wig – when being filmed in the car park by tourists.
  10.  He wore a face mask making his face look pockmarked when shooting in the cafe.
  11.  He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards so people wouldn’t think it was him who did it.
  12.  He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that afternoon and make it appear she had been killed that morning.
  13.  He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was downstairs talking to police on the phone.
  14.  He had infrared night vision eyes.
  15.  He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the siege.
  16.  He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling at police and get severe burns only on his back.
  17.  He managed to have the world press to have a convention in Hobart on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get better than usual media coverage.
  18.  He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.
  19.  He managed to make it appear Tasmania Police had fabricated and tampered with evidence.
  20.  He managed to get the Tasmanian DPP to lie to the Court about his activities.
  21.  He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him and get Channel Nine To fabricate a video – all while in custody.
  22.  He fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege by police at Seascape.
  23.  If you believe the official version, his marksmanship was fantastic – twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds!  A movement of 3 degrees would have missed at 3 -4 meters.
  24.  There are only about 100 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the world.
  25.  US news TV published a film of Bryant running between the buildings — in the background was a large blue boat: That blue boat had left two days beforehand.
  26. All done by an intellectually handicapped young man with an IQ of 66 and the mental age of an eleven-year-old boy.

Everyone knows Bryant was guilty including you, but all you know is what the media printed, as they did not have access to the full files that were kept hidden they could NOT have printed all the facts.

The overwhelming disgust of people within the Tasmanian bureaucracy to the deliberate cover-up withholding crucial evidence from the Court to pervert the course of justice, was so great they progressively released files to Dr Keith Noble who compiled the facts for us to read. As YOU DO NOT KNOW the facts as they were hidden, and the Tasmanian government went in to panic mode of what would happen if the public ever knew hurriedly placed a 30-year secrecy ban.

Researcher Dr Keith Noble On Why Martin Bryant Could Not Have Carried Out 1996 Port Arthur Massacre!   Verrrrrry Interesting indeed.

A Royal Commission is obviously required to get these answers – only when these questions are answered and included can the investigation reach a correct verdict of honesty to the victims’ families and the Australian people.

Sincerely

Gil May

Forestdale

EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

Royal Commissions are government controlled kangaroo courts where the outcome is defined first, then the appointment of a controlled government commissioner. The terms of reference exclude any embarrassing exposure or harmful evidenced being submitted and finally prepare guidelines for the commissioner’s findings and report. This formula has been applied to all Royal Commission but in any case governments are not obligated to act on the findings which make the whole exercise futile.

A Coronial Inquiry should be started immediately.

===================

THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM IN NZ


THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM IN NZ  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 22 April 2021

“Totalitarianism: form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica

Under Jacinda Ardern’s stewardship, New Zealand is becoming a totalitarian state.

Another giant leap down that path was announced last week in the form of a Cabinet paper outlining plans to criminalise free speech. But before we examine the detail, let’s remind ourselves of two other significant expansions of State authority that are already underway.

The first involves State control of the entire economy under the guise of ‘climate change’.

As a result of the Prime Minister imposing the harshest carbon restrictions in the world onto New Zealand, the Climate Commission is foreshadowing the need for nation-wide central planning, if the country is to meet our obligations under the United Nations Paris Agreement.

But the question is, why is our Prime Minister sacrificing our economy and living standards, when most other countries are doing nothing? Surely it can’t just be to look good when standing before the United Nations – or can it?

Shouldn’t the PM be held accountable, not to the UN, but to New Zealanders, for the economic damage she is inflicting onto our country?

The second area of totalitarian control involves the undermining of democracy itself. The Ardern Government has already abolished our democratic right to prevent local councils from introducing Maori wards. Now they are replacing democracy with separatist rule.

According to their He Puapua report, the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be enacted by 2040. To achieve that goal, our constitution will be replaced with one that elevates the Treaty of Waitangi into supreme law, Maori tikanga will replace the common law, and the country will be governed through a 50:50 Crown-Maori ‘partnership’. Under what will, in effect, become a tribal dictatorship, democracy will cease to exist.

It’s time to say “No”! To defend democracy and equal rights we have launched a “Declaration of Equality” – to find out more, please click
HERE.

The Prime Minister is now embarking on an even more threatening assault on our freedom – this time on our freedom of speech.

New Zealanders’ right to free speech is enshrined in section 14 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

That freedom is limited by the 1993 Human Rights Act. Section 61 makes it a civil offence to express “threatening, abusive, or insulting” opinions that are likely “to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons… on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.”

Under Section 131 intentionally inciting hostility is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to $7,000. However, as a public safeguard, such prosecutions need the approval of the Attorney-General.

According to the Human Rights Commission New Zealanders’ right to make controversial or offensive remarks is not undermined by these laws – they only restrict those who are inciting serious ethnic tension or unrest: “Only where there is the potential for significant detriment to society can the right to freedom of expression be limited.”

While prosecutions have been rare, many other constraints on free speech also exist.

The regulators dealing with complaints about published material are the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the New Zealand Press Council.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act covers complaints about texts, emails, social media, and website content, with offenders facing up to two years in prison or fines of up to $50,000.

Threats of physical violence or harm are covered by the Crimes Act. Section 307A stipulates that threats made against people or property that cause “significant disruption of the activities of the civilian population” are an offence with a penalty of up to seven years in prison.

In 2019, following the Christchurch tragedy, then Minister of Justice Andrew Little announced a review “to examine whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech. The process should not be rushed, and I expect a report for public comment towards the end of the year… Protecting our crucially important right to freedom of speech, while testing whether the balance is right regarding ‘hate speech’, needs a robust public discussion from all quarters. This way we will ensure that all of our citizens’ rights are protected, and every person can express their humanity without fear.”

The promised public consultation never eventuated. Instead of an open and transparent process,  secret discussions were held with groups campaigning for harsher laws.

The Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite claimed hate speech was a “tricky thing” to navigate. They wanted to keep discussions “away from the political fray”, to prevent them being “derailed” and to “avoid protests”.

In the end, New Zealand First refused to support any restrictions of New Zealanders’ right to free speech. As a result, Labour promised a law change in their 2020 election manifesto: “Labour will extend legal protections for groups that experience hate speech, including for reasons of religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation, by ensuring that we prohibit speech that is likely to incite others to feel hostility or contempt towards these groups under the Human Rights Act.”

Their plan was to use the Human Rights Act to provide statutory protection to groups based not only on ‘race’, but on religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation as well.

Just after the election, the Royal Commission into the Christchurch shootings released its report including proposals to strengthen hate speech laws.

They recommended criminalising anyone deliberately inciting hostility by inserting section 131 of the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act, increasing the penalties from three months in jail to at least two years, including ‘religion’ as a protected characteristic alongside ‘race’, and broadening the scope of ‘hate speech’ from an intent to ‘incite’ hostility to an intent to ‘stir’ it up.

But this week’s NZCPR Guest Contributor political commentator Chris Trotter is questioning the Government’s plan to enact Royal Commission recommendations to restrict our freedom, when nothing could have stopped the ‘lone wolf’ attack:

“Though bitterly contested by those firmly convinced that the Christchurch Mosque Shootings represent something more than the crime of a Lone Wolf terrorist, the Royal Commission’s finding that no state agency could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly intent – except by chance – is correct. He understood that, for his ‘mission’ to succeed, he must do nothing to draw the attention of the authorities – and, God help us all, he didn’t.

“Against such careful and pitiless premeditation, all the laws on our statute books are powerless. The state can punish Lone Wolves, but it cannot stop them. In attempting to minimise the terrorist threat, however, the state can eliminate our freedoms.”

Chris warns: “When Governments extend the state’s power to monitor their citizens’ ideas and activities, we should all be on our guard. Even when such extensions are introduced in response to a terrorist atrocity, we need to ask ourselves: would these new powers have prevented it?”

And that’s precisely what should be in our mind as we examine the proposed restrictions on free speech outlined by the new Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi in his Cabinet paper.

First of all, he wants all free speech breaches criminalised – not just the deliberate calls to incite hostility recommended by the Royal Commission, but the unintentional ones as well.

Second, he wants to adopt the Royal Commission’s proposal for the law to be widened to include an intent to “stir up” hatred.

Third, he wants the penalties strengthened from three months in jail to three years – even though the Royal Commission recommended two years – with fines increased from $7,000 to $50,000.

Fourth, while the Royal Commission recommended increasing the legal protection from groups based on ‘race’ to include ‘religion’ as well, the Minister wants it expanded to include “all groups listed under the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21 of the Human Rights Act”.

That means that under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government, you will not only have to mind your Ps and Qs when it comes to discussing race and religion, but also sex, marital status, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation as well.

In fact, it seems the only group that will not be protected by Minister Faafoi’s new law will be white able-bodied working age males!

But it gets worse.

It appears the Ardern Government is planning on using these law changes to massively expand the concept of ‘incitement to discriminate’. The Minister explained his intention as follows: “Examples of inciting discrimination of a group include encouraging their exclusion or unfavourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, rental housing, or employment. In my view, as it is unlawful to discriminate against population groups, it should also be unlawful to incite others to discriminate against these groups.”

Landlords and employers should beware – if someone alleges unfavourable treatment it appears the Police may well come knocking!

Many other changes are proposed by Minister Faafoi, including some that are being withheld from the public. One in particular deals with the complaints process – paragraph 51 of the Cabinet paper ends with, “Groups spoken with also expressed their desire to address discrimination and hate speech in society more broadly than just through the incitement process”; but how that is to be put into effect in paragraph 52, is fully redacted.

With the chilling effect these proposed changes would have on society plain to see, and George Orwell’s warning, “If you control the language, you control the mind” ringing out loud and clear, is paragraph 52 proposing a new department of Thought Police?

In Jacinda Ardern’s totalitarian State, few New Zealanders will speak their mind for fear of a criminal prosecution. It will be a very ominous day for New Zealand when the Police are given the power to become the enforcement unit of politicians and activists against those expressing contrary opinions.

Through the imposition of State authority over the economy using carbon regulations, over democracy through separatist rule, and over free speech using hate speech laws, New Zealand is becoming a shadow of the vibrant and free society it used to be.

Let’s be absolutely clear – these changes herald the most dramatic expansion of the influence of government in New Zealand’s history, and it’s happening at an extraordinary pace while Jacinda Ardern’s socialist government has a three year window of unbridled control. It is also happening with very limited scrutiny given the lack of independence in the media and a lack of transparency from the government itself.

While all of these changes are seismic, the threat to the freedom of expression is the most ominous. Free speech is essence of a free society. It is the very oxygen of a democracy and individuality. Free speech is how knowledge is developed and shared, and it remains the most effective bulwark against tyranny.

As the former Minister of Justice Andrew Little explained, “Protecting freedom of speech is vital to hold those in authority to account, challenge the socially and culturally dominant, and enable society to progress. Freedom of speech can give force to new ideas, but also cause discomfort and offence. It is usually the first right to be lost under oppressive regimes, and among the first to be restored, at least in name, after revolutionary change.”

With these proposals having been approved by Cabinet, it is clear that under Jacinda Ardern’s controlling regime, she is planning to not only take away our right to criticise others, but also our right to criticise her and her Party. Including ‘political opinion’ as a protected characteristic in hate speech laws puts New Zealand on a course to become the North Korea of Oceania.

 

====================

Previous articles

    • the-snobbish-nastiness-and-division-perpetuated-by-gender-studies-experts  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 16 November 2016
    • at-last-the-pontificating-media-elites-are-trumped  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 15 November 2016
    • trigger-warning-freedom-of-speech-not-welcome  Editorial, The Australian, 8 October
    • lies-and-propaganda-of-the-supranational-elites  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 31 October 2016
    • taxpayer-funded-activism-undermining-the-nation  The Australian editorial, 24 October 2016
    • the-war-on-free-speech-has-just-begun  By Mark Steyn, The Australian, 19 October
    • cultural-totalitarianism-of-the-postmodern-era-did-the-impossible-it-changed-the-very-nature-of-man-and-woman  By Alexander Maistrovoy, 17  October 2016
    • offended-left-claims-exclusive-right-to-freedom-of-expression  By Gerard Henderson, The Australian, 15 October 2016
    • road-to-tyranny-is-paved-with-leftie-assumptions  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 27 September 2016
    • protecting-americas-children-from-police-state-goons-bureaucratic-idiots-mercenary-creeps  By John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute, 22 September 2016
    • free-speech-inimical-to-lefts-stifling-orthodoxies  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 21 September 2016
    • swamped-by-outdated-multicultural-model  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 20 September 2016
    • egressive-left-puts-bigotry-and-militant-islam-on-a-pedestal  By Peter Baldwin, previously a minister in the Hawke and Keating Labor governments.  The Australian, 17 September 2016
    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • Parents allowed tough love  By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 1 September 2016
    • George Soros evil influence on Western politics  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 22 August 2016
    • What Became of the Left  Paul Craig Roberts, Institute for Political Economy, 20 August 2016
    • 21st-century Left waging new war on free speech  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 15 August 2015
    • Denial of speech is one step towards totalitarianism  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 25 July 2016
    • Generation Snowflake  By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 21 July 2016
    • A march against democracy  By Tom Slater, Spikes Online, 10 July 2016
    • Australia’s unprotected rebel against the political elites  By Grace Collier, The Australian, 9 July 2016
    • Australia’s politics in disarray  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 7 July 2016
    • Censorship is not education  By Julian Tomlinson – the Cairns Post, 30 June 2016
    • Brexit, this is what democracy feels like  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked Online, 25 June
    • No offence – but harden up!  By Julian Tomlinson – the Cairns Post, 23 June 2016
    • The Brazen Left’s Bid to Kill Quadrant By Jeremy Sammut, Quadrant Online, 1 June
    • How to raise boys and avoid PC nonsense  By Julian Tomlinson – the Cairns Post, 26 May 2016
    • The Greens, sirens of socialism  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 3 May 2016
    • Leftists for the EU, the radical wing of the oligarchy  By Brendon O”Neill, Spiked Online, 23 April 2016
    • A new authoritarianism has descended  By Neil Brown, The Spectator, 11 April 2016
    • Don’t fear the freedom police By Julian Tomlinson, Deputy Editor, Cairns Post, 7 April
    • Australia’s Marxist-LGBTI engineers  By Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online, 2 March 2016
    • Authenticity, the answer to PC pundits  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 17 February 2016
    • Progressivism’s clash with reality – by Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online 8 February 2016
    • gloriously-unhinged-by-president-trump  By Daryl McCann, Quadrant Online, 20 November 2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016
    • The Truth Behind Revolutions  By Alexander Light, HumansAreFree.com; 27 August 2016
    • The counter-revolution against the Deep State  From Inner Circle, 26 August 2016
    • The welfare state fails Aboriginals yet again  By Gary Johns, The Australian, 25 August 2016
  • I quit, the bureaucrats had beaten me By Charles Hugh-Smith, 13 August 2015

More must-read articles. Currently focused on the COVID-19 ‘plandemic’

This post relates to the massive global Coronavirus fraud and connections to the similarly fraudulent climate change and planned financial reset fiascos. Note: The full text of the first link is below. Many more articles are linked at the end of this post.  

Breaking: U.S. Dept. Of Defence Data Shatters Official COVID Narrative

Breaking. U.S. Dept. Of Defence Data Shatters Official COVID Narrative  By cracknewz.com, 15 October 2021

Editor’s note: Click on link above to view the several graphics in the original article.

AI-powered DoD data analysis program named “Project Salus” shatters official vaccine narrative, shows A.D.E. accelerating in the fully vaccinated with each passing week.

The alarming findings show that the vast majority of covid hospitalizations are occurring among fully-vaccinated individuals and that outcomes among the fully vaccinated are growing worse with each passing week. This appears to fit the pattern of so-called Antibody Dependent Enhancement, where the treatment intervention (mRNA vaccines) is worsening health outcomes and leading to excess hospitalizations and deaths.

These data, presented here, shatter the official Biden / Fauci narrative that falsely claims America is experiencing, “a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” The data show that the pandemic actually appears to be accelerated by covid-19 vaccines, while unvaccinated individuals are having far better outcomes than the vaccinated.

Furthermore, according to these data (shown below), the single best strategy for avoid post-vaccine infections and hospitalizations is natural immunity derived from a previous covid infection.

The full analysis is entitled, “Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against the Delta variant among 5.6M Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older” and is dated Sep. 28, 2021. The presentation of these data consists of 17 slides, which are available at the Humetric website in slide form, also posted on Natural News servers in this PDF version which is more convenient for viewing and printing.

From the JAIC Project Salus document:

In this 80 percent vaccinated 65+ population, an estimated 60 percent of COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in fully vaccinated individuals in the week ending August 7th.

By August 21st, 71 percent of covid-19 “cases” were occurring among fully vaccinated individuals:

In this 80 percent vaccinated 65+ population, an estimated 71 percent of COVID-19 cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.

These data reveal that as the Delta variant approached a 97% infection rate, “cases” and hospitalizations among fully vaccinated individuals showed striking increases with each passing week.

Key Findings Of The DoD / JAIC / Project Salus / Humetrix Analysis

Throughout the slides, “VE” refers to vaccine effectiveness. “Breakthrough” means a failed vaccine, where a fully vaccinated person is diagnosed with covid. Many of those people require hospitalization and ICU treatments (see the slides below).

Some of the key findings of the Project Salus analysis include:

  • The effectiveness of mRNA vaccines is confirmed to wane over time.
  • With each passing week, those vaccinated with mRNA vaccines show an increased risk of vaccine failure / covid infections requiring hospitalization. From the analysis: “Odds ratio increasing to 2.5 at 6 months post vaccination.”
  • Natural immunity works: A prior covid infection greatly reduces the odds of a vaccinated person needing hospitalization from a subsequent infection.

Vaccine Failure Dramatically Worsens Within 5-6 Months After Being Vaccinated

One slide from the analysis reveals that so-called “breakthrough” infections — vaccine failures — increase with time, showing a near doubling of breakthrough infections among those vaccinated 5-6 months ago vs. those vaccinated only 3-4 months ago.

These data end at August 21st, 2021 but the trend does not appear to be flattening. As more data are added to this analysis each week, it seems almost certain that breakthrough infections rates will continue to rise over time in vaccinated individuals. We do not yet know what will happen in 9 months after vaccination, but these data show cause for serious concern.

The following chart reveals that both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are showing the same pattern of worsening “breakthrough” infection rates over time. Notice the upward trend of all the bars in this chart, meaning both mRNA vaccines are producing the same increase in infections among the fully vaccinated:

Once The Delta Variant Took Hold, 71 Percent Of COVID-19 “Breakthrough” Cases Occurred Among The Fully Vaccinated

As the following chart shows, 71 percent of COVID-19 “cases” were breakthrough cases (vaccine failures) once the Delta variant reached 90 percent spread across those infected.

Understand that the authors of this document state that those who are jabbed are not considered “vaccinated” until two weeks after they received the injections, which means that infections, hospitalizations and deaths which occurred from 0 – 14 days are ignored in this data set.

In reality, that means the percentage of “fully vaccinated” people responsible for breakthrough infections, hospitalizations and deaths is substantially higher than what is shown in these data. If they are claiming a 71 percent rate, it may in reality be more like 80 percent or even 90 percent, but we don’t know for sure because they are hiding all negative health outcomes for the first two weeks after the vaccines are administered (by claiming those people are “unvaccinated,” which is a deliberate deception being used to try to hide the harmful effects of vaccines).

Ethnic Groups Hit Hardest: Native Americans, Hispanics And Blacks

Finally, a horrifying slide in the data set reveals that one of the highest risk factors for being hospitalized after being vaccinated is simply being of Native American descent. According to the data in this slide, Native Americans face around 50 percent higher odds of being hospitalized after being vaccinated, compared to other ethnic groups such as Whites.

Hispanics face a slightly lower risk which appears to be around 40 percent higher odds. Blacks face around 25 percent higher odds.

Why is this the case? The gain-of-function properties which were engineered into the SARS-CoV-2 biological weapon — via Fauci, Daszak and the NIH — target ACE2 receptors which exist in higher densities in targeted organ systems of many minority groups such as Native Americans, Hispanics and Blacks.

This has led many observers to conclude that the covid spike protein — which is generated in the bodies of those who take mRNA vaccines — is a race-specific bioweapon designed to achieve depopulation of minority groups.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has engaged in many efforts to bring this to the attention of his followers, for example. These data provided by the DoD / JAIC / Project Salus document shown here appear to support the plausibility of such theories.

Other factors that greatly increase a person’s odds of being hospitalized after receiving vaccinations include kidney failure (ESRD), morbid obesity, chronic liver disease or receiving chemotherapy.

Natural immunity offers documented protect against future hospitalization

Finally, the data presented in this document shows that natural immunity — listed as “prior covid-19” substantially decreases the risk of hospitalization after receiving covid-19 vaccines. (See slide above.)

What this means is that the best way to ensure the safest outcome of a covid vaccine is to experience a covid infection before getting vaccinated. This dramatically reduces your risk of negative health outcomes.

Then again, if someone has already had covid, why would they need a vaccine in the first place? If anything, these data show that anyone choosing to receive covid-19 vaccines is making the wrong choice if they desire to avoid infections, hospitalizations or deaths.

Natural immunity, once again, is revealed as the most effective status that reduces negative outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these data from the DoD / JAIC absolutely shatter the false narrative of Biden, Fauci, Walensky and other “authorities” who are still attempting to gaslight the American people into thinking that hospitals are filled with unvaccinated people. In reality, the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths are occurring among those who were fully vaccinated, according to the 5.6 million people studied in this particular data set (Medicare).

Importantly, post-vaccine health outcomes are worsening over time, meaning that the vaccines appear to be gradually damaging the immune system over subsequent months, making vaccinated individuals far more vulnerable to subsequent infections.

This is the very definition of ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement), about which many analysts such as Dr. Sherri Tenpenny have warned. Now, it appears that ADE is no longer merely a theory but rather a confirmed phenomenon reflected in official Medicare data.

Attorney Thomas Renz told Natural News today that these data should immediately result in not just the FDA’s revocation of mRNA vaccine EUA and approval status, but that the FDA, Fauci and Big Pharma’s top executives should be sued under RICO Act violations for racketeering and organized crime.

See more here: cracknewz.com

====================

The Masked Ball Of Covid Cowardice

The Masked Ball Of Covid Cowardice  Written by tabletmag.com, 14 October 2021

 How fear of admitting error in trusting China’s coronavirus propaganda is driving Western societies into a doom spiral.

Lockdowns; the mass quarantine of both sick and healthy people, have never before been used for disease mitigation in the modern Western world. Previously, the strategy had been systematically ruled out by the pandemic plans of the World Health Organization (WHO) and by health experts of every developed nation. So how did we get here?

Mass lockdowns of entire countries as a technique for fighting disease sprung into the world’s consciousness on the order of Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), who fomented a global propaganda offensive targeting Western governments and media.

Within weeks, the WHO, an organization that once devoted itself to fighting disease and which has sadly become a tool of Chinese foreign policy, promulgated lockdowns into global policy through a series of press conferences that showed a complete absence of analysis or logic.

The world has been fighting a virus from China with a public health policy from China that transforms the world into China. But if the national security community has noticed this bizarre development, they haven’t said so. Instead, their preoccupation has remained largely unchanged since February 2020. Insiders have confirmed that by spring 2020 the national security community was convinced that SARS-CoV-2 was a supervirus leaked from the Wuhan lab, explaining why many supported lockdowns.

Yet the key pieces of information that gave rise to the lab leak theory were the videos of Wuhan residents suddenly falling dead, the contrived tale of heroic whistleblower Li Wenliang, and Xi Jinping’s apparent success locking down Wuhan, the city with the lab in it.

One national security official after another has claimed to know the virus came from the Wuhan lab, even as the underlying intelligence information has changed little. If these officials are as confident as they claim to be, great !It does not change the fact that Covid’s average infection fatality rate (IFR) across all age groups is under 0.24%.

It’s long past time to address the more concerning question to which the rest of the public has long since moved on: why governments across the world have copied and continue to copy China’s anti-democratic, totalitarian measures in response to COVID-19.

One by one, governments of the world imported China’s totalitarian lockdown measures. Neil Ferguson, whose series of alarmist, wildly inaccurate models fueled lockdowns around the world, recalled how China’s example had inspired him:

I think people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March … 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 realised we could … If China had not done it, the year would have been very different.

In the U.K. Government’s official Coronavirus Action Plan from March 3, 2020, discussing social distancing, school closures, and rapid COVID test and vaccine development, nearly every source the U.K. government cited was from China. All the measures outlined in New Zealand’s official COVID-19 Elimination Strategy document—“physical distancing” “widespread testing” “surveillance”—were adopted from China based on the reported success of the CCP’s Wuhan lockdown.

The New Zealand Department of Health deleted this document from their website one day after it received widespread attention on Twitter, after having been posted there for over a year.

In Germany, the federal government commissioned a confidential strategy paper “based on the scientific findings of expert teams from the University of Bonn/University of Nottingham Ningbo China” containing a “catalog of measures” to be implemented by Germany’s CDC, later obtained upon FOIA request by Germany’s independent Corona Committee.

The strategy paper outlined, in detail, the steps to implement lockdowns, mass testing, and quarantine facilities, among other draconian measures. The paper specifically suggested “appeals to the public spirit” including two words that would soon become a worldwide propaganda slogan during the COVID-19 crisis: “together apart.”

Of the 210 pages of FOIAed emails that led to the publication of the German strategy paper, 118 pages were blacked out entirely. The emails contain frequent discussion of China, but nearly all of these references are redacted. The stated reason: “May have adverse effects on international relations.”

One after another, world leaders tipped over like dominoes, their national bureaucracies falling in line to cease all social and economic activity for the first time in history. In March 2020, the Dutch government commissioned a cost-benefit analysis concluding that the health damage from lockdown would be six times greater than the benefit. The government then ignored it, claiming “society would not accept” the optics of an elderly person unable to get an ICU bed.

The Dutch government knowingly took a course of action that would cause health damage—let alone economic damage—six times worse for the Dutch people, out of a concern for optics.

Based on WHO guidance, citing Chinese journal articles, doctors around the world began putting patients on ventilators en masse, killing thousands before a grassroots campaign stopped the practice. Based on the WHO’s guidance on COVID-19 testing, again citing Chinese journal articles, labs used, and continue to use, PCR cycle thresholds from 37 to 40, and sometimes as high as 45.

At these cycle threshold levels, approximately 85 to 90 percent of cases are false positives, as confirmed by The New York Times.

The WHO’s PCR guidance was paired with new international ICD-10 codes for COVID deaths to make COVID-19 quite possibly the deadliest accounting fraud of all time. According to this coding guidance, if a decedent had either tested positive or been in contact with anyone who had, within several weeks prior to their death, then the death should be classified as a COVID-19 death.

The result was a terrifying number of supposed “COVID-19 deaths” that bore little relation to the number of “excess deaths” in a given year, even in states and countries that employed few lockdown measures. This absurd number of “COVID-19 deaths” has been used to rationalize any manner of devastation caused by governments’ response to COVID-19—from bankruptcies and mental health crises to deaths from lockdowns themselves.

What’s transpired since has been a predictable spiral into the abyss, aided and abetted at virtually every stage by a media apparatus that has perpetuated the fraudulent lockdown narrative. The Chinese government has financial stakes in almost every top media outlet and friends in corporations, universities, and governments. Preexisting financial relationships with China led institutions to trust information from China, endorse the CCP’s narrative, and ultimately advocate for the global adoption of the CCP’s policies.

Owing to this combination of naivete, groupthink, and outright corruption, scientists and journalists have been incorporating information from China into their work as true, when in fact nearly every bit of information that has come from China with regard to the virus has been a lie.

Articles from March 10, 2020, illustrate how media outlets adopted China’s narrative in unison. “How China Slowed Coronavirus: Lockdowns, Surveillance, Enforcers,” reported The Wall Street Journal. “Those containment efforts do appear to have been successful, with the number of new cases slowing to a trickle in recent weeks,” CNN admired. “Xi asserts victory on first trip to Wuhan since outbreak … China’s epidemic statistics suggest that its efforts have been effective,” trumpeted The Washington Post.

“The World Health Organization has praised Beijing’s response … ‘This epidemic can be pushed back,’ Dr. Tedros said, ‘but only with a collective, coordinated and comprehensive approach that engages the entire machinery of government,’” The New York Times repeated.

For journalists, indulging the fiction that China controlled the virus appears to have begun as a little white lie—a little something in exchange for all those goodwill seminars and ad placements. It was silly, of course, but what harm could that do?

The snowball effect of this little white lie, that China had controlled the virus, was soon apparent in journalists’ own writing. One after another, they fell victim to their own collective propaganda. Global media outlets legitimized a ludicrous narrative in which the CCP’s two-month lockdown of Wuhan had eliminated domestic cases from all of China, but not before the virus had spread everywhere outside China, where governments now had no choice but to adopt the CCP’s lockdown policies.

Within months, they’d begun to sound like foaming-at-the-mouth communists, their every word dripping with illiberalism as they implored the world to emulate China.

“The U.S. has absolutely no control over the coronavirus. China is on top of the tiniest risks,” The Washington Post gushed. “The verdict is in,” Politico ruled, “China has outperformed, while the once-respected American system has disastrously faltered.” “U.S. Says Virus Can’t Be Controlled. China Aims to Prove It Wrong,” The New York Times admired.

“China beat the coronavirus with science and strong public health measures, not just with authoritarianism,” the Conversation lectured. “In a Topsy-Turvy Pandemic World, China Offers Its Version of Freedom,” The New York Times suggested. “China eradicated COVID-19 within months. Why won’t America learn from them?” Salon whined.

It’s hard to think of many things worse than marching the world toward totalitarianism out of embarrassment for failing to prevent the world’s march toward totalitarianism. But sadly, embarrassment and denial appear to be the primary motivations of world leaders today. From the courts to intelligence agencies to the media and politicians, it all amounts to a collective shirking of responsibility for determining whether lockdown policies have been implemented on fraudulent pretenses, and whether those policies actually work.

Everything since “15 days to slow the spread”—from the fear propaganda to the masks to the school closures and vaccine passes—has been a cover-up of the catastrophe that was the original lockdowns and denial of the insanity of trusting scientists and billionaires who treat information from China as real. Millions surely suspect the lockdown fraud but feel some subtle aversion to saying so.

They don’t want to seem radical or unwoke, or they think it’s someone else’s job. Many refuse to speak up for fear of the backlash against science, the professional class, and China, which couldn’t be more misguided, because nothing can be worse for science and the professional class long-term than letting this fraud continue. But among those who really do believe China’s COVID-19 narrative, or merely pretend to, all the authoritarian methods that supposedly contributed to China’s “success”—including censoring, canceling, and firing those who disagree—are on the table.

The vast majority of professionals simply lack the courage to speak up publicly against a fanatical minority armed with these illiberal powers in their crusade for “Zero COVID.”

The truth is that even as scientists and politicians support lockdown mandates, few really believe in them. This can be said with certainty based on their own actions. It’s hard to find scientists and politicians who haven’t been caught breaking their own COVID rules. But none of them, even heads of state, feel they have the power to speak up against lockdown measures without inconveniencing their careers. And anyway, these policymakers seem to think, these rules must not be a very big deal, given how easily they can break them.

The public was led to believe that lockdowns were grounded in rigorous “science,” and that by following them, they were “following science,” when in fact the only analysis had been “China claimed they eliminated the virus this way, so we can too.” The metrics preferred by media outlets have shifted constantly—from mortality to hospitalizations to “cases”—to rationalize public anxiety. With few exceptions, this failure to “crush” the virus has been attributed, absurdly, to lockdowns’ leniency, rather than to their evidently fraudulent scientific origins.

At the heart of the lockdown madness was the collective fantasy of controlling a common respiratory pathogen—a feat the epidemiology profession had agreed was impossible and self-destructive just months prior. When China’s fraudulent data was left out of the mix, it was abundantly clear that no country was ever able to “control” COVID-19. Instead, the virus appeared to resurge in “waves” despite the use of these socially and economically suicidal measures.

The truth is that the origin of lockdown “science” cannot be factually discussed without the Chinese government looking very bad—something media investors are reluctant to allow. It’s even harder to explain phenomena like the fake videos of residents dropping dead during Wuhan’s lockdown, which went viral all over global websites blocked in China, without implying some degree of foul play by the CCP.

So instead, overcompensating for Beijing, media outlets portrayed China as not only a responsible international stakeholder, but an admirable one whose example should be followed.

Unfortunately, for the millions of workers and small business owners whose life’s work has been destroyed; the millions of children who have been robbed of years of education and terrorized into believing they’re vectors for disease; the hundreds of millions in the developing world whose governments can’t feed them with debt; and the parents who don’t want to raise their children in a world where long-cherished rights can be indefinitely tossed aside, none of these explanations and motivations are remotely adequate.

See more here: tabletmag.com

===================

THE VACCINE DEATH REPORT

The Vaccine Death Report, 13 October 2021  By David John Sorensen & Dr Vladimir Zelenko MD

Version 1.0 September 2021

Editor’s note: The full report comprises 51 pages, including 113 references and 7 links to Evidence that graphene oxide is in the vaccines. The full report can be downloaded from the above link.

Evidence of millions of deaths and serious adverse events resulting from the experimental COVID-19 injections

P U R P O S E

The purpose of this report is to document how all over the world millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions of serious adverse events have occurred, after injections with the experimental mRNA gene therapy. We also reveal the real risk of an unprecedented genocide.

F A C T S

We aim to only present scientific facts and stay away from unfounded claims. The data is clear and verifiable. Over one hundred references can be found for all presented information, which is provided as a starting point for further investigation.

C O M P L I C I T Y The data suggests that we may currently be witnessing the greatest organized mass murder in the history of our world. The severity of this situation compels us to ask this critical question: will we rise to the defence of billions of innocent people? Or will we permit personal profit over justice, and be complicit? Networks of lawyers all over the world are preparing class-action lawsuits to prosecute all who are serving this criminal agenda. To all who have been complicit so far, we say: There is still time to turn and choose the side of truth. Please make the right choice.

W O R L D W I D E Although this report focuses on the situation in the United States, it also applies to the rest of the world, as the same type of experimental injections with similar death rates – and comparable systems of corruption to hide these numbers – are used worldwide. Therefore we encourage everyone around the world to share this report. May it be a wake-up call for all of humanity

F I N A L S U M M A R Y

The data shows that millions may have died already from the covid injections, and hundreds of millions suffer serious side effects. This is just short-term destruction.

The real devastation comes after a few years. There is graphene oxide in the vaccines, which is the perfect conductor for 5G, and the best substance for brain manipulation.

The Chilean president said that 5G will insert thoughts and feelings into everyone. Klaus Schwab adds that humanity will be lifted into one and the same consciousness. This reveals an agenda of total mind control.

The Australian government calls the covid tyranny the New World Order.

All this is based on worldwide fraud of inflating covid numbers, relabelling every death as covid, a PCR test that produces false positives, media scaremongering, and government propaganda.

The criminal network that is behind all this, has been buying the entire health industry, they direct the World Health Organization, they own all mainstream media, and control most governments. They suppress every treatment for covid, so the world would think a vaccine is the only way out.

Their power lies in the fact that they operate in the shadows, so the public has no clue about their existence.

The solution is exposing them. Once enough people in the world – especially law enforcement, health care workers, school teachers, judges, and local authorities – understand what is going on, the plans of the wicked will fail.

Mass awakening will result in mass non-compliance.

Although most of the judicial system is corrupt, lawyers need to become brave warriors to present all the evidence for this crime and start prosecuting all who are complicit. There still remain honest judges, who can turn the tide.

This can become the greatest awakening of all time, if we all rise up, share truth, and unify as one humanity against these criminals.

====================

Canadian doctors explain their concern about Covid regulations

 

Canadian doctors explain their concern about Covid regulations  By a group of concerned doctors in Canada, 11 September 2021

Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and Premier John Horgan  

We are a group of extremely concerned health professionals in the Okanagan Valley, B.C. We have some critical questions  regarding COVID-19, specifically about the current reporting of case numbers, statistics, and testing, and the restrictions  imposed by your health orders. While discussion of adjunctive and alternative safe and effective treatments is being stifled, the  policies of mandatory experimental vaccines and vaccine passports are being forced upon our province, our country, and many  other countries worldwide.

Addressing Dr. Henry, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan: We—as healthcare practitioners and citizens—expect and deserve answers that  address these concerns directly. Proclaiming that vaccine therapies are “safe and effective” is misleading and sloganistic. The  reports of vaccine injuries are increasing every day, yet are being ignored. We are witnessing an increase in Covid illness  occurring in fully vaccinated individuals and, irrationally, that is being followed by a promise of mandated boosters.1 The lack  of answers and the vague information being provided over the past 18+ months do not instill confidence in British Columbians.

This lack of transparency has resulted in unprecedented divisiveness amongst citizens, families and friends. There are individuals  who are angry that some concerned citizens are not complying and are comparing our current circumstances to the Holocaust.  While this may seem extreme, the Holocaust also began with the small removal of freedoms2, just as we are seeing today. This  historical atrocity started out as a slow and seemingly innocent removal of rights by the government, but quickly morphed into  media control, divisiveness between groups of people, and limitations to what one select section of society could do. In this way,  the ordinary citizen easily became an enemy of the state. Today a one-sided, politically-driven narrative, which is being fuelled  by politicians and the media, is causing a similar divisiveness. When only one side of the story is made available to the public, it  is easy to understand how individuals can become disgruntled toward other citizens who are fighting to maintain their freedom  and bodily autonomy. A political agenda is clearly being pushed here, and the refusal to address questions and concerns of  healthcare practitioners and citizens of B.C. speaks volumes. We hope all of B.C. and Canada will carefully consider the  information included in this document and join us in demanding clear, direct and truthful answers.

You must recognize and acknowledge the problems our country faces with our media and with our supposed leaders. We are on  a dangerous trajectory and we must STOP —NOW! The media’s control of information and the censorship of knowledgeable  and experienced physicians, scientists, and lawyers are preventing access to the two sides of the story. The introduction of “Fact  checkers”—who are wholly owned by Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Media — being paid to censor anyone who does not  support the government narrative. The tools of intimidation, coercion, and bribery are being used to divide our society, and all of  this is happening right in front of us. Obviously, this type of behaviour is not a reflection of good people with good ideas; to the  contrary, it is criminal activity.

Groups of doctors are forming international networks to investigate public health measures and to raise questions and concerns.3  We call on all Canadians to join the rapidly growing movement of ordinary citizens who are standing up against tyranny and  violation of our human rights and freedoms!

Please answer the 12 questions below directly, clearly and truthfully, with references to the data from the scientific research on  which you are basing your decisions and policies:

1.) DEATH PERSPECTIVE – There are currently ZERO deaths from COVID-19 for ages 12-19 in B.C., and 12  deaths in ALL children aged 0-19 in ALL of Canada 

Question: Why are you aggressively pressuring 12 through 19-year-old children to get the experimental COVID-19  vaccine when NO DEATHS have occurred in this age group due to COVID-19 in B.C. to date, according to the B.C.  Centre for Disease Control? 4

 

Background: 

In general, we have observed extremely low mortality in B.C. and across Canada from COVID-19. As identified in the  preceding link, only two COVID-19-related deaths have occurred in the past 18 months in the 0 to 11 age range in BC.

  1. https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/booster-shots-for-long-term-care-vaccine-mandate-for-hospital-staff-on-their-way-henry-1.24354874
  1. https://living-diversity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Just-like-any-other-day-ENG.pdf 
  2. https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/130-uk-doctors-failed-covid-policies-caused-massive-harm-especially children?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20130%2B%20UK%20Doctors%3A%20Failed%20COVID%20Policies%20Caused%20 %27Massive%27%20Harm%2C%20Especially%20to%20Children%20%28XumiVc%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsl etter&_kx=PGxyCCxqAWnu4Hn6Ma46U0jfSKIocNqXr-YAOgMHa4Csby-Ao46hRNXEjcRJUBbL.K2vXAy

No deaths have occurred in the age range of 12 through 19. In these childhood deaths, the influence of comorbidities  was not revealed.

On the BCCDC website4, in the Situation Report listed below in the footnotes, these statistics can be viewed on page 9.

With only 2 deaths occurring in the 1 million children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 that reside in B.C., why are we  even considering mandating vaccinations, masks, isolation, and restrictions at school?

B.C. has a population of 5.17M people. As of August 21, 2021, there have been a total of 1,804 deaths due to—or  related to—COVID-19. These deaths occurred over the span of 18+ months dealing with COVID-19 in our province.  Further calculation demonstrates that this represents a 0.023% COVID-19 yearly mortality rate for our entire B.C.  population. Does an annual 0.023% risk of death, heavily skewed towards the elderly with comorbidities, justify a mandatory vaccine policy and a vaccine passport?

Moreover, in the age range of 0 to 59, there have been 127 deaths related to or from COVID-19 in the entirety of B.C  across an 18+ month duration. Why is this information not being openly shared? Does this data not represent a very  different reality than we are being led to believe in the media and in your press conferences?

The total number of people that the Government of Canada says died WITH COVID-19 (not necessarily FROM Covid 19) since the beginning of the pandemic, is 26,873 as of September 3, 2021. You can view these numbers directly on  the Government of Canada InfoBase website5, using the link in the footnote (find Figure 7, and change the drop down  to “deceased”). There you will find the breakdown of the 26,873 of total COVID-19 deaths by age group in Canada. To see these numbers here, we show both the BC and CANADA total deaths, said to be WITH Covid-19, broken down  by age, and the percentage of those deaths by age, over the past 18+ months:

  • Age 0-19 = 2 (0%) BC 12 (0%) Canada  
  • Age 20-29 = 0 (0%) BC 68 (0.3%) Canada  
  • Age 30-39 = 2 (0%) BC 152 (0.6%) Canada  
  • Age 40-49 = 16 (0.8%) BC 354 (1.3%) Canada  
  • Age 50-59 = 30 (0.16%)BC 1,033 (3.8%) Canada  
  • Age 60-69 = 77 (0.4%) BC 2,620 (9.7%) Canada  
  • Age 70-79 = 178 (9.8%) BC 5,747 (20.5%) Canada  
  • Age 80+ = 1,117 (62%) BC 17,160 (63.9%) Canada  

 Total Deaths = 1,804 (100%) BC 26,872 (100%) Canada 

 Total Population = 5,145,851 BC 38,067,903 Canada 

It should surprise all Canadians that there has been a total of 12 children between the ages of 0 and 19 across the entire nation that have died WITH (not necessarily FROM) COVID-19 in 18+ months. Co-morbidities have not been made public. With this data, it is reasonable to ask why the government seeks to vaccinate all children to “protect” them? It is obvious that they do not need protection.

If we compare this to the number of 0-19 year olds in Canada who typically die from influenza (the flu) each year, the public health pressure on children to get vaccinated becomes even more troubling. The only breakdown shown for  pediatrics (assuming age 0-16) in Canada showed that 10 children died of the flu in 2018 over a 12 month period.6  Data for deaths of children from the flu between the ages of 0 and 19 was not shown, which makes it difficult to  precisely compare, but the figures are still telling. According to the Government of Canada, ten children 0-16 years old  died from the flu in 12 months versus 12 children who died with COVID-19 over the last 18+ months (proportionately  8 children per 12 months). This means that COVID-19 is less dangerous than the flu for this age group. Why then is the  Government pressuring children to get vaccinated?

Given 84.3% of all people who are said to have died with COVID-19 are age 70 and over, and 94% of all people who  are said to have died with COVID-19 are age 60 and over, how do you justify applying public health restrictions on the  rest of the population?

  1. http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/Week_33_2021_BC_COVID-19_Situation_Report.pdf

2.) PCR TESTING – Invalid test used to create fear based on 90%+ false positives 

Question: Why are we still using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect COVID-19 cases in B.C.?  Background:  

The World Health Organization (WHO) originally stated that PCR tests were the “gold standard” for COVID-19 testing,  recommending it as the universal test (as of March 21, 2020 laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19  interim guidance). Now the WHO admits what scientists have been saying since the beginning of the pandemic, that the

PCR test is not an accurate diagnostic tool, and is in fact recommending a completely different testing protocol7. Also, the U.S. Centre for Disease Control (CDC) has said that it will ask the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw its emergency use authorization (EUA) of the PCR test as of December 31, 20218.

The entire pandemic and associated restrictions are based upon the number of “cases”; however, the number of “cases” is based upon a positive PCR test result. These PCR tests are falsely inflating the “case” numbers of people who are sick with COVID-19. This creates fear and misleading statistics.

It is important to note that the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated many times that “PCR tests cannot be used to detect viruses”9. It is now admitted that the PCR cannot tell the difference between a common cold, the flu, or any virus or variant. Also, the PCR cannot differentiate between live and dead matter meaning whether something is infectious or not.

Additionally, former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer, Dr. Michael Yeadon announced “…this is nothing but fear-mongering based on junk science and fraud.”10 He too claims that “almost all” of the tests being  conducted for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are “false positives”, a phenomenon that has been observed in  Florida and around the world. Yet, we still continue to use PCR tests to manufacture fear and compliance.

Since speaking out, Dr. Yeadon has been censored and smeared in order to prevent the distribution of, and to discredit,  the critical information he is sharing. He has risked his reputation, career, and his life to share this information. Dr. Yeadon has joined forces with a group of 160 doctors, who are in agreement with issues of regarding the COVID-19  narrative. 11 Why would these highly credentialed professionals willingly put themselves in this position, where there is  so much to lose, and nothing to gain, other than trying to save people from harm?

Dr. Yeadon’s credentials are impressive and include: BSc (Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology) PhD  (Pharmacology), Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D; Co founder & CEO, Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Independent Consultant (Scientist) (United Kingdom).

It is prohibited under the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act of Canada12 to require someone to take a genetic test such as  the PCR test as a condition of their employment or as condition of providing goods or services to that individual. It is  also prohibited for any person to collect, use or disclose the results of a genetic test of an individual without the  individual’s written consent. Anyone involved in contravening this law is liable to a fine of up to 5 years in jail and up  to a $1,000,000 fine.

We note that all of your health orders contravene this law and that you are encouraging employers and business owners  to do the same. Why aren’t you advising the public of the legal responsibility and consequences under the GNDA?

3.) CASES – An overused term and count that means nothing in the actual diagnosis of disease Question: What actually constitutes a legitimate COVID-19 case?

Background: 

You state a case is confirmed based on a positive PCR test; however, as per Question #2, we know these tests are shown  to be inaccurate (90% false positives). Moreover, cycling of PCR tests (often in excess of 35+ amplifications) is being

  1. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-lab-testing-2021.1-eng
  2. https://brandnewtube.com/watch/kary-mullis-what-he-said-about-the-pcr-test-covid1984_83H2TKPRvA1udPu.html
  3. https://brandnewtube.com/watch/ex-pfizer-vp-concerned-about-experimental-covid-vaccine_WjmMVkNrgHqrZgP.html
  4. https://doctors4covidethics.org/about/
  5. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-2.5/page-1.html

used incorrectly for the detection of this virus. With the knowledge of these inflated false positives, we absolutely should not be counting these as “cases”.13

4.) SPREAD – Vaccinated individuals spread COVID-19 just as much—or more—than unvaccinated individuals 

Question: What science or information are you relying upon when you say in your health orders that unvaccinated individuals are at higher risk than vaccinated persons of being infected with and transmitting COVID-19, or that the presence of an unvaccinated staff member constitutes a health hazard under the Public Health Act?

Background: 

Several studies as well as CDC data demonstrate evidence that vaccinated persons have high potential to spread the COVID-19 Delta variant 14. It has been well documented that vaccinated people can—and do—spread the virus.15

A recently published medical study found that infection from COVID-19 confers considerably longer lasting and stronger protection against the delta variant than the current vaccines do.16 Vaccinated individuals were found to be 27  times more likely to experience a symptomatic COVID-19 infection than those with natural immunity from COVID 19.17 Why are we discriminating against unvaccinated people, when the spread is clearly happening also amongst  vaccinated individuals. Furthermore, those that have had a natural COVID-19 infection have been proven to have  longer-term and more robust protection compared to those with the vaccine.18

5.) VARIANTS – Vaccines are causing the variants, and the vaccinated are more affected by variant strains than  those with naturally conferred immunity 

Question: What source are you looking at when you declare that the variant(s) are being caused by unvaccinated  individuals?

Background: 

Dr. Byram W. Bridle (Professor of Viral Immunology at University of Guelph) explains that similarly to antibiotic  resistance, COVID-19 variants are caused by not fully killing the virus, allowing for mutation.19 Therefore, only  individuals who are vaccinated can be creating the variants. As with any variant, as the CDC and WHO also state,  mutations lead to a weaker and more transmittable viral strain. That is why the Delta will not have the same potential  for causing deaths as the original COVID-19 strain. As evidenced by Dr. Bridle, the continual application of COVID 19 vaccinations, and furthermore boosters, will exacerbate the development of more variants. Finally, there is no  current evidence that suggests that unvaccinated individuals are causing a rise in cases. 20

6.) VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS – Exposing the true effectiveness rate of vaccines and approval concerns 

Question: Why is the inflated Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of 94.0% utilized in reporting of vaccine effectiveness  instead of the Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) of less than 1.0%? What information are you relying upon when you say  vaccines prevent or reduce the risk of infection with covid-19?

Background: 

Promoting the RRR instead of the ARR misleads the general population, exacerbating the non-factual concept that  these vaccines prevent getting and spreading COVID-19. The National Library of Medicine website linked below  states “… the absence of the ARR in COVID-19 trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation

13 https://brandnewtube.com/watch/dr-mike-yeadon-on-pcr-tests-for-covid19_L2vEhfBrzbkYAyX.html 

14 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-people-who-are-fully-vaccinated-have-high-potential-of-spreading-covid/

16 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1

17 https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-once-confers-much-greater-immunity-vaccine-vaccination-remains-vital 

  1. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/09/no_author/harvard-epidemiologist-the-case-for-vaccine-passports-was-demolished/
  2. https://undercurrents723949620.wordpress.com/2021/08/16/the-lies-behind-the-pandemic-of-unvaxxed/

20 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/no-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-covid-jab-skeptic-doctor-interviewed-on-fox/

of vaccine efficacy.”21 Saying that vaccinations are 94.0-95.0% effective is very misleading,22 as people often assume this means they have a 94.0% chance that they will not become sick from COVID-19. This is not true.

To explain how RRR and ARR works in layman’s terms requires much detail. Simplifying this information, RRR  signifies the risk of a health event occurring in a group of vaccinated individuals versus a group of unvaccinated  individuals. This number is incorrectly interpreted to represent that 94 out of every 100 people vaccinated will be  protected from COVID-19. Although this number is compelling, this is an incorrect statement regarding what that 94%  means. This number does not tell you what your chances are of becoming sick if you get vaccinated.

The more valuable and accurate value that needs to be used is that of the ARR. The ARR represents the ACTUAL  likelihood of disease risk between the placebo (non-vaccinated individuals) and treatment (vaccinated individuals)  groups.

The ARR data directly from Pfizer and Moderna was calculated as 0.7% and 1.1% respectively. In contrast, the RRR  calculated as 95.0% and 94.0% for Pfizer and Moderna, respectively. See the Abstract in this NIH document that  presents the vaccine RRR/ARR data direct from Pfizer and Moderna.23

If individuals knew that the current vaccinations only confer a 0.7% to 1.1% reduction in chances of getting ill with  COVID-19, would they have still have taken the vaccine given its risks?

It is imperative to clarify that the COVID-19 vaccines do NOT prevent COVID-19, nor do they stop the transmission  of COVID-19. The vaccines have only been designed to reduce severity of symptoms in the individual who receives  the vaccine. As previously discussed, the virus is still transmissible by both vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals.  Breakthrough cases are occurring regularly in fully vaccinated individuals at an increasing rate, which is pushing the  requirement for booster vaccinations. The push by Government to require booster vaccinations at this early stage only  serves to confirm that the original vaccine program being pushed is failing.24

7.) VACCINE SAFETY/INJURY STATS – Missing full details of the magnitude of Vaccine injuries and deaths  

Question: Where is the transparency for the current statistics and details regarding counts of B.C. vaccine-related  injuries and deaths?

Background: 

Adverse reaction statistics and data is imperative to ensure that British Columbians can exercise their constitutional  right to free and voluntary informed consent. This information should be presented daily, alongside the Covid-19 “case” numbers, so people can decide whether they want to freely accept the experimental vaccinations.

The Government of Canada Vaccine Injury website states as of September 3, 2021 that 14,101 adverse reactions have  been reported. Of those 14,101 reports of adverse reactions there are currently 3,768 reported as serious. “Serious”  adverse reactions include death; however, death counts are not separately recorded on this database. 25 Why is there this  lack of transparency?

Specifically, on Sept 3rd, a report quietly released by Public Health Ontario reported 106 youth, under the age of 25,  were hospitalized with heart inflammation following mRNA vaccination. 26

These vaccine injuries and deaths are not just in Canada, but all over the world:

  • (EU Vaccine injury:1.9 Million, Vaccine deaths: 20,595)27
  • (US Vaccine injury reported in VAERS: 650,075, Vaccine deaths: 13,911)28

21 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/ 

22 https://rumble.com/vm026d-ex-pfizer-employee-tells-us-the-horrifying-truth-about-the-covid-19-vaccine.html

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996517/

24 https://www.timesofisrael.com/virus-czar-calls-to-begin-readying-for-eventual-4th-vaccine-dose/ 

25 https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/summary.html 

26 https://theprovince.com/news/provincial/over-100-ontario-youth-have-been-sent-to-hospital-for-vaccine-related-heart problems/wcm/d3720dc4-1435-4c7e-9573-b7d658b075b1 

  1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/20595-dead-1-9-million-injured-50-serious-reported-european-union-database-adverse-drug-reactions-covid-19-shots/5751904

28 https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data

yet the true numbers are not being disclosed accurately—if at all. Investigations show that very few vaccine injuries and  deaths are actually approved and reported to government reporting agencies.29 An article from Harvard states  “manufacturers of vaccines must comply with the more expansive requirements of §600.80 of the C.F.R. Because  VAERS is a passive reporting system, many adverse reactions to vaccines may not be reported.” 30

Lastly, the Harvard Pilgrim Study31 states “Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low  reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health.”

Dr. Patrick Phillips, an emergency room physician in Ontario stated that the forms are not easy to fill out, and that they  are very cumbersome. Dr. Phillips also had a few reports returned to him marked as ‘invalid’.32 It is critical to properly  compare the risk of COVID-19 to the risk of vaccine injury knowing they are not fully disclosed. This is even more  important when we see the pharmacies including more warnings on the Vaccines.33

A true clinical trial of this vaccine would include transparency where health officers would clearly provide vaccine  injury details and fully track these occurrences without hesitation. Without this information and data, proper free and  full informed consent cannot occur. The above included links are just some of the reporting systems, but the numbers  are still very high and show much more injury than should be acceptable to any PHO or Government.

8.) PASSPORTS Will NOT be temporary and soon the 2 shots will NOT be sufficient to obtain a valid passport 

Question: You have recently stated that vaccine passports will be temporary, expiring at the end of January 2022.  However, with 1 billion dollars being offered as an incentive by the Government of Canada34 for provinces who  implement this system, it is hard to imagine this system will be scrapped by January 31, 2022, after only 5 months of  use. It is difficult to rely on your statement given what you said on May 25, 2021on television (see 2:52 into the video):

…there is no way that we will recommend inequities be increased by use of things like vaccine passports for  services, for public access here in British Columbia, and that’s my advice and I’ve got support from the  Premier and I have talked about this Minister Dix and others.” 35

Prime Minister Trudeau made a similar commitment to Canadians on January 14, 2021 (see 3:30 into the same video).

Current studies (footnoted earlier) show that vaccinated individuals spread COVID-19 as well. This begs the question,  if all people spread the virus why are we segregating people?

While it is understandable that fully vaccinated individuals are looking forward to getting their passport so life “can go  back to normal” or so they “can travel”, they should be made aware that once a booster is mandated, their passport will  no longer be considered valid until they are post 7 days after receiving a booster. Countries around that world that are

implementing booster programs are already indicating that boosters will be needed to maintain a valid and up-to-date  vaccine passport. 36 The booster system will ensure that this vicious cycle never ends and one will need regular boosters  of the vaccine to keep their passport valid.

9.) TREATMENTS – There are better inpatient and at home treatments that can reduce illness severity and death 

Question: Why are we not using approved and well-researched antivirals like FDA approved Ivermectin? 26 Why are  we providing no out-patient treatment for at home use when other doctors in many countries are successfully doing so?

Background: 

Doctors are avoiding or being prohibited from prescribing pharmaceuticals that are known to help with COVID-19  symptoms that are safe, such as Ivermectin. The negative spin being put on Ivermectin by mainstream media, that it is

  1.  
  2. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9453695/Davenport%2c_Katherine_NVICP.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
  3. https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
  4. https://action4canada.com/medical-censorship-and-tyranny-exposed/ 
  5. https://21stcenturywire.com/2021/07/12/breaking-fda-warning-for-johnson-johnson-vaccine-linked-to-autoimmune-disease/
  6. https://rumble.com/vm7uzj-b.c.-vax-pass-punishes-young-health-care-worker-who-cant-walk-following-mod.html

only used in horses, is not true. These statements being made about Ivermectin are malicious and false as it has been  safely and effectively used for years in humans.37 In 2015 William C. Campbell, emeritus research fellow at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey and Satoshi Omura, professor emeritus at Kitasato University in Japan, jointly  received one half of the Nobel Prize for their work with Ivermectin that was discovered in 1975 and approved for safe  use in humans in 1987. In delivering his Nobel Prize lecture on December 7, 2015, Dr. Campbell confirmed the safety  and effectiveness of using Ivermectin in humans, and noted that part of the ground breaking research was done in  partnership with the WHO, the World Bank, and others.38 It was noted that because of its excellent safety profile and  broad spectrum of activity, Ivermectin was catalogued by the World Health Organization as an essential medicine and is  regarded by many as a “magic bullet” for global health. 39

On February 9, 2021, the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, announced that Ivermectin seemed  to be effective at stopping Covid 19 and publicly recommended that all doctors in Japan immediately begin using  Ivermectin to treat Covid 19.40

It is interesting to note that only since the covid-19 pandemic began has the WHO changed its stance on the  effectiveness of Ivermectin. While the WHO still admits that Ivermectin is on its essential medicines list (and therefore  safe), the WHO now simply says that the evidence to support using Ivermectin as an effective treatment for Covid 19 is  inconclusive, and that the guideline development group that they convened did not look at the use of Ivermectin to  prevent Covid 19. One can only speculate as to why this group was not asked to look at that essential question. The  WHO only says that this question was outside the scope of the current guidelines.41 It would seem that these much more  expensive, experimental vaccines that were rushed to market under an emergency use authorization only, without proper  testing and scrutiny, would be at least as inconclusive as the safe, tried and tested Ivermectin.

Additionally, Hydroxychloroquine is an approved and well-known treatment. Medical professionals have been coerced  and forced to prescribe less efficacious, and even harmful, drugs. Deaths associated with adverse drug events (i.e.  related to the use of Remdesivir42) should be considered as a separate count from COVID-19 deaths, as those deaths  could have been avoided if these effective pharmaceuticals were implemented in a timely manner.

Simple home remedies such as zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, N-acetylcysteine, and quercetin are also well known and  effective at helping COVID-19 patients to recover43. Dr. Vladimir Zev Zelenko has led the way with these treatments.  In contrast, many doctors are still sending patients with COVID-19 home without any of these treatment options.

Why have you not promoted other effective treatment apart from the experimental vaccines, or even healthy lifestyle  choices and vitamin D, since it is clear that obesity, high blood pressure and inactivity were largely responsible for  COVID-19 related deaths? The opposite has happened with your policies of lockdowns, closures of parks, gyms, and  sports programs, and the creation of fear and anxiety through constant media messaging. These all lower the function of  the immune system and increase blood pressure, which are undesirable outcomes.

10.) DEFINITION AND COUNTS OF THE VACCINATED VS. UNVACCINATED 

Question: Why have you made the definition of vaccinated and unvaccinated in your public health orders so misleading  and contrary to common understanding? Why do use different definitions of what it means to be “vaccinated” in your  different health orders that are still in effect?

Background: 

In your August 20, 2021 provincial health order, which has already gone missing from the B.C. government website,  you define “vaccinated” as any individual who is 14 days post receipt of the full series of a WHO approved vaccine, or  combination of approved WHO vaccines. This means that anyone who is sick or hospitalized with COVID-19 within 13  days of their 2nd shot is considered “unvaccinated”. This is just like people who have had one shot, and are counted in

  1. https://rumble.com/vm7uzj-b.c.-vax-pass-punishes-young-health-care-worker-who-cant-walk-following-mod.html
  2. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/campbell/lecture/

39 https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthisglobal/-/custom-blog-portlet/ivermectina-un-medicamento-de-nobel-pero-poco accesible/91127/0 

  1. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-japanese-medical-association-chairman-tells-doctors-to-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid/
  2. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-japanese-medical-association-chairman-tells-doctors-to-prescribe-ivermectin-for-covid/
  3. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/who-guideline-development-group-advises-against-use-of-remdesivir-for-covid-19/

the statistics that you put forth. These definitions are very misleading and help promote the false narrative that the  unvaccinated are driving the upward trend of “cases”.

You alluded to the fact that boosters are likely to be required in B.C., at least for certain populations. As we are  witnessing the rollout in other countries, we predict that the plan will be to require everyone to have a booster, or  several boosters, eventually. Once 2 shots are no longer what is recommended as a full series of COVID-19 vaccines  approved by the WHO, then no British Columbian will be considered “vaccinated” until a booster vaccine is taken.

Also, it has been noted that the WHO does not approve of mixing and matching vaccines. This is contrary to your  definition of “vaccinated” in your current health order wherein you do approve of this practice. The WHO says this  should not be done unless supportive evidence is available. What evidence are you relying upon to tell British  Columbians that mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines is acceptable or safe? The WHO recommends that if  someone has mixed and matched 2 different vaccines, no additional doses of either vaccine should be administered to  that person.44 Why are you ignoring this advice? What science are you relying upon?

Finally, Dr. Bonnie Henry, you quietly issued an additional health order on August 31, 2021 45, replacing the August 20,  2021 health order. The new order issued on August 31, 2021 removed some terms and added others which included  changing the definition of “vaccinated” from 14 days post a full series of vaccination approved by the WHO, down to 7  days post-vaccination of an approved full series of WHO approved vaccines. Your September 2, 2021 Residential Care  Staff Covid-19 Preventative Measures health order46 uses the same 7 day period. What science are you relying on to  justify this change, as you have previously stated that it requires 14 days for the vaccines to work?

11.) TESTING ONLY UNVACCINATED INDIVIDUALS —August 20, 2021, August 31, 2021 and September 2,  2021 Health Orders  

Question: In your public health order dated August 20, 2021—and now August 31, 2021 and September 2, 2021 —you  are only requiring unvaccinated individuals to undergo rapid antigen testing and PCR testing. In light of the evidence  and scientific research showing that vaccinated individuals are significantly more likely to contract the Delta variant  than unvaccinated individuals47. You also say in your September 2, 2021 health order that you will not allow any staff  member to be hired after October 11, 2021 unless they meet your definition of “vaccinated”. What science are you  relying on to justify this policy of testing and discriminating against unvaccinated citizens?

Background: 

You continue to state that you are following the science, however, you have yet to provide ANY reference to the  science you are following despite being asked for this information numerous times over the last 18+ months. We  demand that you be transparent and honest with the public you serve by posting the scientific studies and data you are  relying upon to support your policies and health orders on the BC government website alongside your public health  orders so we can review this information.

12.) MASKS – under OATH Dr. Bonnie Henry admitted that there is scant evidence that masks are effective at  preventing spread of the influenza virus but felt that can be an effective coercive tool when staff refuse to accept  a vaccine 

Question: Where is the evidence that your mask mandates in your health orders actually work? You define “face  coverings” in your September 2, 2021 health order48 as including a medical mask, or a non-medical mask, or a tightly  woven fabric but does not include a clear plastic face shield. Where is the evidence that a non-medical mask, or a  piece of tightly woven fabric, is an effective means of preventing the spread of a virus?

  1. https://www.who.int/news/item/10-08-2021-interim-statement-on-heterologous-priming-for-covid-19-vaccines
  2. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/covid-19-pho-order-vaccination-status-information.pdf
  3. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated
  4. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/covid-19/covid-19-pho-order-face-coverings.pdf?bcgovtm=20210311_GCPE_Vizeum_COVID___Google_Search_BCGOV_EN_BC__Text

Background:  

Dr. Henry’s testimony under oath in 2015 49 in an arbitration hearing in Ontario as an expert witness for the Sault Area  Hospital (SAH) and the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) against the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) is  informative. The issue in that arbitration was that the hospital required healthcare workers to wear surgical/procedure  masks each year throughout the 5 to 6 month flu season if they had not received the vaccination for influenza. The  Nurses Union alleged that the policy was an unreasonable exercise of management rights and a breach of employee  privacy rights. At the time that Dr. Henry advocated in favor of the policy, she was the Deputy Provincial Health  Officer for British Columbia.

Dr. Henry’s testimony in that arbitration hearing is eerily similar to the narrative she has been telling British  Columbians about the Covid 19 virus. Dr. Henry was a strong proponent that there was asymptomatic spread, that  unvaccinated nurses and healthcare workers should wear masks, and supported mandating forcing employees to wear  masks as a consequence of choosing not to get the vaccine.

On cross-examination Dr. Henry reluctantly admitted (at paragraph 161 of the arbitration decision) that there was not a  lot of evidence to support the suggestion that asymptomatic shedding actually leads to effective transmission of the  virus.

At paragraph 178 of the arbitration decision, the arbitrator notes that Dr. Henry concluded after admitting that “I am  not a huge fan of the masking piece”, that “there is not a lot of evidence to support mask use…”

At Paragraph 219 Dr. Henry’s evidence is summarized in part as follows:

It is a challenging issue and we have wrestled with it. I am not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was  felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do-to feel that we were doing the best we can to try  and reduce risk. I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it  is certainly not as good a measure.

In the arbitration, the Nurses Union submitted that Dr. Henry was instrumental in the introduction of the “vaccinate or  mask” policy in British Columbia (paragraph 256) and therefore Dr. Henry’s objectivity was suspect. The arbitrator  preferred the evidence of other experts over Dr. Henry and her colleagues’ evidence.

The arbitrator noted that Dr. Henry defended the vaccine or mask policies as a way of preventing transmission from  unvaccinated healthcare workers to their patients before symptom onset, or in cases of asymptomatic infection  (paragraph 287). However, the arbitrator also noted (at paragraph 294) that while Dr. Henry stated there was “some  evidence that people shed prior to being symptomatic and some evidence of transmission” but “there is not a lot of  evidence around these pieces”. Two other experts who testified on behalf of the hospital, one of whom Dr. Henry  acknowledged her expertise, both admitted that the evidence of asymptomatic spread was “scant”.

The arbitrator held (at paragraph 297), while “bearing in mind the concessions made about the quality of the evidence  by Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry”, that the following opinion of another expert was more accurate:

Although asymptomatic individuals may shed influenza virus, studies have not determined if such people  effectively transmit influenza… Based on the available literature, we found that there is scant, if any, evidence  that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals play an important role in transmission.”

The arbitrator held that the patient safety purpose and effect of masking was not established on the evidence and that  the “vaccine or mask” requirement was reduced to a “coercive tool”, a situation that would be troubling if made out. The arbitrator also noted (at paragraph 326) Dr. Henry’s recognition that the wearing of a mass could be reasonably  regarded as a “consequence” for failure to consent to vaccination.

The arbitrator concluded (paragraph 327) that the vaccine or mask policy did not provide a legitimate accommodative  purpose for healthcare workers who conscientiously object to immunization, but rather more closely resembled an  unacceptable Hobson’s choice (free choice). The arbitrator did not accept the argument that requiring unvaccinated  staff to wear a mask may encourage truly voluntary immunization, nor did the arbitrator accept that the continuance of  the minority employee group who choose to mask disproves the effectively coercive aspect of a vaccine or mask  policy. The arbitrator noted that one of the nurses told her managers that “I felt I was being publicly put on display for  choosing not to get the flu shot. I told her I felt I was being bullied into it and harassed.”

49 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf

The arbitrator concluded that the vaccine or mask policy was unreasonable and contravened KVP principles. Similar  findings were made by another arbitrator in 2018 involving the St. Michael’s Hospital and the Ontario Hospital  Association v. The Ontario Nurses Association.50 51

The vaccine or mask policy in issue in the Ontario Nurses arbitrations is very similar to what is going on in British  Columbia with covid-19. Just as the arbitrator found that a masking policy amounted to a coercive tool that was  troubling, your policies requiring rapid antigen testing, PCR testing, and masking as a condition of employment, is  nothing more than a coercive tool to pressure people to accept the experimental vaccine. As the arbitrator held in 2015,  a policy with this purpose is “troubling”.

You stated numerous times in your television briefings in 2020 that masks were not effective at preventing the spread  of the Covid 19 virus.52 Now you claim that masks do work and that you never said they did not. There is a glaring  discrepancy between the statements that you made under oath in 2015, and in your television briefings in 2020, compared to what you are saying now in your current health orders in 2021.

Please refer to the additional published studies confirming masks are not effective.53 54 Also, Dr. Byram Bridle’s video  also demonstrates that wearing 5 masks do not stop droplets from escaping and certainly do not prevent the Covid-19  virus from passing through a non-medical mask or tightly woven clothing.55

Requiring people to wear masks harms the user by reducing availability of oxygen, increasing bacterial growth within  the fabric of the masks, leads to social issues for individuals that cannot mask for medical reasons, creates waste of  materials and money, and contributes to further pollution and negative environmental impact.

Please provide the evidence you are relying upon that prove masks work.

Call To Action: 

Dr. Henry, Mr. Dix and Mr. Horgan, the citizens of this province call on you to answer to these questions, directly and truthfully.  British Columbians will no longer tolerate the trampling of our rights, segregation, and division amongst neighbors and families.  We respect different perspectives and opinions; however, everyone deserves to see the scientific evidence you are relying upon  to justify your public health orders. All British Columbians thank you in advance for your much-anticipated response.

To our fellow British Columbians, you are our friends and family, and we need you to carefully consider the information above  and be open to what is being said. We urge you to join us in fighting for the restoration of our freedoms and putting an end to the  restrictions that have no basis in science and are designed only to promote fear and division and to give the government control  over our lives.

Now is the time to take a stand, before it is too late.

Please share this with all your friends, family, media and everyone you can think of.

 

Sincerely,  

Voices Of Silenced Okanagan Health Professionals 

A concerned group of health professionals who choose to remain anonymous due to threats of discipline and termination, by our own various  professional governing bodies, for all who dare to question the B.C. government narrative on COVID-19 policies.

All of the documentation and websites linked in the footnotes have been archived to preserve their contents.

  1. https://www.ona.org/wp-content/uploads/ona_kaplanarbitrationdecision_vaccinateormask_stmichaelsoha_20180906.pdf

52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CefaYs_pFs 

53 https://rationalground.com/masks-children-and-covid-19-published-studies/ 

54 https://showmeyoursmile.org 

55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIaul0U83d0

====================

The non-existent virus; an explosive interview with Christine Massey

The non-existent virus, an explosive interview with Christine Massey  By Jon Rappoport, 8 October 2021

With a background in biostatistics, Christine Massey has been using Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests as a research tool, as a diamond drill, to unearth the truth about SARS-CoV-2. As in: Does the virus exist?

Her approach has yielded shocking results.

In a half-sane world, Christine’s work would win many awards, and rate far-reaching coverage. In the present world, more and more people, on their own, are waking up to her findings and completely revising their perception of the “pandemic.”

Here is my recent interview with the brilliant relentless Christine Massey:

Q: You and your colleagues have made many FOIA requests to public health agencies around the world. You’ve been asking for records that show the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists. How did you develop this approach?

A: In 2014, a lady in Edmonton submitted a freedom of information request to Health Canada asking for studies relating to the addition of hydrofluorosilisic acid (industrial waste fluoride acid) to public drinking water (water fluoridation). HealthCanada’s response indicated that they had no studies whatsoever to back up their claims that the practice is safe or effective.

A few years later, some high quality government-funded studies showed that common fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy are associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms in offspring. Nevertheless, dentists and the public health community continued to promote and defend the so-called “great public health achievement” of forcing this controversial preventative dental treatment onto entire communities, and were dismissive of those studies. So I used freedom of information requests to show that various institutions promoting and defending water fluoridation in Ontario, Alberta and Washington State could not provide or cite even one primary study indicating safety with respect to those outcomes.

So once I learned from people like David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Thomas Cowan that the alleged [COVID] virus had never been isolated (purified) from a patient sample and then characterized, sequenced and studied with controlled experiments, and thus had never been shown to exist, I realized that freedom of information (FOI) requests could be used to verify their claims.

Most people are not going to take the time to check all of the so-called “virus isolation” studies for themselves, so FOIs were a way to 1) ensure that nothing had been overlooked, and 2) cut to the chase and back-up what these gentlemen [Kaufman, Cowan, Crowe, Lanka] were saying, if they were indeed correct.

So in May 2020 I began submitting FOI requests for any record held by the respective institution that describes the isolation/purification of the alleged “COVID-19 virus” from an unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient, by anyone, anywhere on the planet.

Q: How many public health and government agencies have you queried with FOIA requests?

A: I have personally queried and received responses from 22 Canadian institutions. These are public health institutions, universities that claim to have “isolated the virus”, and 3 police services – due to their enforcement of “COVID-19” restrictions. I have also personally received responses from several institutions outside of Canada including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). I await responses from a number of additional institutions.

Many people around the world have obtained responses to the same/similar, or related, [FOIA] requests, from institutions in their own countries. One person who has done a lot of work on this in New Zealand and other countries is my colleague Michael S. Also a fellow named Marc Horn obtained many in the UK. A handful of other people obtained several responses, and lots of people have obtained 1 or 2.

I have been compiling all of the responses that are sent to me on my FOI page, and as I type this (October 4, 2021) we have FOI responses from 104 institutions in well over 20 countries all relating to the purification/existence of the alleged virus. Additionally, there are court documents from South Africa and Portugal. In total, 110 instructions are represented at this moment on my website. There are FOI responses from more institutions that I haven’t had a chance to upload yet.

Q: How would you characterize the replies you’ve gotten from these agencies?

A: Every institution without exception has failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing purification of the alleged virus from even 1 patient sample.

Twenty-one of the 22 Canadian institutions admitted flat out that they have no such records (as required by the Canadian legislation). Many institutions outside Canada have admitted the same, including the CDC (November 2, 2020), Australia’s Department of Health, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, the UK Department of Health and Social Care…

And in some cases, silly excuses were provided. For example, the Norwegian Directorate of Health’s response was that they do not own, store or control documents with information about patients. Public Health Wales told Dr. Janet Menage that they have not produced any such records, and that while they would normally be willing to point her towards records that are in the public domain it would be too difficult in this case.

Brazil’s FDA-like injection-approver, the Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), told Marcella Picone that they have no record of virus purification and are not required to by law, thus it is (in their minds) not their obligation to make sure that the virus actually exists.

Q: What is the exact text of your FOIA requests?

The text has varied somewhat over time. For example, in the beginning I used the word “isolation”. But since that term gets abused so badly by virologists, I now stick to “purification”.

In all requests I specified exactly what I meant by isolation/purification (separation of the alleged virus from everything else), and that the purified particles should come directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the patient sample was not first adulterated with any other source of genetic material (i.e. the monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells and the fetal bovine serum that are typically used in the bogus “virus isolation” studies).

I always clarified that I was not requesting records where researchers failed to purify the alleged virus and instead cultured something and/or performed a PCR test and/or sequenced something. I also clarified that I was requesting records authored by anyone, anywhere – not simply records that were created by the institution in question. And I requested citations for any record of purification that is held by the institution but already available to the public elsewhere.

The latest iteration [of the FOIA request] is posted on a page of my website where I encourage others to submit requests to institutions in their own country: Template for “SARS-COV-2 isolation” FOI requests.

Q: These agencies are all saying they have no records proving SARS-CoV-2 exists, but at the same time some of these agencies sponsor and fund studies that claim the virus does exist. How do you account for this contradiction?

I will address this by way of an example.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the only Canadian institution that failed to provide a straightforward “no records” response thus far. Instead, they provided me with what they pretended were responsive records.

The records consisted of some emails, and a study by Bullard et al. that was supported by PHAC and their National Microbiology Laboratory, and by Manitoba Health and Manitoba’s Cadham Provincial Laboratory.

Neither the study nor the emails describe purification of the alleged virus from a patient sample or from anything else. The word “isolate” (or “isolation” / “purify” / “purification”) does not even appear, except in the study manuscript in the context of isolating people, not a virus.

…in the Materials And Methods section we find that these researchers performed PCR “tests” for a portion of the E gene sequence (not a virus), and they incubated patient samples (not a virus) on Vero cells (monkey kidney cells) supplemented with fetal bovine serum, penicillin/streptomycin, and amphotericin B, and they monitored for harm to the monkey cells.

No virus was looked for in, or purified from, the patient samples. No control groups of any kind were implemented in the monkey cell procedures. No virus was required or shown to be involved anywhere in the study, but “it” was blamed for any harm to the monkey cells and “it” was referred to repeatedly throughout the study (I counted 26 instances).

Nevertheless, this was the sole paper provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

And although the researchers did not claim to have “isolated” the alleged virus in this paper, they performed the same sort of monkey business / cell culture procedure that is passed off as “virus isolation” by virologists in country after country. (Because virology is not a science.)

…Note the admission in the [study] Abstract: “RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus”.

…So I wrote back to the Public Health Agency of Canada and advised the that none of the records they provided me actually describe separation of the alleged virus from everything else in a patient sample, and that I require an accurate response indicating that they have no responsive records.

In their revised response, the Agency insisted that the gold standard assay used to determine the presence of intact virus in patient samples is visible cytopathic [cell-killing] effects on cells in a cell culture, and that “PCR further confirms that intact virus is present”.

…As you have pointed out to your readers again and again: No one has isolated/purified “the virus”. They simply assume that patient samples contain “it” (based on meaningless PCR tests). They adulterate patient samples with genetic material and toxic drugs, starve the cells, then irrationally blame “the virus” for harm to the cells. They point to something that has never been purified, characterized, sequenced or studied scientifically, in a cell culture and insist “that’s the virus”. They fabricate the “genomes” from zillions of sequences detected in a soup. It’s all wild speculation and assumptions, zero science.

So the people responsible for the blatantly fraudulent claims made by these institutions are either wildly incompetent or intentionally lying.

—end of interview—

To bolster Christine’s final comments, these agencies will respond to FOIA requests with: “we have no records of virus purification”—and then sponsor studies that claim the virus HAS BEEN purified and discovered, because…

The standards for purifying the virus in the studies are no standards at all. They’re entirely irrational.

However, because Christine is very precise and accurate in her FOIA requests, when it comes to what purification means, the agencies are compelled to reply…

“Well, in THAT case, we have no records of virus purification…”

Meaning: There are no records showing the virus has been isolated; there are no records showing the virus exists.

=============================

The Vaccines Are 1000% More Deadly than COVID-19

 The Vaccines Are 1000% More Deadly than COVID-19  By Editor, cairnsnews.org 7 October 2021

Many are now awakened to the harsh reality of depopulation and democide, in which we find ourselves today and the end game is out in the open: to destroy humanity under the guise of transhumanism.

What we’ve unfortunately learned is that there is an overwhelming herd of us who will do whatever they are told by the system, which explains how we’ve gotten this far.

There are seemingly millions who will believe whatever pop culture tells them, including the mass-denial of natural health and immunity, while attempting to criminalize a knowledge base spanning millennia. Corporate pop prostitutes spew talking points for Big Pharma’s mRNA mystery cocktail as the only solution.

And if the solution is less people, which is what the elitists have been saying for decades, then they are succeeding. Multiple studies conducted in the UK show that after the vaccine was introduced, COVID deaths increased by over 1000%. And more than half of all COVID deaths and hospitalizations are from the fully-vaccinated.

The numbers in New York City are showing the same. Experts in the field, including the inventor of the mRNA technique being used had been warning about this since the beginning – but silenced by the corporate media.

Project Veritas has recently exposed how doctors and nurses are well-aware of the danger of the mRNA jabs but care more about their own jobs and how Big Pharma low-level employees care only about the numbers.

It is an all-out attack against the human race.

We knew this a year ago, because we knew their white papers, which is why we know what comes next, brought to you by the same characters behind the mRNA vaccine. What comes next is the end of natural, organic humanity and the beginning of man’s own version.

Man, fused with machine in a lab. The End.

There is no more hiding the end game. It’s out in the open, where only the un-brainwashed can see it.

Ultimately, it will be up to the people.

The police in Australia are loyally serving their Globalist masters. What makes you think anything will be any different in America?

A flight surgeon for the US Army has warned that all vaccinated pilots are unfit to fly. The US military is being destroyed from within. The only way through to freedom is for the people to say “no”, which is now starting to happen all across the world.

Humanity uniting together as the human race, standing up against the most sophisticated tyranny that mankind has ever faced, all while the pop culture media machine ignores it.

A worldwide peaceful revolution of the people is a numbers game, so continuing to wake people up is our road to liberation.

Do not remain silent during this dire time at the crossroads of human history. It is the truth that shall set us free.

======================

30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet

30 facts you NEED to know, Your Covid Cribsheet  By Kit Knightly, from off-guardian.org, via Principia Scientific, 1 October 2021

Editor’s note: Click on the link above to view the many graphics in the original article.  NB check point 29.

We get a lot of e-mails and private messages along these lines “do you have a source for X?” or “can you point me to mask studies?” or “I know I saw a graph for mortality, but I can’t find it anymore”. And we understand, it’s been a long 18 months, and there are so many statistics and numbers to try and keep straight in your head.

So, to deal with all these requests, we decided to make a bullet-pointed and sourced list for all the key points. A one-stop-shop.

Here are key facts and sources about the alleged “pandemic”, that will help you get a grasp on what has happened to the world since January 2020, and help you enlighten any of your friends who might be still trapped in the New Normal fog (click links to skip):

“Covid deaths” – Lockdowns – PCR Tests – “asymptomatic infection” – Ventilators – Masks – Vaccines – Deception & Foreknowledge

PART I: “COVID DEATHS” & MORTALITY

  1. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%.Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid.

Almost all studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning Covid’s survival rate is at least 99.5%.

*

  1. There has been NO unusual excess mortality.The press has called 2020 the UK’s “deadliest year since world war two”, but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR):

By this measure, 2020 isn’t even the worst year for mortality since 2000, In fact since 1943 only 9 years have been better than 2020.

Similarly, in the US the ASMR for 2020 is only at 2004 levels:

For a detailed breakdown of how Covid affected mortality across Western Europe and the US click here. What increases in mortality we have seen could be attributable to non-Covid causes [facts 79 & 19].

*

  1. “Covid death” counts are artificially inflated.Countries around the globe have been defining a “Covid death” as a “death by any causewithin 28/30/60 days of a positive test”.

Healthcare officials from Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice:

Removing any distinction between dying of Covid, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to over-counting of “Covid deaths”. British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as last spring. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too.

Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic” Covid infections [14], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [fact 4] and the potential for false-positive tests [fact 18], this renders the Covid death numbers an extremely unreliable statistic.

*

  1. The vast majority of covid deaths have serious comorbidities.In March 2020, the Italian government published statistics showing 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity.

These included cancer, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s, kidney failure and diabetes (among others). Over 50% of them had three or more serious pre-existing conditions.

This pattern has held up in all other countries over the course of the “pandemic”. An October 2020 FOIA request to the UK’s ONS revealed less than 10% of the official “Covid death” count at that time had Covid as the sole cause of death.

*

  1. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy.The average age of a “Covid death” in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy it’s 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82.

In almost all cases the median age of a “Covid death” is higher than the national life expectancy.

As such, for most of the world, the “pandemic” has had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [source]

*

  1. Covid mortality exactly mirrors the natural mortality curve.Statistical studiesfrom the UK and India have shown that the curve for “Covid death” follows the curve for expected mortality almost exactly:

The risk of death “from Covid” follows, almost exactly, your background risk of death in general.

The small increase for some of the older age groups can be accounted for by other factors.[facts 79 & 19]

*

  1. There has been a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs.Watchdogs and government agencies have reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) over the last twenty months.

In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York.

In the UK there was an “unprecdented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes.

study done by Sheffield Univerisity found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission.

Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[Facts 2 & 6]

*

PART II: LOCKDOWNS

  1. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease.There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all.

“Covid deaths” in Florida (no lockdown) vs California (lockdown)

“Covid deaths” in Sweden (no lockdown) vs UK (lockdown)

*

  1. Lockdowns kill people.There is strong evidence that lockdowns – through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier than the “virus”.

Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020:

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.”

A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns, while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine.

Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings are going to see increased mortality from heart disease, cancer et al. in the near future.

The impact of lockdown would account for the small increases in excess mortality [Facts 2 & 6]

*

  1. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened.the main argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all.

In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were over-flowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A paper JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”.

In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter.

As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.”

This means they removed thousands of beds. During an alleged deadly pandemic, they reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals. Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal.

In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used.

*

PART III: PCR TESTS

  1. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness.The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for Covid diagnosis. But the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool, and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

*

  1. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable.The “gold standard” PCR tests for Covid are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests herehere and here.

*

  1. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high.PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said“If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York TimesAny test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35?.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.

*

  1. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out abriefing memo on the PCR processinstructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:

when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:

Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

*

  1. The scientific basis for Covid tests is questionable.The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.

They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology.

They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every Covid PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.

*

PART IV: “ASYMPTOMATIC INFECTION”

  1. The majority of Covid infections are “asymptomatic”.From as early as March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms.Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients” experienced no viral symptoms at all.

It is literally impossible to tell the difference between an “asymptomatic case” and a false-positive test result.

*

  1. There is very little evidence supporting the alleged danger of “asymptomatic transmission”.In June 2020, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said:

From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,”

A meta-analysis of Covid studies, published by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in December 2020, found that asymptomatic carriers had a less than 1% chance of infecting people within their household. Another study, done on influenza in 2009, found:

…limited evidence to suggest the importance of [asymptomatic] transmission. The role of asymptomatic or presymptomatic influenza-infected individuals in disease transmission may have been overestimated…”

Given the known flaws of the PCR tests, many “asymptomatic cases” may be false positives.[fact 14]

*

PART V: VENTILATORS

  1. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory viruses.Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators to treat “Covid”.

Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated:

Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.

German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of Association of Pneumatological Clinics said:

When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.

Despite this, the WHOCDCECDC and NHS all “recommended” Covid patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods.

This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients from exhaling aerosol droplets.

*

  1. Ventilators killed people.Putting someone on a ventilator who is suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the lungs, will notalleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them.

Intubation tubes are a source of potential a infection known as “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, which studies show affects up to 28% of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected.

Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the lungs, resulting in “ventilator-induced lung injury”, which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death.

Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all “Covid patients” put on ventilators died.

According to the “undercover nurse”, ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients’ lungs:

This policy was negligence at best, and potentially deliberate murder at worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in mortality in 2020/21 [Facts 2 & 6]

*

PART VI: MASKS

  1. Masks don’t work.At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.

One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.

Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”

There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Or read a summary by SPR here.

While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed a panel of experts demand it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.

The WHO commissioned their own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For full run down on the bad data in this study click here.]

Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease.

For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical case figures, despite one having a mask-mandate and the other not:

In Kansas, counties without mask mandates actually had fewer Covid “cases” than counties with mask mandates. And despite masks being very common in Japan, they had their worst flu outbreak in decades in 2019.

*

  1. Masks are bad for your health.Wearing a mask for long periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, facial rashes .

Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.

Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in facial deformities.

People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden cardiac arrest.

*

  1. Masks are bad for the planet.Millions upon millions of disposable maskshave been used per month for over a year. A report from the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that is face masks.

The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock on effects on public health, irrigation and agriculture.

A study from the University of Swansea found “heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water.” These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife.

*

PART VII: VACCINES

  1. Covid “vaccines” are totally unprecedented.Before 2020 no successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed. Since then we have allegedly made 20 of them in 18 months.

Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus. Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice. Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.

While traditional vaccines work by exposing the body to a weakened strain of the microorganism responsible for causing the disease, these new Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines.

mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the “spike proteins” of the virus. They have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but before 2020 no mRNA vaccine was ever approved for use.

*

  1. Vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission.It is readily admitted that Covid “vaccines” do notconfer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine studies were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission.

The vaccine manufacturers themselves, upon releasing the untested mRNA gene therapies, were quite clear their product’s “efficacy” was based on “reducing the severity of symptoms”.

*

  1. The vaccines were rushed and have unknown longterm effects. Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid were all developed and approved in less than a year. Obviously there can be no long-term safety data on chemicals which are less than a year old.

Pfizer even admit this is true in the leaked supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant, and the government of Albania:

the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known

Further, none of the vaccines have been subject to proper trials. Many of them skipped early-stage trials entirely, and the late-stage human trials have either not been peer-reviewed, have not released their data, will not finish until 2023 or were abandoned after “severe adverse effects”.

*

  1. Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal indemnity should they cause harm.The USA’s Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP)grants immunity until at least 2024.

The EU’s product licensing law does the same, and there are reports of confidential liability clauses in the contracts the EU signed with vaccine manufacturers.

The UK went even further, granting permanent legal indemnity to the government, and any employees thereof, for any harm done when a patient is being treated for Covid19 or “suspected Covid19”.

Again, the leaked Albanian contract suggests that Pfizer, at least, made this indemnity a standard demand of supplying Covid vaccines:

Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer […] from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses

*

PART VIII: DECEPTION & FOREKNOWLEDGE

  1. The EU was preparing “vaccine passports” at least a YEAR before the pandemic began.Proposed COVID countermeasures, presented to the public as improvised emergency measures, have existed since before the emergence of the disease.

Two EU documents published in 2018, the “2018 State of Vaccine Confidence” and a technical report titled “Designing and implementing an immunisation information system” discussed the plausibility of an EU-wide vaccination monitoring system.

These documents were combined into the 2019 “Vaccination Roadmap”, which (among other things) established a “feasibility study” on vaccine passports to begin in 2019 and finish in 2021:

This report’s final conclusions were released to the public in September 2019, just a month before Event 201 (below).

*

  1. A “training exercise” predicted the pandemic just weeks before it started.In October 2019 the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University held Event 201. This was a training exercise based on a zoonotic coronavirus starting a worldwide pandemic. The exercise was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI the vaccine alliance.

The exercise published its findings and recommendations in November 2019 as a “call to action”. One month later, China recorded their first case of “Covid”.

*

  1. Since the beginning of 2020, the Flu has “disappeared”.In the United States, since February 2020, influenza cases have allegedly dropped by over 98%.

It’s not just the US either, globally flu has apparently almost completely disappeared.

Meanwhile, a new disease called “Covid”, which has identical symptoms and a similar mortality rate to influenza, is apparently affecting all the people normally affected by the flu.

*

  1. The elite have made fortunes during the pandemic.Since the beginning of lockdown the wealthiest people have become significantly wealthier. Forbes reported that 40 new billionaires have been created “fighting the coronavirus”, with 9 of them being vaccine manufacturers.

Business Insider reported that “billionaires saw their net worth increase by half a trillion dollars” by October 2020.

Clearly that number will be even bigger by now.

*

These are the vital facts of the pandemic, presented here as a resource to help formulate and support your arguments with friends or strangers. Thanks to all the researchers who have collated and collected this information over the last twenty months, especially Swiss Policy Research.

===========================

The Australian Governments’ response to Covid should trouble  you

The Australian Government Response to COVID Should Trouble You  By Chris MacIntosh, International Man, 25 September 2021

Editor’s note: Click on link above to view the several graphics in the complete article.


I COME FROM A LAND DOWN UNDER …where rights are ripped asunder.

Actually, it’s rather ironic that the catchy song from which I took the above headline, “The Land Down Under,” is written and sung by the band “Men at Work”.

Why is that ironic? Because right now men in Australia are decidedly NOT at work. They are instead on the sofa, attached to the WiFi, their rights stripped from them under the ridiculous guise of a pandemic, unless, of course, they’re deemed by some pointy-shoe beaurocrat as “essential.”

The Great Reset barrels ahead in Australia at a blistering pace. All hail the albino snail that lost his shell.

The damage already done is incalculable, and yet to come is much, much more because we have of course been promised much more. All the while the sheeple sleep, sound in the belief their leaders are protecting them and keeping them safe.

Some have said that the Australian government has lost the plot. No, they haven’t. Suggesting that provides a plausibility to their actions. There is none. It is not possible to implement such far reaching, damaging rules and regulations by merely being incompetent, and certainly not for such a length of time, where the evidence piles high that highlight the innefectiveness of the experimental gene therapies, constantly changing protocols and mandates (no mask, one mask, two masks, etc.), and control groups such as Sweden, which instead of being used as a proof of evidence are chastised and ignored, or where the country sporting the greatest deaths per capita is simultaneously the country most vaccinated: Israel.

No, only an idiot would look at all of this and conclude that it is mere incompetence. Only an idiot would look at this and conclude that it is being done in good faith.

No this is planned. It is, folks, “the great reset” that the global elites scumbags drool over.

Davos man has been hard at work. And you may say, “Well, they have no real power. I mean, they don’t pass these laws.” True. They don’t need to. Instead, like a mob boss who never brings out the baseball bat to beat the victim, relying instead on his henchman, today it is gutless invertebrates that out of sheer cowardice follow them.

Corporates, CEOs, governors, local elected officials. And, of course, there is the media — the poisoned chalice that never stops giving. Driving the hysteria, and boy has it worked. More clicks, more eyeballs. Then, of course, there is the fact that the revenue model for media has flipped to one of advertising. And so it is that the advertisers pull the strings.

For context, Bill Gates, via various structures, owns 113 media outlets.

And don’t get me started on the “fact checkers.” These are the folks telling Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier (whose field of expertise is virology) to stand down and stop spreading “misinformation.” The same folks telling us that the inventor of mRNA technology Dr. Robert Malone doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he yells from the rooftops that we’re in the process of committing a slow motion global genocide.

It is surreal. I understand that, but just because it’s surreal doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

We look at evidence, such as this.

But when we look around us the outcomes of this evidence are nowhere to be found. Everyone dutifully scans into shops, dons a useless, dirty mask ensuring they breathe their own carbon dioxide back into their body along with the chemicals from the mask.

Recommended Link

 

 

Legendary speculator Doug Casey has just released an important video about the Greater Depression. And how to profit from it.

There are very few places where you can find the type of unique and actionable information you need today.

In a world where almost everything is grossly overpriced, Doug and his team have identified two sectors and specific stocks that are low-risk with potentially huge profits.

Click here to watch it now.

Here is the issue, folks, and it’s dead bloody serious. This is a colossal deception based on fraud and lies. The governments of Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, all those in the European Union, and the UK have borrowed sums of money that will never ever be paid back.

A father and his daughter in a park. Their crime? Unmasked.

Sadly, one can see exactly where this is all headed. Most everyone knows exactly what Auschwitz and the numerous “facilities” like it were. We also know that many of the victims actually willingly went to these camps. Heck, some paid the rail fare to get there, such was the power of the propaganda.

And yet it is hard to imagine anything like this happening again, which is, of course, why it happens. It is why history repeats itself. 

When you are confronted with something so dark, so sinister, so dystopian that it makes you feel physically ill, and at the same time nobody around you seems to think it an issue it is only normal to think to yourself… well, it must be me that is mad. But you are not mad. You are the rational one. Just because you are in the minority does not mean you are wrong. It just means that you are in the minority.

Here is the new Alice Springs “quarantine” facility.

Not at all like, you know, a prison. And here are the rules.

If you’re looking at this progression of events and not alarmed, you have a screw loose. That it has as much to do with “public health” as a donkey has to do with cryptography should be obvious to all.

So what comes next? Asset seizure.

Editor’s Note: Disturbing economic, political, and social trends are already in motion and now accelerating at breathtaking speed. Most troubling of all, they cannot be stopped.

The risks that lie ahead are too big and dangerous to ignore.

That’s why legendary investor Doug Casey and contrarian hedge fund manager Chris Macintosh just released the most critical video on these trends.

It reveals what to expect in the months ahead and what they’re doing right now for prudence and profits.

=======================================

Previous articles

August 2016

  • The monumental stupidity of the failed war on drugs  By Mike Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, from Zerohedge, 25 August 2016
  • The Genocide of a Land  By Paul Craig Roberts, 23 August 2016
  • Prohibition – it should be banned  By Lizzie Marvelly, NZ Herald, 20 August 2016
  • Globalization on Its Head  From Mauldin Economics’ newsletter, 8 August 2016

July 2016

  • A Stark Warning About the Coming Revolution From Inner Circle, 28 July 2016
  • Why Sajid Tarar thinks Donald Trump is the leader Muslims need  By Michele Manelis of news.com.au
  • There’s a revolution happening all over the world  By Julian Tomlinson, the Cairns Post, 7 July 2016
  • Australia, disruption ahead as voters reject political contortions  The Australian editorial, 4 July 2016

June 2016

  • Gorka’s plan to defeat ISIS  By Dr Sebastion Gorka, 27 June 2016
  • Shut down the sheiks who incite violence by Muslims  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 18 June 2016
  • Making rational instead of political decisions  By Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 17 June 2016
  • New conservatism of Western progressives is killing humour  By Bill Leak, The Australian, 11 June 2016
  • Anti-establishment Trump a voice for the West’s silent majority  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 8 June 2016
  • Predicting the Efficacy of a Coming Revolution  By Jeff Thomas, Casey Research, International Man, 7 June 2016

May 2016

  • The impact of immigration on Auckland NZ housing and infrastructure  By John Rofe, 26 May 2016
  • Why Islam needs a reformation  By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March
  • Russia’s Palmyra concert reveals what the West lacks  By Tim Black, editor of spiked review, 14 May 2016

April 2016

  • Leftists erode our social fabric  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 29 April 2016
  • Union power in NZ and Australia is ruinous  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 29 April
  • Black hole revelation may upset understanding of the universe  By Oliver Moody, The Times, 25 April 2016
  • Where Is Australia’s John Galt  By Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online, 15 April 2016
  • Muslim integration ‘I should have known better’  By Raheem Kassem, Breitbart, 12 April 2016
  • The West’s Slow-Motion Lobotomy  By Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online, 3 April 2016

March 2016

  • Australian watchdogs asleep at the wheel  By Hedley Thomas, The Australian, 13 April
  • The Enemy is standard Islam, not ‘radical’ Islam  By Peter Smith, Quadrant Online, 28 March 2016
  • ISIS is faithful To Islam  By Patrick Buchanan, Zerohedge, 26 March 2016
  • Apartheid by stealth, in New Zealand of all places  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR Weekly, 25 March 2016
  • Federal election 2016, Voters doubly disillusioned  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 23 March 2015
  • North Korean Strategy, the rationale for appearing irrational  By George Friedman, Mar 21, 2016
  • Same-sex marriage imposition  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 16 March
  • Putin And The Press, The Demonology School Of Journalism  By James Petras, Eurasia Review, 14 March 2016
  • Emperor Xi Jinping must offer hope, rather than personality cult  By Jasmine Yin, The Australian, 9 March 2016
  • Beijing and the South China Sea  By Alistair Pope, Quadrant Online, 7 March 2016
  • Could there be an Australian Donald Trump?  By Robert Gottliebsen, The Australian, 3 March 2016

February 2016

  • Ukraine Collapse Is Now Imminent  From Zerohedge, 31 February 2016
  • The New Mind Control  By John Mauldin, 26 February 2016
  • Multiculturalism has proven divisive, not coalescent, so let’s ditch it  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 24 February 2016
  • China is moving towards one-man rule  By Michael Sheridan, The Times, 22 February
  • The disenfranchised find their voices, led by Trump  By Merv Bendle, Quadrant Online, 19 February 2016
  • Loathing of the political elite  By Nic Cater, The Australian, 16 February 2016
  • Real-time language translaters coming soon  By James Dean, The Australian, 8 February 2016
  • Blockchain, and how it will change everything  By James Eyers, Sydney Morning Herald, 6 February 2016
  • Zeka, another apocalyptic narrative du jour  By Tom Slater, Spiked Online, 6 February
  • Neo-puritans strive to find offence — anywhere  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 3 February 2016

January 2016

  • Donald Trump’s policies, as opposed to media hype – Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 29 January
  • Social agendas are sure to wreck the military  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 29 January 2016
  • War on cash, Governments and Banks want complete control  From Zerohedge, 25 January 2016
  • CEOs are the next corruption target  By Robert Gottliebsen, The Australian, 22 January
  • Why is the NZ government planning to bring in apartheid  By Dr Muriel Newman, 21 January 2016 –
  • Political Correctness exposes the West  By Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian, 20 January
  • The new Kafkaesque Europe  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 16 January
  • The US role in ISIS and Mosul  From Zerohedge, 14 January 2015
  • When faith takes up arms, silence is no option  By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 11 January 2016
  • Understanding Iran v Saudi Arabia and the exhaustion of politics  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 9 January 2016
  • Understanding North Korea and its nuclear tests  From Associated Press, 7 January
  • Australian unions, “louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers etc.” protected by the Labor party  By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 6 January 2015

December 2015

  •  Islamic State v Islam  Article by Tom Harley, The Australian, 30 December 2015, a counter view by ‘Andrew’ and a full response by Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun
  • 2015, the year of speaking twaddle  By Professor Judith Sloan, The Australian, 29 December 2015

November 2015

  • Islamist extremism is the ideology that must be defeated  From The Australian, 22 November 2205
  • Paris, IS and the resurrection of old Europe  By George Friedman, from Mauldin Economics, Outside the Box, 19 November 23015
  • Hard left student authoritarian demands  From Zerohedge
  • Salus populi suprema lex esto, said the Romans  By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 16 November 2015
  • For liberals, doomsday is the religion of choice  Brett Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 9 November 201
  • Yet another last chance to save the planet  Rodney Hide, NZ Herald, 8 November
  • THE CLIMATE WARS, and the damage to science  By Matt Ridley, GWPF, 6 November

October 2015

  • THE DANGERS OF JUNK SCIENCE  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 30 October 2015
  • Challenging Chinese coercion  The Australian editorial, 29 October, 2015
  • Misjudging Putin’s Russia  By Marin Katusa, Zerohedge
  • Stultifying academic groupthink  Editorial, The Australian, 23 October 2015
  • Rape, Islam and the deafening silence  By Christie Davies, Quadrant Online, 20 October 2015
  • Surgeons’ culture of concealment  By Hedley Thomas, The Australian, 17 October 2015
  • Media distortions and lies  By Bjorn Lomborg, The Australian, 13 October 2015
  • Big lies as the UN suppresses truth with ideology  By Jennifer Oriel, The Australian, 5 October 2015
  • Syria, another failure by the US-led alliance  By Tom Switzer, The Australian, 1 October

September 2015

  • President Putin address to the UN General Assembly, 280915
  • Learn the lessons from Iraq, Libya and other fiascos  By Tara McCormack, Spiked Online, 26 September 2015
  • A failure in our democratic system  The Australian editorial, 24 September 2015
  • A Marxist clothed in white papal robes  By Susan Warner, 23 September 2015
  • Modern politics are too polarised.  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 22 September 2015
  • Oxfam’s real agenda – destroy Australian coal industry  By Henry Thomas, Quadrant Online, 14 September 2015
  • Sweden’s ugly immigration problems  By Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail, 14 Sept
  • The Human Cost Of Socialism In Power  By Richard Ebeling, 12 September 2015
  • Another explanation of the 911 tragedy  By Paul Craig Roberts, 12 September
  • Syria, should USA and Russia join forces to defeat ISIS  From the Times of Oman, 9 September 2015

August 2015

    •  A sea of frothing, sweary, often pompous, intolerance  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 29 August 2015
    • Labor promises will lead us to become another Greece  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 24 August 2015
    • The Empire of Offence laying free speech to waste  By Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 22 August
  • Same-sex marriage and the new Dark Age  By Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 19 August 2015
  • Academia’s PC police  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 18 August 2015
  • Shadow Boxing with Keynesianism  By Peter Smith, Quadrant Online, 16 August 2015
  • Obama’s road to disaster  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 8 August 2015
  • Australia’s supposed Aboriginal ‘stolen generation’  By Dallas Scott, 5 August

July 2015

  • What next for the EU?  By John Mauldin, 26 July 2015
  • Obama’s blunder gives us a nuclear Iran  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16 July
  • Has Germany just killed the golden goose  By Raul Ilargi Meijer, 14 July 2015
  • History lesson, why democracy has always failed in the past  By Patrick Buchanan, 13 July 2015
  • The EU’s contempt for democracy  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked 11 July 2015
  • Greece, Take Back Your Democracy With Your Head Held High  Address by UKIP’s Nigel Farage, 9 July 2015
  • We need a better model for democracy  By Greg Rudd, The Australian, 7 July 2015
  • Why Greeks should embrace a future a Euro exit  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 4 July
  • Xi’s Anti-Corruption Campaign Is Key to China’s Prospects  By George Magnus, 2 July

June 2015

    • Papal prescription for flawed economic order  The Australian editorial, June 27, 2015
    • Nature Rebounds, Jesse Ausubel, 2015 Jesse H. Ausubel 2015
    • Interview with President Putin  Via interviewer Charlie Rose, 24 June
    • The Pope joins the EU in a sad world of make-believe  By Christopher Booker, The Telegraph, 23 June
    • The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science  By Matt Ridley, Quadrant Online, 20 June 2015
    • Yet another papal failure  By Julia Hartley-Brewer, The Telegraph UK, 19 June
    • Britain’s Royal Society abandons science, now a lobby group  From Breitbart, 17 June
    • China’s mocks G7, a gathering of debtors, disastrous confrontation  From Zerohedge, 16 June
  • “The US is destroying Europe”  From Zerohedge, 11 June

May 2015

  • Deradicalisation of radical Muslims is not a viable option  By Clive Kessler, The Australian, 30 May
  •  “War is just a racket”, General Butler, 1933  By Paul Craig Roberts, Zerohedge, 25 May
  • The fury of the elites  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 16 May 2015ay 2015
  • Australian universities’ shift to green left ideology  By Nic Cater, The Australian, 12 May 2015
  • Establishing a nanny state in NZ  By Sir Bob Jones, 12 May 2015
  • University shame  By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 11 May 2015

April 2015

  • Which is worse, Islamist terror or the Cold War  The Australian Editorial, 29 April 2015
  • Democracy in decay  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 22 April 2015
  • Deep green parlour-pink anti-development government  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 16 April 2015
  • Is inequality a bad thing  By Pater Tenebrarum, 13 April 2015
  • Understanding China  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 9 April 2015
  • Heretical thoughts about science and society  By Freeman Dyson, 8 July 2007
  • The Squirrel and The Grasshopper  An old story updated, 7 April 2015
  • Obama’s Iranian nuke deal a dismal outcome  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 6 April 2015
  • Lattebelt luvvies put Greens in power  By Nic Cater, The Daily Telegraph.  1 April 2015

March 2015

    • Political correctness stifles vital debate  By Nic Cater, The Australian, 24 March 2015
    • Australian politics heading towards Greece  By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 23 Mar
    • The political system is broken  By Paul Kelly, The Australian, 19 Mar
    • Australia, the prejudice of the Left  By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 17 March
    • The liberal elite versus the hoi polloi  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, 16 March 2015
    • The massive EMP threat  By F. Michael Maloof, 13 Mar 2015
    • Australia is slipping downhill  By Rowan Callick, The Australian, 12 Mar 2015
    • United Nations – hypocrisy, twisted priorities and ineffectiveness  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 10 Mar 2015
    • Bellicose NATO, Berlin stunned  From Zerohedge, 9 Mar 2015
    • London property boom build on dirty money  By Jim Armitage, Independent, 6 Mar
  • Battlefield of ideas is where fanatics will fall  By Janet Albrechtsen, Australian, 4 Mar

February 2015

    •  
    • What ISIS Really Wants  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 26 Feb 2015
    • No end to Age of paternalism  By Nick Cater, The Australian, 24 Feb 2015
    • The bigotry of the elite  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor of spiked. 21 Feb 2015
  • The US’s suicidal strategy on Ukraine By Chris Martenson, 19 Feb 2015
  • The US’s suicidal strategy on Ukraine  By Chris Martenson, 19 Feb 2015
  • We, the people, are the threat to fiscal reform  By Janet Albrechtsen, 18 Feb 2015
  • Message to Indonesia, the meaning of Sovereignty  By Greg Craven, 17 Feb 2015
  • Cagey about condemning the Islamic State  By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked.  14 Feb 2015
  • Ukraine Proxy Wars  From Zerohedge, 13 Feb 2015
  • 42 ADMITTED false flag attacks  By WashingtonsBlog, 12 Feb 2015
  • Obama administration supports Muslim terrorists  By Jerome Corsi, 11 Feb 2015
  • Obama’s plan to regulate the internet sounds Orwellian  By Chriss Street, 10 Feb 2015
  • Obama Yawns at Evil  By Mark Steyn.  7 Feb 2015
  • Scientists losing credibility  By Jo Nova, 5 Feb 2015
  • The Chinese economy, dangers ahead  By Craig Stephen,  Market Watch, 4 Feb 2015
  • UN plans New World Order via climate change  From United Nations Regional Information Centre for Western Europe, Tuesday 03 Feb 2015
  • The end of the American dream By Michael Snyder, from Zerohedge, 1 Feb 2015

January 2015

    • The only thing necessary for evil to triumph  By Paul Rosenberg, Jan 30, 2015
    • Ron Paul, failures of the Fed and fiat currencies By Ron Paul , 29 Jan 2015.
    • British Greens are even nuttier than ours  By Hal GP Colebatch, The Australian, 28 Jan.
    • Understanding the Greek mess  By Greg Canavan, The Daily Reckoning, 27 Jan 2015 
    • How President Woodrow Wilson ruined the Western World – By David Stockman, Contra Corner blog, 26 January 2015
    • Shock Waves from Zurich …  By Henry Ergas, The Australian, 19 January 2015.
    • The Digital Arms Race….By Jacob Appelbaum et al, Spiegel Online, 18 Jan 2015. 
    • The party’s (nearly) over  By Vern Gowdie, the Daily Reckoning, 16 Jan 2015.
    •  My predictions for 2015…By Ron Paul, Ron Paul Institute. 14 Jan 2015.
    • Restore the right to offend……By Brendan O’Neill, The Australian, 10 January 2015.
    • An evolutionary disaster in Africa……By Kevin Myers, Irish Sunday Times, 11 Jan 2015.
    •  Je Suis Charlie ….  By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Australian, 10 January 2015.
    • The Left’s Unholy Alliance with Islam. By Frank Pledge, Quadrant Online, 8 January 2015.
    • With Nero in the (US) house we should be worried By Maurice Newman, The Australian, 7 Jan 2014.
    • Russia’s startling proposal – EU invited to join EEU…….From Zerohedge, 5 January 2015.
    • Predicting a bear or bull market for 2015 ….By Vern Gowdie, Daily Reckoning, 5 January 2015.
    • The EU’s Keynesian fallacies ….By Patrick Barron via Mises Canada, 4 January 2015.
    • And now for the good news from 2014….By Brendan O’Neill, Spiked. 3 Jan 2015.
    • Beware red tape…..  By John Lloyd, The Australian, 2 January 2015.
  • Australia’s anti-military  …A reader’s comment in Quadrant Online.  1 January 2015.

 

The Great Global Warming Hoax

An Open Letter to New Zealand PM Ardern and Minister Shaw regarding the Promotion of Climate Change Fraud

Editor’s note: Click on this link to view the letter’s graphics that cannot be included in the text below: An Open Letter to PM Ardern and Minister Shaw regarding the Promotion of Climate Change Fraud

 From: jcrofe@xtra.co.nz <jcrofe@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, 8 October 2021 10:06 am
To: ‘Kiritapu.Allan@parliament.govt.nz’ <Kiritapu.Allan@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Virginia.Andersen@parliament.govt.nz’ <Virginia.Andersen@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz’ <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Camilla.Belich@parliament.govt.nz’ <Camilla.Belich@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Glen.Bennett@parliament.govt.nz’ <Glen.Bennett@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Rachel.Boyack@parliament.govt.nz’ <Rachel.Boyack@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Rachel.Brooking@parliament.govt.nz’ <Rachel.Brooking@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Naisi.Chen@parliament.govt.nz’ <Naisi.Chen@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘David.Clark@parliament.govt.nz’ <David.Clark@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Tamati.Coffey@parliament.govt.nz’ <Tamati.Coffey@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Liz.Craig@parliament.govt.nz’ <Liz.Craig@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz’ <Kelvin.Davis@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Paul.Eagle@parliament.govt.nz’ <Paul.Eagle@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Barbara.Edmonds@parliament.govt.nz’ <Barbara.Edmonds@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘kris.faafoi@parliament.govt.nz’ <kris.faafoi@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Shanan.Halbert@parliament.govt.nz’ <Shanan.Halbert@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Peeni.Henare@parliament.govt.nz’ <Peeni.Henare@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Emily.Henderson@parliament.govt.nz’ <Emily.Henderson@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Chris.Hipkins@parliament.govt.nz’ <Chris.Hipkins@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Willie.Jackson@parliament.govt.nz’ <Willie.Jackson@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Anahila.Kanongata’a-Suisuiki@parliament.govt.nz’ <Anahila.Kanongata’a-Suisuiki@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Ingrid.Leary@parliament.govt.nz’ <Ingrid.Leary@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Neru.Leavasa@parliament.govt.nz’ <Neru.Leavasa@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Stephanie.Lewis@parliament.govt.nz’ <Stephanie.Lewis@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Andrew.Little@parliament.govt.nz’ <Andrew.Little@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Anna.Lorck@parliament.govt.nz’ <Anna.Lorck@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Maria.Lubeck@parliament.govt.nz’ <Maria.Lubeck@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Jo.Luxton@parliament.govt.nz’ <Jo.Luxton@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Nanaia.Mahuta@parliament.govt.nz’ <Nanaia.Mahuta@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Trevor.Mallard@parliament.govt.nz’ <Trevor.Mallard@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Kieran.McAnulty@parliament.govt.nz’ <Kieran.McAnulty@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Tracey.McLellan@parliament.govt.nz’ <Tracey.McLellan@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz’ <Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Terisa.Ngobi@parliament.govt.nz’ <Terisa.Ngobi@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Damien.O’Connor@parliament.govt.nz’ <Damien.O’Connor@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘greg.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz’ <greg.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Ibrahim.Omer@parliament.govt.nz’ <Ibrahim.Omer@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Sarah.Pallett@parliament.govt.nz’ <Sarah.Pallett@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘David.Parker@parliament.govt.nz’ <David.Parker@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Willow-Jean.Prime@parliament.govt.nz’ <Willow-Jean.Prime@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: ‘contactus@justice.govt.nz’ <contactus@justice.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@police.govt.nz’ <enquiries@police.govt.nz>; ‘enquiries@sfo.govt.nz’ <enquiries@sfo.govt.nz>; ‘geoffduffy@lycos.com’ <geoffduffy@lycos.com>; ‘jock.allison85@gmail.com’ <jock.allison85@gmail.com>; ‘Howard Dewhirst’ <nhd@petroalbion.com>; ‘team@taxpayers.org.nz’ <team@taxpayers.org.nz>; ‘Rod Dale’ <rod.dale@bigpond.com>; ‘john.maunder@gmail.com’ <john.maunder@gmail.com>; ‘news@hobsonspledge.nz’ <news@hobsonspledge.nz>; ‘muriel@nzcpr.com’ <muriel@nzcpr.com>; ‘jmscarry@xtra.co.nz’ <jmscarry@xtra.co.nz>; ‘rosalieashby@gmail.com’ <rosalieashby@gmail.com>; ‘shargreaves@ipa.org.com’ <shargreaves@ipa.org.com>; ‘rod@pacificsunset.co.nz’ <rod@pacificsunset.co.nz>; ‘john@johnansell.co.nz’ <john@johnansell.co.nz>; ‘mckenziebarbara42@gmail.com’ <mckenziebarbara42@gmail.com>; ‘ppurcel@tpg.com.au’ <ppurcel@tpg.com.au>; ‘helpdesk@investigatemagazine.com’ <helpdesk@investigatemagazine.com>; ‘srdtaylor@gmail.com’ <srdtaylor@gmail.com>; ‘jhapps@bigpond.com’ <jhapps@bigpond.com>; ‘aaprjohn@northnet.org’ <aaprjohn@northnet.org>; ‘jimrsimpson@bigpond.com’ <jimrsimpson@bigpond.com>; ‘Christopher Monckton’ <monckton@mail.com>; ‘sandra.goudie@tcdc.govt.nz’ <sandra.goudie@tcdc.govt.nz>; ‘Deborah Alexander’ <o-d-alexander@xtra.co.nz>; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’ <news@tvnz.co.nz>; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’ <news@nzherald.co.nz>; ‘Juana Atkins’ <sb@thebfd.co.nz>; ‘leighton smith’ <leightonzb@gmail.com>; ‘petersenior42@gmail.com’ <petersenior42@gmail.com>; ‘Terry Dunleavy’ <terry@winezeal.co.nz>; ‘M.J. Kelly’ <mjk1@cam.ac.uk>; ‘john.ryan@oag.parliament.nz’ <john.ryan@oag.parliament.nz>; ‘Steve Taylor’ <srdtaylor@gmail.com>
Subject: An Open Letter to PM Ardern and Minister Shaw regarding the Promotion of a Fraud (NZSFO Complaint CON0008591)

Dear Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change,

This open letter provides an indictment of your incompetence.  Unless you can prove that human carbon emissions cause climate change (and in my last open letter I proved that is impossible for you to do), you should be removed from office and your motivation for pursuing the New Zealand limb of the international climate fraud should be dealt with by the “proper authorities”.

Let’s first define my use of the term “incompetence” according to “Rofe’s law of holes”: 

“Incompetence in this context is sending a delegation of fifteen (15) fact-starved, but government funded people to the other side of the world at the expense of 20 average person years equivalent of carbon emissions, in order to persuade rational “Paris Accord” hold-out countries not to keep emitting carbon dioxide and methane (allegedly in order to stop Global Warming) when:

 A crisis of global energy scarcity is looming, due in large measure to the UN IPCC and the international pseudo-environmental movement. (diversification of energy sources is rational, but getting rid of other essential energy supplies before diversification, will lead to increased poverty, food insecurity and the destruction of economies for no proper purpose)

  1. We know for certain it isn’t arithmetically possible for human carbon emissions to materially influence climate change. (you have been shown the proof)
  2. To justify your actions, there has never been any empirical scientific evidence presented by you or your officers to show that periodic changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide materially influence climate change. (only a litany of sophistry)
  3. The global average temperature of the lower atmosphere is now falling.  ( See the graph and other data below)”

Between the Milankovitch Cycles’ passage of 120,000-year ice ages and interglacial intervals, it is the sun that determines the passage of gradual climate changes, for both warming and cooling of the climate.   So Minister James Shaw’s Glasgow-bound travel plans are a cross between Icarus flying up to visit the sun and King Canute trying to turn back the tide.  It is hard to discriminate which of those is greater testament to the Minister’s ignorance or hubris.

Future generations will have no difficulty understanding this insanity, and you will both likely be persons of ridicule and caricature within your lifetimes and beyond as a result.

As you have both been told repeatedly, it is the cyclic variations in electromagnetic solar activity, moderated by the effects of the terrestrial water cycle which are the dominant cause of climate change for planet Earth.  The effects of solar variability is equally apparent on the other planets within the solar system, but solar influence is more direct because they don’t have our atmosphere and water cycle to moderate or delay change effects.

First, let me show you the evidence of recent cooling.  (the data informs the science)

  • The NASA satellite network tells us the global average temperature in regional slices at any point in time.  For example it shows the 30 September 2021 graph for the Lower Troposphere (which is where we live and where global warming is said to be occurring) shows the month of September 2021 was 0.15oC cooler this year than last.  That is just month-end to month-end – but the trend is there:
  • Other surface temperature datasets collectively corroborate the five year drop – these are graphed as follows: 
  • Is this the start of a downward trend?  (It is too early to be hyped as “climate change” but the weather effects are there for five years…)

Basically the trend in weather is also indicated by the change in snow pack for places like Greenland which we are told ended the 2021 melt season with an extra 450 giga-tonnes of snow and ice.  Also the first datapoint for the Northern hemisphere snow pack shows a start this month with an extra 250 giga-tonnes of snow more than for the 1982-2012 average.

  • The Antarctic ice and snow is at the seasonal peak, but what has happened to temperatures over the Antarctic winter?  At the South Pole  we are told the April to September 2021 average temperature of -61.1oC is the coldest for any six month period on record.  This suggests long term cooling of the Antarctic continues.
  • There is only one reliable measure of what is happening in the part of the atmosphere where we have been repeatedly told that global warming is taking place.  That is the lower Troposphere, for which the data is shown in the official graph above. 

Second, Good luck to Minister Shaw in his meeting in Glasgow with Russian, Indian and Chinese counterparts (if they bother to attend). 

The official Russian 2014 estimate of where things would be at with the solar cycles and associated climate effect is right on cue.  Unlike the  misrepresentations from the UN IPCC echoed by the Ardern/Shaw government, President Putin does not rate changes in CO2 as having any material effect on climate change.  He has personally and publicly said so. 

The Russians are preparing for the forecast arrival of the “Grand Solar Minimum” with an attendant “Little Ice Age” to follow the end of the Modern Warm Period from 2020, as per the attached PDF version of the slide show of the presentation to the International Climate Change Conference in July 2014, by Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov – delivered under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  So Minister Shaw, you can compare our efforts to prepare for global warming with their efforts to prepare for a coming period of severe cooling.  Also with the dire need for China and India to obtain more fossil fuels.

They are still building refineries to lessen fuel insecurity.  Your government is getting rid of Marsden Pt. Refinery to increase our fuel insecurity.

If you look at their slide 13. In the above attached PDF, you will see that the graph curves for solar cycles numbered 5, 6 and 7 relate to the last 200-year Grand Solar Minimum ( a period containing three or more relatively inactive 11-year solar cycles) which was known as the Dalton Minimum and part of the “little ice age”.  The Grand Solar Maximum (a period of three or more very active 11-year solar cycles) called the Modern Warm Period, began at the beginning of the 20th Century.  The strongest cycle was clearly solar cycle 19.  But the other four were all strong.  The current Grand Solar Minimum is influenced by solar cycles numbered 24 (purple) and 25 (light green) as shown in the graph below…

Solar Cycle 25 progression (green line) compared to 24, 23, 22 & 21 [updated Oct 1, 2021 — solen.info] source Electroverse.

It isn’t hard to understand what caused the pause in the global annual temperature increase which occurred from 2000 to 2015 (which agents of the UN IPCC tried to cover up in the “Climate-gate” scandal) in the light of the impact of lesser active solar cycles numbered 23 and 24.  But while global average temperatures during the period 2016 to the present have remained high, that can possibly be attributed to the strong “El Nino” oceanic effects in the Pacific region.

Third, If we take note of the empirical data, what should we be doing?

Well, this brings up the following question.  Under the “precautionary principle” and in light of the current New Zealand Government’s “Declaration of a Climate Emergency”, one may ask, “what provision has the New Zealand Government made for the possibility of significant global cooling during the new cyclical Grand Solar Minimum?”  This kind of cooling has been a regular 200-year event during the Holocene interglacial period, after all.

For PM Ardern, I appreciate it was clever to call a “Declaration of Climate Emergency” at a time when the weather was so benign that any future changes could be expected to be worse, and it was a good strategic move to appoint a responsible Minister from the Greens party, so there is a scapegoat if/when things turn really cold.  But the fact is that you both simply misled Parliament and the people of New Zealand that you were going with a fake scientific consensus, when since 2018 (when I explained the situation to you) you must, or should have known there was no data to support the fake “science”.

While the weather has always been a mixture of pattern and chaos, the climate (only ever a 30-40 year average of weather conditions) has always warmed and cooled in cyclic fashion.  Expensive sophistry from taxpayer-funded pseudo-scientists could never change that.

So your climate scare tactics (and the lies taught to our children in support of the fraud) continue as justification for the damage being done to an increasing number of essential industry sectors.  After 25 failed and pretentious UN IPCC COP conferences since Kyoto, you must try to understand that to unbiased observers, the UN IPCC doing the same thing over and over – always with a failed result – is either a sign of institutional stupidity or just potential fraud?

During the period 1945 to 1975 the Earth’s climate cooled and yet there was continued annual increases of human carbon emissions and growth in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.  The fraud you have become implicated in was objectively disproven even before the UN IPCC was established for seemingly improper purposes in 1988!  How can you also not see that?

More importantly, how will you explain your obvious “incompetence” to the New Zealand public?  Politicians telling the scientists what to say and then claiming (when the get the result they asked for – and that we paid for) that they “follow the science”, does not cut it.

Good luck!  I think you are going to need it.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Experienced Fraud Investigator

====================

Knowingly Promoting a Serious Fraud

Knowingly Promoting a Serious Fraud  By John Rofe, via TheBFD.co.nz, 25 July 2021

https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/07/23/knowingly-promoting-a-serious-fraud/

Editor’s note: Please click on above https link to see the two videos included in this post. The following letter was sent by email to all key New Zealand politicians, media and several involved parties.

Dear politicians, law enforcement agencies and members of the media,

In my advice of 17 July 2021 I attached a 2018 letter from the Minister for Climate Change which reads like a draft mens rea defence against my then supposed allegations of fraud.

My letter of 15 May 2019 laid out each substantial criticism of PM Ardern and Minister Shaw’s lack of candour.

My letter of 2 August 2020 substantiated my claim against them for knowingly promoting the alleged fraud. The history was explained.  The facts regarding the true causation of climate change were reinforced. Information was included from the Russian Academy of Sciences which showed the generally accepted science behind climate change, the linkage with the solar sciences and the credible forecast for imminent solar initiated cooling. 

The official report of the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis was included which shows that Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is bankrupt in every respect. After 30 years it is still rejected by the world’s largest emitters of (human) carbon dioxide in sovereign countries where more than 80% of the world’s population resides.

Those countries, supported by both empirical science and economic necessity, will likely never join the  fraud, making this government’s actions a total waste of taxpayer time and money. 

Evidence was furnished showing how the major carbon emitters are deliberately setting out to increase their carbon dioxide emissions as a testament to that fact. The government’s alleged climate fraud will therefore impoverish every New Zealander without any justification other than meeting the objectives of the alleged fraudsters.

To reject the “global warming” fraud absolutely,  evidence was provided that varying cycles of solar activity cause the change in Total Solar Insolation (which comprises 99.9% of Earth’s energy budget) and the impact of ongoing solar variations are moderated by the effects of water, water vapour, clouds and precipitation.  Evidence showed that the power of the water cycle and sun dominate climate change, against which human activity is almost totally insignificant.  

Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have no identifiable impact on climate change. Every private or government carbon trading scheme is consequently a fraudulent enterprise.

I have provided PM Ardern and Minister Shaw every opportunity (on more than 50 occasions) over three years to explain their promotion of what I believe has become the biggest fraud in New Zealand history as a part of what may already be the biggest fraud in human history. 

I am exercising my right as a citizen of good standing to complain about malfeasance at the highest level of our Government.  

I have made every effort to have the NZ Serious Fraud Office, NZ Police and the NZ Ministry of Justice move against this fraud and investigate the actions of those directly complicit. They have turned their backs on my amply justified allegations. I now need to ask: are they being influenced by those to whom they are accountable?

We surely cannot continue with a government that is so poorly advised, and fundamentally ignorant that they have established their own fake climate emergency despite the absence of credible threats.

They knowingly set in place ultra-vires legislation to support their deception. The assurance that human action can influence or change Earth’s climate is just a lie.

In the event that anyone cannot understand some of my earlier written information of 17 July 2021, here are two short YouTube videos which contain some self-evident facts.

andVaclav Klaus (a former President of the Czech Republic) has accurately commented:

“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism or Communism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. So writes Vaclav Klaus, [former] president of the Czech Republic, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered – Climate Or Freedom? In this brilliantly argued book, Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, and that policies being proposed to address global warming are both economically harmful — especially to poor nations — and utterly unjustified by current science.”

If you are a politician reading this, I hope you will act to restrain the illegitimate conduct of both the named parties and their numerous co-conspirators, having due regard for your duty of care as a sworn member of Parliament, to take action to repeal the various limbs of the fraudulent and therefore ultra vires Zero Carbon legislation.

Given the quantity of information provided, the financial implications of the alleged and proposed fraudulent acts and the importance of this matter, your ignorance, whether real or feigned is not an excuse.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

NZ Citizen and taxpayer

Retired Fraud Investigator

  1. Access to the world authorities whose evidence will be required to bring the Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change to justice is readily available from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the Environomics (NZ) Trust. I am grateful for their support and advice during the course of my investigations.

Please share so others can discover The BFD.

=============================

By John Rofe, Fraud Investigator, Auckland, New Zealand.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2020 12:54 p.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Hon Nikki Kaye’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘alfred.ngaro@national.org.nz’; ‘shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘peter@lockfinance.co.nz’; ‘david.seymour@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Barry Brill’; ‘Geoff Duffy’; ‘John Ansell’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘leighton smith’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘newstalkzb’; ‘newsdesk herald’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘andrew.laxon@nzme.co.nz’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘Jim Tucker’
Subject: There is no embargo on the publication of the truth

Dear PM and Minister of Climate Change,

Please find attached a summary of the essential underlying facts after completion of my 15-year enquiry into the Great Global Warming Fraud.

This information may upset you, and if so I apologise for the shock.

In my next email I will provide all the evidence to support my claim that you each – as the Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change – have either failed to do proper due diligence before taking your actions to waste billions of taxpayer dollars, or else are simply committing malfeasance by lying to the public.  Given the warnings provided to you both over a three year period I believe I am justified in using the common term for malfeasance, rather than either “ignorance” or “stupidity”.

The problem for corrupt but powerful people like you is that the courts love empirical scientific evidence that is supported by inter-locking, self-evident truths.  It typically trumps big names, rock-star scientific reputations, foreign conspiracies and popular misconceptions.

Just as a series of Popes in the 16th and 17th centuries could not counter the fact that people woke every morning and observed the sun rise in the East then later set in the West, the self-evident truth was always that earth revolves around the sun and it rotates each day.  Luckily I am in the happy position of being able to show the public why your actions are so flawed.  The sun dominates our climate, as well as the climate of all other planets within the solar system.   When the self evident truths that we all see every day of the year are pointed out to the public, the game will be up.  You like everyone else will wonder how you could have been so gullible. 

There has never been any consensus among the scientific community about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because there has never ever been any empirical scientific evidence to support the fraudulent assertions of the UN IPCC.

The leaders of the world’s major (CO2) emitting countries, Messrs Modi, Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping are doubtless already aware of this.  That is why they are likely laughing at our leaders’ stupidity and why Putin is building floating nuclear power stations for the frozen Arctic regions (to ensure cooling water intakes cannot be iced up) while also completing his fleet of huge nuclear powered ice-breakers to cope with what they believe will be the cold of an unfolding Grand Solar Minimum (each ship has greater cost and tonnage than New Zealand’s entire Cook Strait ferry fleets) .  Forget what they say, look at what they are doing.  Their actions are informed by the expectation of cold rather than warmth.  But I don’t wish to buy into whether that will eventuate, although the change they expect seems on track at this point.

The major net CO2 emitters are clearly being differently advised to you, along the lines of this semi-audible 15-minute video clip below.  (Hint … this Russian expert is difficult to understand so you would be well advised to pause the video at each new slide he presents and read the slide while muting his talk.)  He is probably reading directly from it because of his limited English language skills.  At 3.00minutes his graph of the Vostok ice core analysis explains why during the Pleistocene era (the last 2,7 million years) CO2 has never influenced the global climate.  If you also look closely at the graph at 15-mins 23 secs, you will see the reduction in solar activity is exactly today what he predicted many years ago and then consistent again, during his talk in 2014 during the active peak of solar cycle 24.  He has the credibility of any scientist who can predict what is happening to the climate, using the “space weather” to confidently show his client, the Government of the Russian Federation, what they can expect.

Dr Habibulo Abdussamatov has been Director of the Pulkovo observatory and he ran the Russian scientific programme for the International Space Station.  His forecasts for a looming Grand Solar Minimum and “little Ice Age” date back many years and have in November 2019, finally been confirmed by NOAA and NASA.  I guess those two organisations are both now trying to work out how to escape their roles in the UN IPCC conspiracy as this email is being written.

For the last few years I have been monitoring the accuracy of Dr Abdussamatov’s predictions from the data shown on www.spaceweather.com .

Also from the work of several others.

At the end of June 2020 the world is still warm, if marginally cooler than it was during the previous months, however, the highly subjective and grossly inaccurate models that the UN IPCC use as the basis for their fraud are no substitute for the observed data.  This unimpeachable graph from the NASA satellites below shows the climate isn’t facing unprecedented warmth, despite deliberate lies to the contrary.  Nor is there any climate crisis as the changes are within natural variability.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2020_v6-550x317.jpg

The UN IPCC’s accepted models show three times the warming shown in the above graph.  You back their inaccurate and subjective models, I back the empirical data. 

The first news organisation or political party to agree to widely publish the attached page will get access to the “smoking gun” evidence that I hold…. before you do.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Private Fraud Investigator

See article on why whistleblowers are not heart: Many Whistleblowers – Yet Nothing to be Heard


===========================

A TALE OF FRAUD, COMPLICITY AND ARRANT STUPIDITY

THE GREAT UN IPCC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD AND ITS NEW ZEALAND AGENCY

As Albert Einstein is reputed to have said: 

“The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

Now think it through for yourself:

It is illogical to consider that three relatively ineffectual human-influenced greenhouse gases which in total are less than 4% of the volume of the far more potent gas (water vapour) can drive climate change, just because a group of bureaucrats at the United Nations say that it is “settled science”.  If one investigator, acting alone, can see through this fraud, then the New Zealand scientists have not performed any effective due diligence.

The Great Global Warming Fraud costs OECD countries between USD1-2 trillion every year.

The most important things you need to know are:

  • Methane and Nitrous Oxide have never had any proven impact on the earth’s climate.
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (“CO2”) is a more prolific greenhouse gas but…
    • There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 has ever had a material effect on earth’s climate.  The UN and their supporters have never offered any. Nor can they.
    • The proportion of CO2 emissions that humans influence is less than 5% of the total.
    • The main source of CO2 emissions is “ocean out-gassing” when it is warm.
    • CO2 is subject to the Beer-Lambert Law of Physics and therefore any thermal impact was almost saturated at the pre-industrial atmospheric level of 280ppm in 1850. 
    • CO2 is not a pollutant and “zero carbon” entails the end of all complex life on earth.
  • There was never any consensus to support this fraud…  http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • There is no climate crisis…  https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
  • Plants thrive with three times current levels of atmospheric CO2, (arguably in short supply).
  • The “Milankovich cycles” drive the 100,000-year climate cycles of ice ages and inter-glacials.
  • In between, climate change is dominated by the sun which supplies 99.5% of earth’s energy.
  • The Solar Cycles conform to the Holocene pattern of 200-year periods of extreme cold.
  • The great majority of the earth’s population is led by people who don’t bow to this fraud.
  • Few of those who signed up to the Paris accords have either the intention or ability to comply.  It is impossible for New Zealand, even with total support, to get any value from this.

I warned the Government in 2018 of their likely complicity in a serious fraud.  The Minister prevaricated so I warned him in 2019 of the actionable basis for a possible fraud complaint. 

As a result of their intransigence, I now see no alternative than to accuse the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern and the Honourable James Shaw of both fraud and deceptive and miss-leading conduct.  I stand ready to support those serious accusations, as and when called upon to do so.

John Rofe, Private Fraud Investigator                                                        Auckland, New Zealand,  10.7.2020

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2020 12:40 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: Really Big frauds inevitably require bigger and bigger lies…then the child soldiers are weaponised once the biggest lie of all loses its credibility

Hi Politicians,

Each of you, by signature to the Zero Carbon legislation is now guilty of fraud; and of both complicity in, and actively promoting carbon trading Ponzi schemes.  These are criminal offences and I am directly accusing you of at least being accessories to criminality, along with Antonio Guterres and his fellow travellers.

I have told you before, there is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be laid bare to public scrutiny and opprobrium.   So you need to come clean.

If not, then gather your evidence (if any real evidence exists) and lets litigate.  I simply want evidence that human CO2 emissions have any material effect on climate change.  After two years of asking for this I will continue to accuse you of fraud until you deliver it.  As a taxpayer I am entitled to an explanation for your actions – as is everyone.

From 15+ years of my research into the spurious UN IPCC claims, I have found there is no justification for any spending on attempting to reduce “climate change” because the only measurable effects of the human use of the fossil fuels since 1850 has been the increase in atmospheric CO2, the increased wealth and well-being of all humanity from abundant and cheap energy and the greening of planet earth as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.  But because of the long duration of CO2 within the atmosphere, and because human actions account for less than 4.3% of all CO2 emissions (as accepted by UN IPCC) there is absolutely no possibility of confidence that a reduction in human emissions could cause the future level of atmospheric CO2 to fall.  Natural variability could even cause it to increase, despite controlled draconian global attempts at human reduction, which will never happen.

As there are still far more countries planning to increase CO2 emissions than those trying either successfully or unsuccessfully to control them, there is zero chance of any credible reduction in human emissions being made within the next 10-20 years.

The only thing your misguided actions can achieve is to destroy the reputation of science and the scientific method, to go hand in hand with destruction of our economy.  All this to bring about the enrichment of a few of your fellow travellers and higher energy costs for those least able to afford them.

Each adult human inhales a tiny 400 ppm of CO2 to go with 20% O2.  We exhale air heated to body temperature, with 100% relative humidity and CO2 emissions at 4% (or 40,000ppm).  So our inhalations cleanse and oxygenate our blood and we emit 100 times the CO2 we inhaled.  The oxygen exhaled is reduced to 15% or less.  Given the weight of CO2, we each exhale about 360kgs of CO2 per annum.  Animals many time more – or less.  What do you want to do?  Tax us for our exhalations?

Contrary to your advice from the UN IPCC and your ignorant cabal of “junk” scientists, (by both satellite imagery and experimentation) the increase in atmospheric CO2 has already benefitted all plant life, and will continue to do so.  It increases the vigour of plant growth and makes all plants more drought resistant.  There is and has never been any evidence that CO2 is a pollutant and together with water and oxygen, CO2 is one of three reasons that complex life exists on earth, whereas it exists nowhere else in the solar system.  If the atmospheric CO2 concentration falls to 150ppm  or less, then all life on earth will die and the carbon cycle may end.

We are carbon-based life forms and our extinction as an apex mammal would likely be an early effect of low atmospheric CO2.

There has never been any evidence that CO2 has either been a significant influence on climate change as atmospheric CO2 levels have always been a trailing indicator of major temperature fluctuations for as long as scientists could perform their experiments and calculations.  It is generally accepted that ocean de-gassing of CO2 occurs when it is warming, and conversely taking up more CO2  when the atmosphere has been cooling, is the cause for this.  There is even a lag time due to the fact that the ocean takes longer to take up heat and to cool, than does land.

The solar and space weather sciences, together with all the known history of the solar cycles and the Milankovich cycles are an extra-terrestrial cause for the variations in earth’s climate and together with the attempts within the seas and atmosphere to equalise heat distribution as the earth rotates, these account for climate change and  remove any justification for your erroneous presumption that humans have a significant effect on climate.  Localised warming yes, but it dissipates with no significant, measurable effect on climate change.  The extremely active solar cycles of the 20th century alone account for the increases in temperature of earth’s climate during the modern warm period, which despite the deliberate “official”  doctoring of temperature records have only achieved a total increase of 1.1 degree Centigrade between the year 1850 and December 2019.  That is, over a period of 169 years.  So the average increase during that period is well within natural variability.  Forecasts of sea level rise and atmospheric heating made by the UN IPCC junk scientists are simply ridiculous.  But they do show that junk scientists will do anything for money.  Yet still, one by one, they defect.

For politicians of any colour to support the fraud, you must first be prepared to believe that an improbable theory promulgated to advantage sectional interests is superior to the existence of the Beer-Lambert Law of science, because that law already relegates all increases in CO2 to having an inconsequential impact on thermal uptake and therefore climate, at even the pre-industrial levels (i.e. about 280ppm).  Atmospheric CO2 is already thermally saturated and can provide no significant future effect within an enormous time horizon.

You have been taken for idiots by a small group of extremely well paid and funded scientists, UN politicians and their bureaucrats, most of whom have no idea about climate science.  Simply put…from the Google search below… the “we” is you…

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”

“(Sir Walter Scott) Whenever we deceive others, in order to make things better for ourselves in the moment, we deceive ourselves most of all.Oct 25, 2017

If you want to prove that human CO2 emissions have a dominant effect on climate, meet me in court.  I will be happy to litigate this as soon as you are ready.  I want a trial date…so come and get me before I go public, along the lines of my 1 January trial run in the NZ Herald.  A copy of that is at the top of the page.

Your fraud is now pretty obvious, and all the world’s delusional Greta Thunbergs cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry.  Now your “tangle” only gets tortuous as any fair-minded person would accept from the detail below…

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

The following advertisement was placed in the NZ Herald Public Notices on 1 January 2020:

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 2:08 p.m.
To: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘John Ansell’
Subject: Merry Christmas

Dear politicians,

In 2018 I warned of the dire consequences of failing to check the science you rely on for public policy settings over climate change.  I warned of the climate phenomena appearing that supported the narrative that we are probably moving into a Grand Solar Minimum.

In 2019 I laid complaints with the NZ Serious Fraud Office and the NZ Commerce Commission regarding your demonstrably false climate change narrative.  Naturally the complaints came to nothing.  I noted the radical shortening of the Northern growing seasons that have further reduced for each year from 2017, 2018 and again in 2019.  I commented on the signs that food shortages will soon loom large due to cold climate crop losses.  The only certainty at this point is that food costs will head much higher in 2020, because despite shortages, we humans can possibly adapt to cope and farmers will now start changing their cropping choices.

In 2020 the earth will reach the bottom of the eleven year solar cycle numbered 24, and it will start into solar cycle number 25.  So the best Christmas present I can offer you is to explain why the solar cycles are so important.  NASA, NOAA, the Russians and the Chinese have indicated that solar cycle 25 will be the least active for at least 100 years and many experts claim the unfolding Grand Solar Minimum will be a 200 year event.

1. The successive ice ages on earth during the 2.5 million year Pleistocene era have historically been triggered by what is known as Milankovich cycles (now generally accepted).  These consist of three separate cycles referred to as “the Tilt variation of earth from the sun”, “the Obliquity of earth’s motion through space”, and “Eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun”.  Of these three cycles the most influential is eccentricity and it takes around 100,000 years to happen.  Our civilisation has only begun during the latest 10-12,000 year interglacial period we live in called the “Holocene”, which has now lasted for at least 11,500 years.  A plunge into extreme glaciations is now probably due.  It was alluded to by the expert climate scientists during the 1970’s when earths average temperature had cooled by about 0.4 degrees C., from 1945.  No-one actually knows when it will happen.

2. Within the Holocene period,  The time of maximum warmth due to natural cycles is said to have already passed and it is considered that the Minoan Warm period 3,500 years ago was when that occurred.  So there is good evidence available that points to earth’s average temperatures today being some 2-3 degrees C. cooler than the Holocene temperature maximum.  There are possibly two certainties that will affect us.  The first is that the solar cycles with rising and falling levels of electromagnetic activity will drive the natural climate variations on planet earth as they will the climates of the other planets within our solar system since the beginning of time.  The second certainty (well an extremely high probability) is that at some point the Milankovich cycles will usher in the return of a period of extensive glaciation that is similar to previous ice ages.

3.  Full ice ages with extensive glaciations must be accepted as near certain extinction-level events.  The significance for New Zealand is less onerous than for others, yet that may mean a progressive but effective end to agriculture in the South Island…. as and when it occurs.

4. Our recorded history of the impact of varying levels of solar activity really began with the Maunder Minimum (1645AD-1715AD) but these provided a mathematical trace back to earlier Grand Solar Minimums before the birth of Christ.  Grand Solar Minimums coincide with the coldest periods of “the Little Ice Age” (which ran from about 1280AD – 1870AD).  They also align well with the record of famines and the fall of dynasties in China.  Both the Russian and the Chinese governments take the science behind Grand Solar Minimums very seriously and use the known cycles for their strategic planning.  As a result I commend the history of Grand Solar Minimums to the attention of yourselves and your Civil Defence personnel.

5.  Space exploration and remote climate monitoring only really began in about 1979.  Today the probing of solar influence is a regular event and the effect of the solar cycles on earth’s weather is well-known if suppressed by the mainstream media.

6.  So my Christmas present to you is to provide my personal understanding of how Grand Solar Minimums likely affect the earth’s climate

This will be extremely topical because many believe we have entered a cooling cycle that will last until 2055.  Some believe it will last much longer.  The data supports this conclusion.  The data does not support suggestions that humans, CO2 build-up and/or CH4 build-up cause climate change.  So I think this topic is well worth spending some time on.

The principle indicator of solar electromagnetic activity is visible to humans by virtue of the number of sunspots appearing on the face of the sun each day.  These are carefully counted and conform to maxima and minima based on the stage of the eleven year solar cycles.  Solar minimums are marked by no sunspots appearing for days or even months.  There is a huge and growing body of solid science surrounding this topic.

If we look at the regular eleven year minimum that occurred between solar cycles 23 and 24, there have been 70 sunspot free days in 2006 (or 19 %), in 2007 there have been 152 sunspot free days (or 42 %) and in 2008 there were 268 days (or 73%).  In the tail end of solar cycle 24 there have been considerably more sunspot-free days.  With 2017 at  104 days (compared with 70 in sc23), in 2018 at 220 days (compared with 152 in sc23).  With the year almost up in 2019 the percentage of spot-free days already stands at 76% compared with 73% in 2008.  This signals how the sun is rapidly becoming less active.  From the attached link to a schematic of solar cycles you can see how the eleven year solar cycles vary and in particular the low sunspot numbers of the Dalton Minimum in the early 19th century.

https://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html

The reduced solar activity has a number of effects.  First the Total Solar Insolation which strikes earth’s atmosphere is reduced.  The second is that the earth’s Thermosphere tends to thin and become colder.  This  variation to earths outer temperature is indicative of what is to come… as we move towards the solar minimum in 2020…

“Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 3.26×1010 W Cold
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
explanation | more data: gfxtxt
Updated 08 Dec 2019”

With reduced solar activity, the solar wind drops.  It is the solar wind which keeps cosmic rays from flooding the galaxy.  The solar wind is also the reason the tails of comets point away from the sun and not at the direction the comet has come from.  So a key measure of the space weather is the solar wind strength and density…

Solar wind
speed: 353.3km/sec
density: 5.0protons/cm3
explanation | more data
Updated: Today at 2116 UT”

There are always cosmic rays intruding in our atmosphere and they result in the increased nucleation of water vapour into low level clouds.  The cloud cover is the primary reflective umbrella for earth, with usually about 65% cloud cover.  So only about 56% of the sun’s rays hit the earth’s surface and any contribution to increasing cloud cover has a net cooling effect.

The Earth is once again being bombarded by the highest intrusion of cosmic rays for the space age…

This below is a snap shot of the current stats from www.spaceweather.com that suggest to me the highest influx of galactic cosmic rays will occur in 2020-2021.

“Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +10.9% Very High
7-day change: +3.3%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
explanation | more data
Updated 08 Dec 2019 @ 1800 UT”

The solar electromagnetic variation affects earth’s magnetosphere and there is some evidence that the tectonic plates are affected by the changed gravitational effects and by the effect of cosmic rays on sub-surface magma.  However I am not sure how reliable the correlations are between Grand Solar Minimums and volcanism.  Even so the fact that 80% of all volcanoes are under the oceans and they have the potential to heat deep ocean water in a way the surface temperatures cannot, suggests they may have a far greater impact on New Zealand’s eventual weather than anyone acknowledges.  Our climate is maritime by nature, so we are less likely to be affected by cooling solar influences while our oceans remain warm.

So to summarise, the likely effects of the space weather on the climate of earth includes:

1. Variations in Total Solar Insolation (not very large but certainly these are grossly under-rated by the UN IPCC).

2. Variations in the Thermosphere Climate Index because when it cools and thins, the loss of heat at night via infra-red radiation will be greater.

3. Variations in the cosmic ray influx affecting the formation of low level cloud.  This is a climatic feature attributed to large scale flooding and heavy snows during Grand Solar Minimums.

4.  There is a poorly understood effect on both the Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere jet streams which leads to them slowing and meandering closer to the Equator.  This leads to reduced temperatures where the loops venture into lower latitudes and higher  temperatures in the higher latitudes when the jet streams venture outside their normal routes.  Historically, we are told this accounts for the massive floods of the so-called “Dark Ages” and the “Little Ice Age”.

From what I can tell from the historical records, the advent of a 200 year cyclic Grand Solar Minimum doesn’t seem to dramatically alter the earth’s average temperature, but it does alter the climate of normally temperate or warm zones.  Hence the snowing in places like the Serengeti, the Sahara and Saudi Arabia in 2018.

In 2019 the effects of the “Eddy” Grand Solar Minimum have become obvious and this has led to recognition by NASA  that the earth is headed for a period of cooling.  Yet all mention of the solar cycles is still absolutely banned from mention in the mainstream media.

Russia and China are already taking emergency steps to protect their food supplies.

Yet you remain asleep at the wheel.   New Zealand is exposed, despite the kindness of our maritime climate.

So may I suggest you give this some thought when you are choosing what to read during your Christmas holidays.  Books by John L Casey such as “Cold Sun” or “Dark Winter” from your local library could be a good start.

Anyway,  I have retired as a Justice of the Peace to eliminate any suggestions of conflict of interest when I plan my year of action.  So 2020 is going to be a whole new “ball game” for me.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 9:46 a.m.
To: ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’
Cc: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: The abject fear of answering three simple questions

Hi Newshounds,

Humour me.  You will find it worthwhile…because you too were either fooled into drinking the populist Koolaid about climate change, or there are powers that control your news reporting that make our world an Orwellian nightmare, and our freedoms lost.  More factual evidence has been presented in previous submissions .

We have entered an era where there are today, arguably more than five times the number of “scientists” who have ever lived before them.  Many ignore the “scientific method” when it is more convenient to “lose it”.  The contestability test is subordinated to the popularity of a theory.

They now tell us which toothpaste to use and which drugs are good and which are bad,  and in most cases they espouse an undisclosed business, or political reason for doing so.  This deception is nowhere more prevalent than the area of climate science where fake news is promoting an orthodox agenda of various trans-national groups, and now this and its sub plots have become the biggest-ever fraud in human history.  Real conservation has been prostituted in favour of fakery.  Yet the science at the heart of the paradigm is missing and can never be discussed in polite company.

And now we have the 11,000 pseudo-scientists’ report – really a blog opinion piece with the “likes” of others signified – heralded as yet another scientific breakthrough.

This is the latest of the faux authoritative scientific studies… https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

The surveyor of opinions was an obscure forestry blog site at Oregon U., masquerading as a reputable international group of scientists,  and an initial critique is contained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=youtu.be

The survey was treated as a learned and peer reviewed research paper, whereas it was really a simple survey of folk who may for whatever reason be willing to share the writers’ opinions and while ‘Professor Mickey Mouse’ and ‘Professor Albus Dumbledore’ of Harry Potter fame were originally respondents, the list was edited to remove anyone who didn’t look worth the “powder and shot” to present their survey. The pruning supposedly was very severe.

This is a critique…  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/who_are_these_11000_concerned_scientists.html

To check the criticism I have just waded through the entire 323 pages of the names of the “11,000” so-called “knowledgeable scientists” (following editing) providing the latest faux warning of climate Armageddon at this link below.  

 

The kindest things I can say about the New Zealand based contributors to the survey is this:

1. They seem to be well educated, but generally do not seem to have relevant experience in the subject matter of the dire warning to humanity.

2. I doubt they can have known that they were click bait for promoting eugenics as part of this.

3. Of the 230+  Kiwis who put their names, occupations and employment details forward in the survey, there would be less than 5 (possibly only 2) with relevant climate science qualifications and experience who I would wish to consult on this subject.

4. The largest cadre were computer scientists, either Emeritus Professors, Professors, Associate Professors, computer analysts or Lecturers (I suppose they must therefore receive some NZ Government  incentive for noting their agreement to the questionnaire).  Lots of people who work for the NZ Institute for Plant and Food Research popped up too….did someone organise mass support for the individual “likes”? 

5. I couldn’t find any names of the NZ climate scientists I am familiar with.

But I will give the Kiwi respondents the benefit of the doubt because among these folk, there must surely be at least one who can answer the following questions that none of the known climate scientists can answer (certainly not the PM’s science adviser – Professor Juliet Gerrard – see also the letter from the CEO of the Environomics (NZ) Trust above):

1.  What empirical evidence is there that changes in the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide are able to alter the climate and what evidence is there that it ever has to date?  (After all, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm since the end of “the Little Ice Age” in 1880, to 415ppm at the present date so surely there is clear evidence one way or the other?)

2. What evidence is there that human emissions of CO2 and CH4 act as atmospheric pollutants?

3. What evidence is there that it is possible for humans to reduce the atmospheric level of CO2 by a sufficient amount to reduce the Global Mean Surface Temperature by even one tenth of one degree Centigrade below that which would otherwise obtain from natural causes or the actions of others, by the year 2100?

In 2020 these questions will be a big deal for the PM and the Minister of Climate Change.  You see I am not only a private fraud investigator but I already warned them last year that these are essential planks that support the legitimacy or criminality of their actions.  Failing to answer which, they are at best promoting a fraud, because you see, they say they are implementing policies because the UN IPCC says they should.  No-one, anywhere in the world has, or would be brave enough (or perhaps stupid enough) to provide answers to the three questions I have been asking over the 40 years that this runaway deception has been rolling….

If I were sick of drinking beer and said the only reason I drink it is because “Big Terry” drinks it, that would be OK.   But I am not hurting anyone by failing to make enquiry of my options.

But the response from the Minister of Climate Change (that I have in writing) admits he is committed to his course of action because the UN IPCC and their tame cabal of supposedly orthodox scientists says he should.   And that is not OK because it is the least financially robust of our citizens who will ultimately bear the cost of this fraud.

So who is running this government programme?    PM Jacinda Ardern regards this “fraud” (my word not hers) as her administration’s defining issue.  So why is she going to waste billions of our money to satisfy her and past PM Helen Clark’s Socialist mates at the UN – when there is not a scintilla of scientific justification and yet huge cost?   The ploy of claiming the science is proven when it isn’t, is not a tenable position for our activist government to take when damaging whole industry sectors.  Ministers of the Crown have a fiduciary duty of care to act for proper purpose and I argue that in the case of their climate change bigotry they are not…or at least cannot possibly….demonstrate they are doing so.

In a detailed and fully-referenced paper, Wellington researcher/analyst Barbara McKenzie has published a withering rebuttal of the New Zeaand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s comments in a speech lauding ther passage in the NZ Parliament of the so-called Zero Carbon Bill.Ms McKenzie writes: “Jacinda Ardern calls [the bill] the ‘nuclear moment for this generation.” What she means, of course, is that Parliament is in effect nuking the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand environment on the back of what is frequently referred to as the greatest hoax in the history of science.”Later in the paper, Ms McKenzie says any MP who claims to take an interest in the climate debate must know “Jacinda’s speech was a pack of lies.”

LINK

If you look at my previous correspondence it isn’t that I have not given the Government fair warning.  What we, the people must demand is the truth about the core issue.  This is not about partisan politics nor a criticism of National and NZ First folding their principles to a wasteful piece of legislation.

If the answers to three simple questions are provided and these do actually hold water, I will go quietly into the night.

But remember that in exercising your power of editing or ignoring this information, you have already, by accident or design, ignored numerous warnings of climate Armageddon that have been proven wrong year after year, since 1989 and some before, including Prince Charles, the Duke of Edinburgh, several heads of the United Nations and heads of global corporations.

So we have a dominant paradigm that is nothing more than a 40 year fraud, with numerous subsidiary frauds appended to it.

As Jack Nicholson’s character said in “A Few Good Men”,  “The truth?  You can’t handle the truth!”

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2019 5:55 p.m.
To: ‘todd.muller@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘scott.simpson@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘simon.bridges@national.org.nz‘; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz
Subject: A short look at Vladimir’s view of the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum contrasted with that of a knowledgeable US farmer
Importance: High

Gentlemen,

It is still too early to see what sort of damage is occurring in the Northern hemisphere due to the approach of the Eddy Minimum.  But the folk at the web site Adapt 2030 have the best window on the 2019 crop losses at this 4 minute video below.  The losses in 2017 and 2018 were not visible because inventory movements masked them.  This year may be the first of many where that becomes impossible…

https://youtu.be/hUOBKTarY5Y

The weather these folk speak of is only relevant, insofar as the early autumnal blizzards are covering crops before they can be harvested.  So every USDA and other forecast of crop levels is being sequentially reduced as they factor in more and more bad news.  How serious will it get? It is too early to tell.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin know exactly what is happening.  The Chinese have more than 2,000 years of records of solar cycles and can point to the critical impacts of Grand Solar Minimums, like the current one.  There is a near precise correlation between these and the famines that have affected China for the last two millennia .  Matching that timing has been the sequential overthrow of the Chinese dynasties.  Xi Jinping’s planning is obvious and has been underway for at least ten years.  He knows they have not done enough and are being forced to talk trade with Trump in order to get supplies from a US President who doesn’t yet know that he may not have the supplies to meet even a USD50 billion order (or so the American farmers believe).  But for his government Xi knows what is coming is a potentially existential threat for the CCP.

But today I will restrict this email to Russia.  Their space agency collects the same space weather data that NASA does in the USA.  Putin’s principle adviser if the head of the Pulkovo observatory, and the head of the Russian space programme for the International Space Station – a guy called Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov.

I don’t want you to read this stuff at the link below in detail, but a glance would be informative.  It is indicative of the depth of understanding the Russians have for a subject that is strictly banned in the Western media while, the UN pursues global hegemony – focused on warming rather than either the facts or the science.  This is a link to some of his research…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdussamatov

and

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2011474380_Habibullo_I_Abdussamatov

The actions of the Russian Government are pretty transparent to anyone monitoring the international media (that part which is not affected by Soros, Turner, the Rothschilds and their affiliated three deep state cabals).   While PM Scott Morrison of Australia recently took a firm line with the UN interference in Australian policy two weeks ago (and it never got into the NZ media), three months ago a lecture was given to the Russian press corps by Sergei Lavrov on what the government saw as the biggest existential threat to the Russian Federation – the New World Order being promoted by the UN and the same deep state actors that control the Western media.

Meantime, President Putin has focused his international diplomacy on making friends with every country to the South of Russia and with China.  The Middle East is the new theatre of influence as Russia realises growing seasons will keep shortening.  The strategy to capture the Crimean Peninsula was part of this as was his support for Syrian President Assad.  Murmansk in the West, Syria in the South, Iran in the near East and Vladivostok in the East are strategically linked to the North by his six tiny ice-breakers (a joke)… each has two large nuclear power plants pushing huge propellers, and because the Western Siberian oilfield is substantially depleted, they are following the field offshore into the Kara Sea.  So he has oil tankers to be towed through sheet ice from time to time.  Here is a short video of one of them…does it look like he expects the Arctic Sea Ice to disappear any time soon?

https://youtu.be/bKaVhXn49xY

At home the emergency food planning has been in place for some time.  While Putin has made a big thing about helping the Chinese out, his resource is limited.  But the build of granaries has been well under way and with Grand Solar Minimums the cold is not linear, there will be good years during the 11 year solar cycles and bad years …but more bad years than usual.  Subject to restrictions and embargoes he is reducing the US dollar debt he is holding and converting it into gold, increasing Russia’s bullion holdings, year on year.  He has built and deployed one floating nuclear power station which will be based in the Russian Arctic.  More may follow.

Elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere, regional rivals, PM Modi and PM Khan also understand what is happening but their preparations are less effectual.  Already hit by extensive flooding, peasant farmers will do the best they can.

The farming communities in Europe, USA, Japan and elsewhere are waking up because farmers are on the front line.  Every time there are crop losses the farmers become twitchy.  They lose their farms.  In New Zealand, ours’ is a maritime climate and with warm seas (relatively) we have a farming holiday for a little while longer.

But for the entire continent of North America on average, the 2019 harvest will be a huge disaster.  We have not been allowed by our news media to know that the period from October 2018 to May 2019 has been the coldest and also the wettest in over 100 years.  With growing seasons shortening each year for the last three years.  The Chinese are aware of this and yet they will still try to wring every shipload of oats, soya beans, corn, rice, hogs etc from the USA that they can get.  They have also increased their buying from Canada, who will similarly experience difficulties meeting the Chinese purchase orders.  This will affect New Zealand because when we changed Canterbury farms from cereals to dairy, we became dependent on Australia.  This year Australia plans to import from Canada and will not be an exporter at all.

Some North American farmer blog sites are full of the unfolding drama.  This particular farmer in the link below usually chronicles the moves in the weather extremes and comments on the harvest data.  But in this link he unloads on the causation.  From my knowledge of what is happening, he isn’t far wrong…

https://youtu.be/jbsslmdxvhc

The Eddy Grand Solar Minimum is something we cannot change but we can plan for how it will affect our country.  Perhaps the first thing for your shadow ministers is to understand that Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a fraud.  It has nothing to do with the science or climate, because it is just about transference of the power of national governments to the UN.

The second thing is to have at least one of each of your assistant’s, take an interest in the data appearing on  www.spaceweather.com .  The left hand third of the web site pages is devoted to the unfolding statistics.  The sun is now the quietest it has been since the beginning of the space age and this solar minimum is still deepening.

Can I draw your attention to my summary of the cause of climate change as per the two MS Word documents attached above.

You will see from that and the Farmer’s graphs that the true cause of the “Modern Warm Period” following the end of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1850, was the extraordinary solar activity of the 20th century.  The sun was then its most active in at least 4,000 years.  That isn’t hypothesis, it is published solar science.

I do hope you make good use of this or at least have your staff do so.

By Christmas we will probably know the true dimension of the unfolding crop losses.  I hope I am wrong.  The last time there was a Grand Solar Minimum (the Dalton Minimum) the global population was only about 950 million.  Then most people grew their own food and did not have brittle supply chains and JIT planning.  How will we get on with 7.7 billion?

It will be bad, but just how bad?  We must wait for Christmas.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

A Concerned Citizen.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2019 9:57 a.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘news@press.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘contact@comcom.govt.nz’
Subject: The truth always comes out sooner or later

Dear Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change,

This email will provide people with an opportunity to choose sides, whether to be “part of the problem or part of the solution”.

I hope those who receive this long message will take the time to print it and its attachments, and also take the time to view any video footage it contains.  You have had time to verify the science and there seems no point in allowing you to continue to attack the New Zealand economy in support of whatever your true ends may be.  So I will publish this as widely as I can.

This email is about the New Zealand section of the biggest and most egregious political crime in human history, now requiring an urgent political solution.  But I think many who receive this email will already know that.  You also know that.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

Last week a sub-set of the world’s real scientists provided a rebuttal to the climate alarmism you espouse so fervently…

 

Yet you will ignore it and shrug off its logic.  For me?  I am just a fraud investigator, so I have sat between the competing perspectives of science, to form my own view of the facts irrespective of my financial interests.  You will ignore these at your peril.

Please find attached above in two single page Word documents, the core summary of the climate facts, together with a copy of the satellite temperatures since the tamper-proof records began in 1979.  There is no climate crisis.  There is no man-made global warming.  There is no need to demonise the naturally occurring gases CO2 and CH4 as pollutants, when they are both essential to the survival of all species on planet earth and already in short supply for plant life.  There is no need to drive worried farmers to either depression or off their land.

My allegations of fraud against you are simple and easily substantiated by the facts of your complicity.

Supporting Background Information

15 years ago I started investigating this criminality from the standpoint of a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming theory and wanted to know why people rebelled against a logical perspective of science that was claimed to be so settled.  Alas, the first thing I discovered was the only reason the science was claimed to be “settled” was because it couldn’t stand any real scrutiny.  It was always a simple political scam as scams go – as simple as the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, where the mythical tailors wanting the king’s money, claimed only fools could see the King was wearing no clothes at all. 

So by 2003 when the theory was comprehensively disproven, the UN IPCC backers changed the term for “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and then set out to claim there was a consensus supporting the science…. and then began to demonise the vast body of serious scientists as “Climate Change Deniers”.   The UN IPCC and their backers’ power base is so huge,  obvious and corrupt, as they secured for their “anointed ones” 3 Nobel Peace Prizes and 1 Nobel Prize for Economics…and locked false scientific claims within Wikipedia.  From BBC to “Stuff”  no major media organisation will now allow the truth to be spoken. 

How sick is that?  Science is meant to thrive on scrutiny, yet this junk science does not.

The Great Global Warming Fraud has only been possible for four reasons…

1. We humans do warm our surroundings with a mixture of exotic and natural fuels.

2. We humans have no idea about the composition and chemistry of the air we breathe or how our exhalations are valued by other life forms.  Air is simply taken for granted.

3. We humans are so successful that since 1750, humans and their livestock have gone from comprising about 7% of the world’s land mammals to over 98%;  leaving a trail of species extinctions and pollution behind as we have done so.  Now we worry about resource depletion and over-full waste sinks.

4. We want to do the right thing to “save the planet” and eagerly follow any sensible consensus on how to do that.

More than a year ago I started writing to the three of you (our NZ Government’s coalition leaders), to warn you that you could soon – by your actions – become accessories to the Great Global Warming Fraud.  This was met with distain as per the attached message from Minister Shaw who seemed unfazed by the allegations of fraud I made… (see the Adobe file linked above).  But I did recognise that as a well-rehearsed legal defence against probable fraud charges.

Because your responsible Minister prevaricated, I laid a complaint with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in April 2019 and followed that up with complaints about the misconduct of your Minister of Climate Change (and his political party) to the NZ Commerce Commission.  On 15 May 2019, (see the fourth linked Word document above) I made sure you understood the substance of my complaint, by copy of a letter sent to Minister Shaw and your Deputy PM, which noted three causes of potential criminal action regarding your deliberate and false misrepresentations and the fact that criminality in another jurisdiction is no excuse for committing crimes within New Zealand… 

The causes of action where you now stand accused ( or from your point of view, seek vindication) are simply… 

1.            That changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) have no impact on climate change.

2.            That carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is not a pollutant, but a gas essential for all life on earth. CH4 rapidly converts to H2O and CO2, upon contact with the atmosphere.

3.            Your “climate change” spending cannot possibly have any measurable impact on earth’s climate.

You, together with your international associates have dreamed up a non-existent crisis that will soon be revealed for all to see as a simple fraud from which the various Ponzi schemes grow and for a time will thrive – but to no legitimate purpose.   When the weather once again changes into severe cooling mode, to reflect the ever-changing solar cycles that drive earth’s climate, the public will react against your obvious lies and lose confidence in you and all politicians. 

Because I have some investments which may already be benefitting from the Great Global Warming Fraud, I was persuaded by some friends to call you to account.  Frankly,  I don’t want to benefit from your criminality, if your actions are proven to be so.  Nor do I want to abandon my renewable energy investments. 

But how did I go from being a believer in the well-orchestrated  lies, to being an active sceptic, now demanding your immediate resignation?

1.  In 1998 a survey of reputable scientists was performed that revealed 31,487, including more than 7,000 with PhD qualifications, had no time for the theory that the modern warming is man-made.

2.  I found the regularly used mantra that  “97% of all scientists supporting the UN IPCC science”  to be a subsidiary fraud and when I looked at the sources being given for the fictional consensus, I found them to be total garbage.

3.  The hyping of sea level change to a height which is thermodynamically impossible was a worry for me.

4.  The reduction in Arctic sea ice extent is being over-hyped.  These days the UN IPCC simply chooses dates to begin sea ice graphs at a date when the ice extent and thickness reached a cyclic maximum and thereby uses the subsequent downward trend to deliberately mislead the public.  The UN IPCC sea ice graphs begin in 1979 when the earth’s climate had cooled significantly from the early 1940’s.  If they had started in 1972 they would see that NASA has satellite photos of the sea ice at the end of that summer melt that were almost identical to the extent the satellite photo at the end of the 2018 summer melt.  I have viewed all those photos and am aware the sea ice extent was far less in 1941 and 1942 when the Arctic convoys ferried supplies from the UK to Murmansk.

5.  In the last 3 years the ice load on Greenland has grown by about 1.2 trillion tonnes.  Where is that in the news?  It does have an effect on sea levels whereas sea ice has no effect.

6.  The polar bears were being hunted to extinction in 1967 and so in 1973 the Arctic Treaty nations placed a moratorium on hunting, save for limited Inuit rights in Canada.  Since then their numbers have grown to the point where they now actively predate on Inuit villages, who want culling to be reintroduced.  Polar bears survived and prospered during the Holocene climate maximum called the “Minoan Warm Period”, through the “Roman Warm Period” and the “Mediaeval Warm Period”.  These warm periods were all considerably warmer than our climate is today.  So fear mongering about the impact on polar bears from loss of sea ice is facile.  The same with so-called “all time heat records” that can only be described in derisory terms. 

6.  When polar bears attack the huge herds of walrus on dry land, some walrus have throughout recorded history been seen to get pushed off cliffs by the crush of others.  They breathe the same air that we do so they prefer to haul out in large numbers (for protection) on dry land near their shallow feeding grounds.  We are told they are sad about climate change.  How can they be?  They are thriving, just like the polar bears. 

7.  Obviously naive funding agencies can get any report they want from venal scientists if those scientists’ tenure is at stake or they are paid enough.  Lysenkoism is extant everywhere I look within the OECD and I despair when watching TV to see yet another phony scientist coming up with implausible studies, which have been funded on the sole basis that they will reinforce the UN IPCC disinformation.

What are the Russians, Indians and Chinese doing to comply with this man-made global warming hoax and with the Paris Accords?  Heck, they don’t even believe the UN IPCC dogma even though they profit from it.  They have each been preparing for the coming Grand Solar Minimum for at least the last 5-10 years.  Look at their preparations.  If you don’t believe me, you could try Googling  the name of  Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov (the scientist who runs the Pulkovo observatory and the Russia programmes on the International Space Station – Vladimir Putin listens to his advice) and you will be able to understand the Russian strategies in the Middle East, why they have built a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers capable of towing oil tankers through 2 metre thick sheet ice, and why they needed to annex Crimea…all part of the same strategy.  “Winter is coming, Jon Snow!”

It is the same with China and their “String of Pearls” and Silk Road  construction,  together with the diversification of food sources into South America and Africa.  They are already in food trouble that will manifest this winter.  They have records that show whenever there has been a cyclic “Grand Solar Minimum” over the last 2,000 years there has also been both famine and the collapse of China’s major dynasties.  They accept Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions, given the changes now underway.  I can neither confirm nor reject those forecasts of approaching cold, but you must be made aware that others who have expert knowledge now consider them valid and urgent.

Check this desperate cry for help from Australian sceptics as they pay higher and higher power prices that are based on policies grounded on fraud and disinformation…(This is shown in the third attached Word document above)…

How many of those 31, 487 scientists who have dissented from the UN IPCC’s  politically inspired disinformation programme are allowed to give TV or newspaper commentaries?  Only one in a thousand.  Each year, more of those who work on the mischievously inaccurate computer models on which the overhyped heating claims by the UN IPCC rest, defect to the sceptic camp providing information on how desperately flowed the models and resulting forecasts really are.  The sceptics are either ignored or driven from their jobs, denied publication of their learned, peer reviewed scientific papers and treated like “holocaust deniers” by the likes of smug, self satisfied media presenters who refer to their legitimate scepticism by the derogatory term “Climate Change Deniers”.  Sceptics are never allowed to write the truth about the subject of climate change by mainstream media publications (including such as the NZ Herald and other rags, in favour of “puff pieces” of no journalistic or scientific merit.  These do get taken to print without question or scrutiny, as feedstock of alarmism from overseas newspapers and such climate experts as Past PM Helen Clark.  But her late 2018 NZ Herald article did strike me as indicative that her actions should also have been under scrutiny during her term in office.

Finding such a  cloud of obfuscation  is “meat and veg.” to any true fraud investigator, this is the sort of stuff that points directly to a false narrative which is collapsing, as the lies become less and less credible to a greater proportion of those singled out to be its victims.

I believe I know what has caused the modern warming.  I believe I know what is going to cause the imminent period of cooling.   Sadly for whatever your political intentions may be, the feared cooling is already starting in the Northern hemisphere and were it not for the UN IPCC’s  PR machine, everyone would already know about the threat this cooling poses to global food supplies – all too soon. Perhaps that will change, but there are signs that earth’s Thermosphere is thinning and cooling, so if that worries the people at NASA and NOAA, it should concern you too.   If you actually do know this stuff, then throwing young school children into the front lines of your struggle looks more like an act of desperation and cowardice on your part … the last throw of the dice to deflect allegations of your government’s complicity in an international power play to assert UN control against the primacy of national sovereignty.

If you aspirations were honest, you would have asked the population to vote on whether they want our government to be dominated by the UN.  Instead you choose to prostitute climate science as if it were a global emergency that only the UN could fix.

But whether it is warming or cooling, the changes to earth’s climate are only resulting from natural causes.  If the truth does interest you, may I suggest you have your staff analyse and monitor the web site – www.spaceweather.com.  Even NOAA, an organisation closely enmeshed in the UN IPCC web of influence, acknowledges that it is the space weather that drives earth’s climate.  When you understand how that happens, you may understand why your political actions have been so egregious.

Your cohorts at the UN IPCC upped the ante last week, with their well-orchestrated disinformation.  Seemingly expecting those among us who have actually taken the time to check the science, to retreat under the onslaught of a hysterical teenager and her handlers’ fantasies – ably augmented by the catastrophic alarmism delivered by the usual UN IPCC suspects – yet with attribution to no-one of substance and only peer-reviewed by “partners in crime”.  This short video below captures the sequence including the obvious motivation, the lies and the truth, in one elegant 12 minute splurge…

https://youtu.be/cEs31hNMebg

The international resistance to your global and national scam has begun, and something approaching 50% of New Zealanders will already know or suspect the UN IPCC version of the truth is flawed, because many remember their tirade of concatenated alarmist scares have all failed to materialise.  Most people are now too scared to confess their appreciation of the truth in case you label their words as “Hate Speech”.   Yes, I too have a list of those UN IPCC linked alarmist lies that date back to 1989 when the UN IPCC first started.  But also beyond that to when the same “new World Order” posers were trying to set up a coming ice age as the platform for a UN global takeover…

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

Nowadays, many celebrities squander their good names and reputations to underwrite the fraud.  To what end?  They, and even Sir David Attenborough cannot possibly know the scientific facts, even though  they talk of the “settled science” with such authority.  That is, unless they too are implicated in the dastardly criminality. 

For Joseph Stalin, the use of children and adults who went along with him but were never really aware of what he was doing, led Stalin to coin the term “Useful Idiots”.  Are our MPs, as well as our own children and grandchildren to be treated as those too? 

I know you believe that because you are “saving the planet” you can alienate us all from the basic truths of science in the same fashion as Chairman Mao used the “Cultural revolution” for.  But that seldom works for long.  All you need to do is to provide us sceptics with empirical evidence which proves that changes in atmospheric CO2 cause climate change.  We will melt into the night if you do that.  But I know you cannot do that, because I am able to prove why CO2 – at its molecular level – cannot have any measurable effect on climate, compared say to clouds and water vapour.  The sceptics can never be met in a public debate for one reason, the UN IPCC is now unable to defend the indefensible.  If you feel lucky, try to prove me wrong.

So 30 years after the fraud was dreamed up, there is still no evidence that CO2 does what the UN IPCC says it does, and yet you are prepared to near-bankrupt this country because you conveniently claim you are only taking someone else’s lies on faith?  What sort of Prime Minister would someone be, if they did that?  For Minister of Climate Change  I envisage the title of “King Canute” will be used by the mob when it turns on him, once the true science is generally known.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

I believe it is contrary to your fiduciary duty of care as PM to stir up fear among workers, farmers, parents and children alike, and for you to preside over an education system that teaches fake science.  Science is not a popularity contest, it is about facts.  Please also find below  a list that chronicles the truth about alarmist falsehoods, to set our children’s minds at ease. 

(Source of the following is Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 26 September 2019)

“·         You have never been less likely to die of a climate-related disaster. Your risk of being killed has fallen 99 per cent in the past century. Source: International Disaster Database.

·         You have never been more likely to live longer. Life expectancy around the world has risen by 5.5 years so far this century. Source: World Health Organisation.

·         We are getting fewer cyclones, not more. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bureau of Meteorology.

·         There is more food than ever. Grain crops have set new records. Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation.

·         The world is getting greener. Leaf cover is growing 3 per cent per decade. Source: NASA.

·         Low-lying Pacific islands are not drowning. In fact, 43 per cent – including Tuvalu – are growing, and another 43 per cent are stable. Source: Professor Paul Kench, University of Auckland.

·         Cold weather is 20 times more likely to kill you than hot weather. Source: Lancet, 20/5/2015

·         Global warming does not cause drought. Source: Prof. Andy Pitman, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

·         Australia’s rainfall over the past century has actually increased. Source: Bureau of Meteorology.

·         There are fewer wildfires. Around the world, the area burned by fire is down 24 per cent over 18 years. Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center et al.

·         Polar bear numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Source: Dr Susan Crockford.

Perhaps it is time for you to come clean.    But you must now defend your crime against the New Zealand people in your Parliament  or prove me wrong with the substance of my complaints to the SFO and ComCom.

I would be happy to be able to apologise to you and Minister Shaw, because I know from history that warmth is good… and that cold is very bad for humanity.

The next move is over to you and your parliamentary colleagues.

I hope you place some weight on the truth and avoid the urge to attack the messenger.  After all, I am only saying what many thousands of Kiwis would like to be saying to you.

Stop telling blatant lies.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely  Concerned New Zealand Citizen asking for the lies to stop.

=====================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 28 July 2019 9:06 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘Simeon Brown’; ‘peter.goodfellow@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘letters@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘letters@press.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’
Subject: Time for the truth about the “Great Global Warming Hoax” to get a public hearing?

Dear Minister,

It is now a year since I explained to you and PM Ardern about your fraud, and explained the reasons why you should cease and desist.    I have summarised the position outlined in this email in a single page as per the last (Word) document attached above for circulation to the news media.  This lengthy email that follows, substantiates my short statement on such an extremely complicated topic.

My reason for writing this email to you is to ensure that you have the facts at your fingertips to avoid New Zealand becoming further embroiled in the “Great Global Warming” fraud, which is nothing more nor less than a globalist conspiracy orchestrated under the auspices of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”).  But then, I suspect you already know this.  The fact the conspiracy is global does not in any way excuse your conduct.  By your actions, you and your government are already complicit, and you can no longer rely on the UN IPCC.

The “Great Global Warming” fraud now has an eerie similarity to the “South Sea Bubble” in the following respects…

  1. They were each the largest frauds in recorded history at the time they occurred and then, by the time they were revealed, caused great heart-break.
  2. Both frauds relied on the remoteness of the populace from the facts on the ground.  With the South Sea Bubble, it was geographical remoteness.  With the Great Global Warming fraud it is the scientific remoteness mixed with complexity of the fraud and the interwoven, related conspiracy at the United Nations (“UN”), as they attempt to hype a global emergency to justify their takeover of global government…all in the shaddows.
  3. In both cases the perpetrators have had an incomplete understanding of the true facts that made, or now makes discovery inevitable.

In fairness to those at the centre of the Great Global Warming fraud (whether they and you deserve fairness or not), they/you did not initially have access to all the data.  Furthermore, the very few complicit scientists involved at the outset in 1988 then fell under the sway of politicians progressively including such as (in sequence) John Holdren, Al Gore, Helen Clark, Barrack Obama and even David Attenborough  – all should have known better, with different degrees of ignorance or motivation, as they lent their reputations and legacies to this fraud in order to profit from it – either in terms of political power, or for financial benefit, or for both. 

This shambles evokes the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned upon his retirement as US President, against the use of political sponsorship for the scientific community who are then funded to distort science for political purposes (as first happened with the Trofim Lysenko fiasco in 20th Century Russia).  What is unusual about your fraud is that it is supported by globalist businessmen and financiers as well as a significant element of the climate science community.

Retired Professor Nils Axel Moerner of Sweden calls it what it is.  I found his frustration with the lies contained in the link below rather like my own. I can now, at last, easily prove that he is right in almost every respect….

https://youtu.be/W1PS9-oOfRw

The Professor is as unaware (as you seem to be) that this fraud is about to be unmasked for public distaste by the speed at which the latest Grand Solar Minimum is advancing.  While outfits like NASA and NOAA still tend to downplay the implications of the new and disastrously weak 11-year solar cycle number 25, their web sites contain the evidence that it is happening as I write this.  Disillusionment day for your public will likely be sometime in early 2020.

So far this year there have only been 11 sunspots.  The public can watch this looming solar minimum threat on a daily basis at www.spaceweather.com  if they have the time and inclination.

NASA suggests that the number of sun spots in sc25 will drop to 111, which is an extremely low level of solar activity.  However, the Russian and British scientists claim they will not exceed 50!  The first is on the level of the Dalton Minimum.  The second is the level of the Maunder Minimum.  Either will prove disastrous to global agriculture and destroy your fraud as well.

It is now proven that the “modern warm period” has nothing to do with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (which we humans do give a boost to), but has been solely caused by a huge spike in solar activity…the greatest for 4,000 years. 

As a result of scientific progress, we are now in a position to prove that what you are doing with the NZ zero carbon legislation is a fraudulent enterprise.  It must now be stopped by either your free will, or by court injunction.

  1. The vilification of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) as a pollutant is just one of many essential limbs of this fraud

CO2 is essential for all life on earth.  That is a scientific fact.  All plant life relies on CO2 for the process of converting light into the plant sugars that support all other terrestrial life on earth (animals, humans etc)  and, should the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drop below 150ppm, every complex carbon based life form on this planet will likely become extinct.  Plants actually do better when they are given access to a concentration that is between 1,000 and 2,000ppm.  The current concentration is only 415ppm.  This atmospheric deficit is routinely compensated for by farmers injecting bottled CO2 gas into their greenhouses.

Meantime you elect to wage war on CO2 and label it as “undesirable pollution” for UN IPCC’s own devious ends.  They are of course conflicted, yet conceal their conflict of interest from the masses.

The evidence that shows increased concentrations of CO2 leads to the greening of the planet is contained in successive NASA satellite photos that are readily available to you and your advisers.  This greening has occurred primarily because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm at the end of “The Little Ice Age” in 1850, to the current level of more than 400ppm as of today.  If you were a true green you would find that good, not bad.

Plant growth experiments at various CO2 levels have also proven this fact as contained in the first “Word” attachment at the head of this email.  This attachment shows the practical limitations of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” that were the reasons why it’s possible impact on climate change was trialled and rejected by such eminent scientists as Professors Niels Bohr and Anders Angstrom some 100 years ago.  Those reasons – discovered by actual experiments rather than by totally subjective theoretical modelling – haven’t changed.  The only thing that changed was the arrival of the UN IPCC in 1989 and some biddable scientists who wanted to establish their new field of knowledge and scorned the older inter-linked evidence based earth sciences.

We humans can tolerate an atmospheric CO2 level up to at least 100 times greater than it is at present.  Should you personally ever take ill and collapse, requiring CPR,  any trained person could probably resuscitate you by “rescue breathing” with air containing 40,000ppm of CO2 and a reduced concentration of oxygen (of only about 16% of the air mixture). That is because we all breathe in anywhere between about 400ppm and 800ppm of CO2  and breathe out roughly 4% or 40,000ppm – thereby reducing the amount of oxygen that was inhaled by 20%.

The scientific record has shown that before the beginning of the Quaternary Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were considerably higher than today and the relentless sequence of natural sequestration of CO2 in rocks, soil and sea bed occurring during colder times over the last 500 million years considerably reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere and will almost inevitably mean for the future, that by the end of the next 90,000 year terrestrial ice age of the current Pleistocene era (or subsequent repeats of that cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could even fall back to, or fall further from the 180ppm at the end of the last ice age (12,000 years ago), to a much lower level and possibly even reach or breech the extinction threshold of 150ppm at some point. 

So there is considerable hard evidence that human CO2 emissions which involve using and emitting sequestered carbon will actually help to restore a desirable atmospheric balance that is more suitable for all natural life on earth.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!  Unless you can prove that increased atmospheric CO2 has a significant effect on climate change, you should regard your criticism of this naturally occurring gas as a grave error, that is contrary to the best ideals of the green movement.

What needs to be dealt with, is to clean up real pollution rather than attempting to levy extortionate taxes based on deliberate lies.

  • In 30 years there has never been any empirical evidence that variations in atmospheric CO2 cause any measurable change in earth’s climate. 

Sure, we humans warm our surroundings by using many heat sources and fuels that provide us with comfort and wealth, but the claim that we alter the future climate is quite extraordinary …. and extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary proof.   Such proof has never been found – despite the wasting of billions of dollars on the ever more complex computer models.  Sadly for the theories you espouse, there is ample proof that human and indeed total CO2 emissions have no measurable impact on climate and I itemise that proof below…

  • The historical record from the empirical analysis of ice core samples taken from the depths of the Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok, and from Greenland has provided clear evidence that as earth’s temperature changes, the level of atmospheric CO2 then also changes after a delay of several hundred years.  When temperatures rise, a rise in CO2 levels follows; then when temperatures fall,  CO2 levels also fall.  This is not only well accepted data, but the result is logical.  The sun which supplies  more than 99% of earth’s energy, heats the ocean more slowly than either the land or the atmosphere and the ocean releases its heat far more slowly.  Water absorbs atmospheric CO2 when cold and releases it when the water is warmed.  The ocean contains 50+ times the CO2 of the atmosphere, so when the ocean is warming it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than it takes up; and when cooling it takes up more CO2 than it releases.  The data underpins the Vostok evidence.

  • During the last 100 years there has been clear evidence that the level of atmospheric CO2 has increased from around 300ppm to over 400ppm, and at no stage have the recordings at the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA’s)testing site in Hawaii (which both UN IPCC and sceptics accept as valid data) have ever fallen.  Yet during the time from 1918 to 1940 the climate warmed, and then from 1945 to 1975 the climate cooled, and then from 1975 to 1998 the climate warmed again.  From 1999 to 2015 the temperature did not increase by any measurable amount.  Then in 2016 there was a spurt in warming due to the strong El Nino conditions, and then after that the temperature has fallen again – to the present.  This shows that CO2 has had no appreciable effect, unless one changes the starting and finishing times used for the temperature comparison to manipulate the meaning of the data.  In general, the world has emerged from the effects of “The Little Ice Age” and the solar cycles became appreciably more active – with the Total Solar Insolation (“TSI”) during the modern warm period higher than it has been for thousands of years.  It is the sun that has caused the modern warming.   There is no upturn in the number and severity of serious weather events and on the contrary there has even been a significant reduction in severe weather events since the late 1930’s.  You wouldn’t know that to listen to the media.

2.3 The impact of the huge increase in solar activity underpins this evidence and accounts for the warming of the ocean and its current slow expansion.

  • The reasons why human CO2 emissions cannot drive earth’s climate are now well known.

3.1  It is generally accepted by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions comprise only 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  Yet the presumption is made by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions drive 98% of climate change with no allowance for the variability over the 95.7% of natural CO2 emission effects.  For example a warming sea alone will emit more CO2 than humans can influence from all activities.  But to make their models work, the UN IPCC modellers even invent separate classes of CO2 molecules.  First, they state that human influenced CO2 molecules do not dissipate, but instead  only increase the level of residual atmospheric CO2.   Second, they say only the CO2 emissions from natural causes do dissipate due to the requirements of vegetation etc.  Of course this is junk science because there is no difference in the molecules, so any lay person can see through that.  But whether we allow the UN IPCC to clutch at straws to support their UN sponsored fraud or not, we humans cannot affect climate change.  Could King Canute turn back the tide?

      3.2  Atmospheric CO2 molecules do not impact with more than an extremely narrow band-width of infra-red re-radiation emanating from earth’s surface/sea and even then, not fully.  Water vapour on the other hand impacts twelve times the band width that CO2 does, and of that scope, for much of it, water vapour fully affects the re-radiation in some of the applicable band widths (As per the first attached (Word) document at the head of this email).  The water vapour also has other effects because of its involvement in the cloud cover and with its ability to phase change between liquid, gas and solid with massive localised thermal effects that the UN IPCC modellers deliberately ignore.  Not only that but water vapour is between 10 to 100 times as voluminous as CO2, depending on temperature and humidity. The suggestions that human CO2 emissions cause climate change is therefore somewhere between risible and ridiculous.

  • The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was already almost thermally saturated at the pre-industrial level of 280ppm (The Beer-Lambert Law refers). This is because an increase in CO2 concentration only leads to a logarithmic increase in the absorption of heat.  After the pre-industrial level of CO2 ( i.e. at 280ppm), its thermal impact for extra atmospheric concentrations of each – say – 100ppm of extra atmospheric CO2 is almost un-measurably minute and similarly, any reduction in temperature change from a reduction in the CO2 level would need to involve a huge reduction of – say 100ppm, if it is to have any measurable effect (even in theory).   As a result, the UN IPCC desire to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby effect a reduction in earth’s temperature is a pipe-dream and is misleading people who are being told that with the expenditure of trillions of dollars over time it can be done.  That change is not within human power because… i. Humans influence only a tiny portion of CO2 emissions and, ii. Because natural causes of CO2 emissions are far greater, so a relatively small variation in natural emissions will overpower any influence from human influenced CO2 emissions, and iii. While CO2 may be a greenhouse gas it is a significantly weaker one, than either water vapour which is measured and clouds which are not, and these factors dominate as shown in Dr Holmes’ video at the link in item 4.1 below.  But meantime a Finnish study has concluded that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years has only resulted in a temperature increase of 0.1 degrees C. and of this the human proportion is only 0.01 degrees C. as noted in this link :

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

3.4  Water vapour and clouds provide the principle “greenhouse effect” that keeps earth warmer than outer space.  (But please note, the term “greenhouse” is a gross oversimplification which is mainly used to suit the UN IPCC narrative, because there is no restrictive membrane in earth’s atmosphere – like the glass of a greenhouse.  The true effect of cloud cover is more complicated because clouds’ net effect is one of competing forces of insulation between the partial  shielding of the sun’s rays which (along with water vapour, and other atmospheric compounds) only allows 56% of Total Solar Insolation to descend to the earth’s surface, and the low level cloud and water vapour which inhibits the infra red re-radiation of heat leaving earth’s surface and reaching the extreme cold of space). The attached paper by Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Duffy, dated July 2019, shows “why it is not possible for any of the non-condensable greenhouse gases to have an appreciable effect on weather and climate change”.  It is attached herewith as the second (Adobe) article at the head of this email. 

  • It is now generally accepted that Space Weather determines the weather on earth.  While the UN IPCC chooses to believe that Total Solar Irradiance (“TSI”) only varies by 0.05 watts per square metre – up or down, that is based on their purposefully short term comparison of TSI changes and is demonstrably both biased in their favour and incorrect in fact, as has already been published in a number of peer-reviewed studies (again, see the link at item 4.1 below).  But not only is the TSI variation far greater than the figures shown in the UN IPCC computer models, but also the variations in solar activity (and numbers of sun spots) change the amount of solar wind affecting the planets in the solar system including planet earth.  The stronger the solar wind, the less the number of the galactic cosmic rays that can enter either the solar system or the earth’s atmosphere.  During the regular 11 year solar minimums the influx of galactic cosmic rays increases and during events called “Grand Solar Minimums”  the influx of cosmic rays is even more dramatically increased. 

Cosmic rays not only threaten astronauts and high altitude air crews (as they will do for the next two years) but they act to nucleate water vapour to form low level clouds and these provide an increased cooling effect for the earth as well as initiating massive anomalous rain, hail and even snow events.  In 1997 the work of Danish Professor Hendrik Svensmark and his son led to this being promulgated as a substantial theory – but now it has been convincingly proven with successful experiments in the “Cloud” project at CERN.  Unlike Anthropogenic Global Warming which has been disproven, the Svensmark theory about cosmic ray impacts on cloud formation is now, if not settled science (as the UN IPCC fraudsters will never accept the truth) but it is repeatable by scientific experimentation.  Who could ask for more proof?

3.6  There are now numerous studies of climate change that cast doubt on the validity of all of the UN IPCC sponsored computer models, showing all to grossly overstate possible warming.  But each model has a theoretical basis that relies totally on human generated parameters (for which complexity the humans involved receive multiple billions of dollars each year), so the UN IPCC studies cannot be relied upon for one good reason…the actual climate conditions have to date borne no relationship whatsoever to the forecasts of 101 of the 102 computer modelled predictions, or of the 72 models that are currently in vogue and used as the basis for creating deliberate warming alarmism.  They may as well have licked their finger and held it up to the air and taken a guess…because both that guess and the computer models are equally subjective.

3.7  By February 2020 we will see whether the Northern Hemisphere is to suffer massive food shortages as a direct result of the extraordinary cold and wet weather that has been interspersed with drought conditions there over winter of 2018/9 and spring of 2019.  Northern spring planting has been extensively disrupted as a result Grand Solar Minimum conditions and unless there is an “Indian summer” to delay Autumn, their harvest will likely be dire.  While Minister, you have thus far ignored my well-intentioned warnings that you are now becoming at least an accessory to fraud (for over a year), you must try to understand that New Zealand, by your actions is probably becoming exposed to the impacts that will occur on a global basis as a direct result of the presently unfolding Grand Solar Minimum.  You have been warned of this material and demonstrably cyclical hazard.  Now time is of the essence. Watch what is happening to cereal futures prices if you don’t believe me.

  •  How big is your fraud? (the total cost of this fraud globally is estimated at USD1.5 trillion per year and is growing exponentially larger and more onerous for the countries of the OECD)

4.1 The hallmark of a fraud is often denoted by the subsidiary lies that need to be told to lend credence to the central falsehood.

Everything from forest fires… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phw8OlN_x1E&feature=youtu.be

to sea level rise is subject to alarmism…(see for sea level the Professor Moerner link above in the preamble to this email report).

Also for ocean acidification… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJjBo5ICMc&feature=youtu.be

Editor’s note: the following paragraphs from the Australian IPC are not in the email to the NZ Prime Minister, and have been added to clarify further details of the ongoing issue and court case. Professor Ridd’s key point is that James Cook University scientists have published many reports that do not comply with the proper scientific methodologies and, as such, are not valid. Eg the results cannot be replicated and the data has not been made available. Yet these reports have been published ‘as gospel’ by many mainstream media, leading to, amongst other things people world-wide believing the Great Barrier Reef is ‘dead’ or at least dying, and no longer travelling to see the reef, causing, amongst other issues, a major downturn in the tourist industry.

As reported by the Australian IPC: ‘Professor Peter Ridd has won his litigation against James Cook University about the Great Barrier Reef, the big scandal for North Queensland is the alleged death of coral that is being deliberately used to create an over-hyped sense of climate emergency.  There is nothing wrong with the world’s coral reefs, other than periodic bleaching  occurrences that they often quickly recover from.  This is a cyclic phenomenon.

In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef. ‘There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.’

Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.

In April, Federal Court Justice Vasta ruled JCU had erred in its interpretation of a clause in its enterprise agreement and deprived Dr Ridd of his right to express his academic opinion. Within hours of the judgment being released in April, JCU published a statement on its website criticising the ruling.

Dr Ridd is seeking financial compensation after he was sacked by JCU for publicly criticising the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef.

In his decision, Judge Vasta stated that:

[T]he concept of intellectual freedom is not recent and is extremely important as it helps to define the mission of any university… It is the cornerstone upon which the University exists. If the cornerstone is removed, the building tumbles.

[…] To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

[…] That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.’

We continue to see story after story that hypes the warm temperatures and ignores the cold weather.  Heat waves?  Hype and hoopla.  The sceptics are calling out every one of the lies now, just as quickly as the mainstream media prints them…

https://youtu.be/f5B8gcpggfs

This is only because the media is being manipulated by political forces aligned to the (your?) international socialist movement.  The fake news propaganda effort is being coordinated by the UN IPCC and their supporters.  We can no longer get accurate media reporting on how weather compares, or about climate change, nor on the other sub-plots.  Like this one about Arctic Sea Ice because the fraud dominates… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwUhJaQVi-M&feature=youtu.be  and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZDtnq9A-Bg&feature=youtu.be

Even the fate of polar bears is being twisted to suit the UN agenda… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0&feature=youtu.be

In mid July (only last week and during mid-summer!) the “Crown Prince Haakon” a Norwegian icebreaker set out to crash through from Svalbard to the North Pole based on the stories of rapid ice melt.  They quickly turned back due to striking solid 10 ft thick ice.  Even with Greenland’s and Iceland’s principle glaciers now advancing we still get stories that they are retreating.  This level of scientific disinformation may suit your purposes but if this Grand Solar Minimum (2019-2055) is to be a 400 year event like the Maunder Minimum – rather than 200 year event like the Dalton minimum – then this will end in tears because it will soon be too late for us to prepare.

4.2 The establishment of carbon trading schemes relies totally on the ability of the UN IPCC scientists to predict what happens in the future as CO2 levels are notionally to be brought under control by exerting the influence of humans over natural forces to reduce both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. That relies totally on the accuracy of trumped up, totally inaccurate, but extremely expensive computer models. In this rush to implement a false doctrine, the developed countries have joined a collective rush that will destroy their economic base.  If you sit down with your scientists and watch these two videos by Dr Robert Holmes and Dr Patrick Moore you will get a sense of the gravity of what your government’s involvement in this fraud is doing to all except those in the developing world who (are already and) will happily continue to eat our lunch in every possible way.

4.3  Herewith is the video of a comprehensive rebuttal of the science that your globalist friends rely upon (by Dr Robert Holmes).  Each video Dr Holmes has put out gradually tightens the knot around the Great Global Warming fraud as he itemises the genuine peer reviewed experiments and research that gives the lie to the UN IPCC dogma that is essential for their survival.  This latest in his series contains most of the evidence that will blow this fraud apart.

4.4  You claim to be a devout environmentalist, yet I allege you are betraying the environmental movement and misleading the general public.  Accordingly I have laid a separate complaint about the deceptive and misleading conduct of both  you as Leader, and the NZ Green Party, with the Commerce Commission under s. 13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.  You cannot take destructive action against all earth’s/New Zealand’s  vegetative species and still lay claim to being “green”.  Here is Dr Patrick Moore’s video on the destructive actions of others also participating in this fraud.  I make no apology for its length which enables you to better understand his credentials and the similar conundrum they face in Canada to the trouble you are stirring up in New Zealand.   As with Greenpeace, Canada, it is all counter-productive.

https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4

At this point in time there are between 10-15,000 scientists working in every OECD country to combat the Great Global Warming Fraud.  But essentially, when the global harvests begin to fail (as they did last year – if only in some regions), it will be too late for us to prepare.

  • The preoccupation of the UN IPCC with their fraud is because it is an existential requirement for that organisation, as noted by Dr Moore’s video at 29 minutes and 44 seconds…I quote from the UN IPCC’s mandate to analyse… “a change in climate that is attributed to directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”  The facts however tell us a different story as per the link below…even using UN IPCC approved data…the knowledge of what happened once the ice cores from Antarctica were analysed in 2003, busted their theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and since then the UN simply ratcheted up their fraudulent activities to increase their hold on power over national governments.  This Vostok ice core data is also confirmed by Greenland studies of the Holocene climate history, covering only the last 11,500 years…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=higXpFF79Hw&feature=youtu.be

4.6  I cannot open a newspaper without some element of the fraud being telegraphed as proven science.  Whether it is as a result of the studied ignorance of journalists or because children have believed the lies that you and their teachers have told them as part of their school curriculum.  Those elements of the mainstream media that spread the lies and disinformation must be stopped forthwith.  The sceptics know the role that George Soros and others have played in this fraud.  Local Government, Maori interests, Central Government officers, farmers, oil companies business leaders and others have all been misled and become unwitting accomplices.  But of greater cost to the country is the rubbish that carbon trading will lead to some form of beneficial climate modification.  This activity and many others are by definition only Ponzi schemes.  Their life and existence depends on “greater fools” making bigger and bigger financial contributions to the point when the fraud is discovered and a massive “debt jubilee” automatically takes place, to the cost of everyone who has obeyed your erroneous interpretation of junk science and obeyed your corrupt laws.   There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be exposed.  But the longer it takes, the worse the situation will be.

  • The cost of your policies will be too steep for the country of New Zealand to bear, as it has already been in Germany and Australia.  As the proven cost of the UN IPCC’s wasteful programme becomes known, the global resistance is getting stronger now that the truth is getting out. 

This is a sample of something doing the rounds in Australia…. https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

Minister, you have a duty to familiarise yourself with the science.   Although I am not associated with it, I believe the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s experts can provide you with directions of where to get help and support.

I believe from the data that the earth’s climate is always changing, either up or down, and because I now see a bias in favour of the solar and space weather scientists’ consensus – who mostly believe the climate will now cool – I am classed as a “Climate Change Denier”.  Those who believe in human instigated global warming and insist that the term “climate change” is the same as “global warming” are hyping runaway warming for all they are worth and yet their un-warranted alarmism is based solely on computer models that only do one thing – they reinforce their own personal world view.  After 30 years, because their models don’t agree with the data, they simply change the data to suit their models.  Are you really happy to go along with that? 

The Russians used to have a saying,  “The most difficult thing to predict is history”.  (It is like Tiananmen Square and the CCP) Try to track the unwarranted and self-serving alterations to temperature data and you will understand why I, like Professor Moerner of Sweden think the UN IPCC are such frauds.  If you do check this information for yourself you will find yourself sitting on the wrong side of the biggest fraud in global history.  I hope you will feel comfortable there, until the truth does out.

I am simply an investor in renewable energy projects moonlighting as a fraud investigator, calling the facts as I see them.  I don’t like what I see, but unlike you, I face them.  Don’t we, the people, pay you to do the same?

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely Concerned New Zealand Citizen

============================================

CLIMATE  CHANGE

By Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

CARBON DIOXIDE COand WATER H2 CONTRASTED       

  • Showing water and condensable water vapour have by nature much greater actions on weather changes and climate patterns than non-condensable CO2 ever could.

  • SOLAR RADIATION:  CO2 only has TWO narrow absorption bands for incoming solar energy.  Water vapour has SEVEN (5 larger bands).  Water vapour is 5 times more effective with incoming Solar radiation.
  • RADIATION from EARTH:  CO2 only has TWO more narrow absorption bands for radiation coming back from earth.  Water vapour covers 85% of the entire span. Water vapour is more than 12 times effective than CO2.
  • Overall, water vapour is about 12 times more effective than non-condensable CO2 with respect to all radiation
  • Condensable water vapour evaporates, humidifies, then condenses to form clouds, which can precipitate to produce rain or snow, and scrub dust and pollutants from the air, and then cool the atmosphere and planet surface. 

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2

  • CO2 is NOT a pollutant or a toxin [Carbon MONOXIDE CO is the toxin: prevents blood from carrying oxygen]
  • CO2 in the atmosphere is vital for LIFE – plants and vegetation: we would die without it !
  • Crops, trees, plants, convert CO2 into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables, and more
  • Leaf ‘factories’ convert CO2 into organic carbon compounds and O2
  • Marine plankton and molluscs uptake and convert CO2 too!
  • Humans exhale 1 kg CO2 per day (close to 7 Billion humans on Earth) and the concentration is 40,000 ppm at the exit of the mouth
  • NOT all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made (< 5%) – most is naturally produced
  • Ruminating animals put out more greenhouse gases than all the cars, buses, trucks and other vehicles in the world
  • The main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are Fossil Fuels: coal, oil, gas, and the burning of crops and waste, wood, trees and other wastes and garbage (still very small worldwide)
  • CO2 absorbs radiant energy over a total of 4 LIMITED NARROW BANDS [see Graph below],
  • Atmospheric CO2 is a non-condensable GAS like nitrogen, oxygen, and methane. Water vapour is the ONLY condensable gas. These changes of phase (evaporation, condensation, precipitation) produce all the atmospheric effects: heat-shielding clouds, cooling, and atmospheric scrubbing
  • For every 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere, only 10,410 in NZ are greenhouse gas GHG molecules. But 10,000 of the 10,410 are water molecules.  Of the remaining 410, ONLY about 405 are CO2.  Of these, only 5% (about 20 molecules) are from man-made processes (20 in 1 million; 0.002%; 1 molecule in 50,000!!  Can that be the main culprit in climate change when water is typically about 1% in New Zealand; or 1 molecule in 100, while absorbing far more radiant energy as the graph below shows
  • The ocean holds 93% of ALL CO2 (38,000 billion tonnes); the land 5% (2,000 billion tonnes); the atmosphere 2% (850 billion tonnes), of which anthropogenic CO2 is ONLY 5% of that (about 45 billion tonnes)
  • CO2 in rain water is acidic: CO2 in sea water is alkaline (pH 8.1), and can never-ever be acidic while shells, carbonates and molluscs exist to neutralise it. It can become less alkaline but not acidic
  • CO2 is commonly injected into greenhouse to increase plant growth rates and crop yields
  • It has been reported that there has been a 20 – 40% greening of the planet over the last several decades
  • China has 1,171 coal-fired plants planned; India 446; so coal is still in strong demand
  • Examining atmospheric CO2 must always be considered simultaneously with the many larger effects of H2O.

Increasing CO2 concentration increases crop yields as shown in this actual Greenhouse experiment!

WATER VAPOUR H2O

Water is UNIQUE and quite different from CO2:

  • WATER: The most abundant compound on the planet and a universal solvent.  Water makes up over 60% of the human body.  It is in all plants, animals, cells etc ..
  • WATER VAPOUR:  Is the ONLY condensable atmospheric gas. So only H2O can evaporate, humidify, condense (clouds), and precipitate (rain, hail, and snow). 
  • WATER: H2O is the ONLY fluid that FLOATS ON ITSELF when it FREEZES on the liquid surface.  [If it did not float it would sink and crush the creatures (fish, sharks, whales) in the Oceans.  Marine life flourishes in water below the floating ice].
  • WATER VAPOUR: Has the largest percentage greenhouse gas EFFECT [about 45% – 70% (clear sky), 70% – 90% (cloudy sky)]
  • WATER VAPOUR:  The water vapour concentration in the atmosphere depends on temperature and location [< 0.2% in very cold climates to >4% by mass at high Humidity in the tropics >35 0C]
  • WATER:  Oceans absorb 1,000 times more heat energy than the atmosphere, and BUFFERS more than 80% of the large heat fluctuations (and hence temperature variations), thereby moderating weather changes and climate patterns greatly.  This key factor is missed when only isolating radiation-only and CO2.  93% of all CO2 is in the oceans (~38,000 billion tonnes)
  • WATER:  Liquid water has the highest surface tension (surface molecular skin) of all natural liquids. It controls water droplet formation, cloud structures, ocean surfaces, waves, evaporation rates, etc
  • WATER: H2O molecules are polar (H slightly +ve; O slightly –ve). Hence adjacent water molecules can ‘attract’ each other, particularly as the temperature is lowered (ice floats on water because of this). [Liquid water can also ionise slightly H3O+ hydronium ions, and OH hydroxyl ions]. Hydrogen onding gives some unique features unlike CO2: H2O has the second highest specific heat capacity [only ammonia* is greater]: H2O has a very high heat of vaporisation (2,257 kJ/kg at its boiling point), and ENERGY TRANSFERS are very important in atmospheric changes (weather) (shows up as temperature differences)
  • WATER:  The ‘Structure’ and ‘Behaviour’ of H2O molecules have LARGE buffering effects that moderate the earth’s weather and they affect both evaporation from the seas and condensation in cloud formation. Non-condensable COgas forms NO clouds
  • WATER: The specific enthalpy of fusion (at freezing) is very high (333.6 kJ/kg at 0°C) [only ammonia* is higher], and this confers resistance to melting on the ice. [Density decrease or Bulk increase at freezing is about 9%] 
  • WATER: Water Vapour – Liquid Water – Ice COEXIST at the equilibrium Triple Point.  It is amazing that it occurs near 00C (By comparison, the Triple Point of CO2 is -56.50C so it strongly differs from water).  This has some unique effects in phase transitions near the poles (eg solid ice can go to vapour DIRECTLY with no liquid water for example [sublimation]) (dry ice CO2 used widely on stage and TV)). 
  • WATER: Water has a freezing point of 00C and a boiling point of 1000C due to its unique molecular polar structure.  We live because of that!! 
  • WATER: The nearest molecule to Water (Atomic Weight of 18) is Ammonia (Atomic Weight of 17).   In direct contrast, the freezing point of Ammonia is -770C and a boiling point of -330C even though the Atomic Weights are 1 point different.  This shows that the structure of water is unique!  Just as well, water is THE MOST ABUNDANT COMPOUND on the EARTH’S SURFACE and the temperature absorption-emission bands are just right for life on Earth.
  • The Thermal Lapse Rate or temperature drop is the 6.5C0 temperature drop per kilometer rise above earth.  This is caused by all atmospheric gas molecules moving further with increasing elevation (lower density and lower pressure result). This is vital for humidification, mists, fogs and cloud formation
  • WATER VAPOUR: can regulate, buffer, compensate, correct, and restore atmospheric changes

Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

EMAIL:  geoffduffy@lycos.com

The KEY REFERENCE sources:

            Radiation:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

            Humidity:   http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/humidity/relative-humidity.htm

====================================

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD – SUMMARY

By John Rofe, 28 July 2019

  1. After 30 years of repeated warnings of impending Armageddon from the United Nations (“UN”) based on the subjective and inaccurate computer modelling performed at the cost of national governments (and all taxpayers) at the UN’s behest, they are certainly no closer to understanding the climate.  But they are instead still trying to defend their 30-year fraud.
  2. Meantime, credible solar scientists have good evidence that the principle cause of climate change lies with the variability of the solar cycles that have continued to affect earth’s climate since the beginning of time.  UN bias ignores this evidence.  Even so, there are some longer cycles that affect the passage of ice ages and inter-glacial periods, and are caused by earth’s movements in relation to the sun.  These don’t yet figure within our time horizon.
  3. The only plausible cause of all the warming that has happened since “The Little Ice Age” ended in 1850, has come from the highest level of solar electromagnetic activity for 4,000 years.  The increase in earth’s temperature of little over 1 degree Centigrade over 160 years is latterly being called the “Modern Warm Period”. Those of us who have checked the history find it is not remarkably warm at all today, even though a lot of effort is being made to convince us that it is, with lies, damned lies and cherry-picked statistics.  The Mediaeval Warm Period was arguably much warmer – a thousand years ago. What about the 1930’s?
  4. NASA now tells us a new weaker 11 year solar cycle – called simply “sc25” – is commencing at a time when there is record thinning and cooling of earth’s outer layer of atmosphere (called “the Thermosphere”) which we are also told heralds the imminent arrival of a new 30 year event called a “Grand Solar Minimum”.  Many scientists now expect a period of much colder weather to last from 2019 to 2055 that could result in horrific global crop losses.  I guess the proof of that is about to be revealed, as early as February 2020.  We will see.
  5. The truth about carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is that they are only minor trace gases and cannot possibly influence earth’s climate.  They are proven to have no measurable effect on climate change, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas necessary for all life on earth.  Besides water and light, carbon dioxide is the only resource essential for all plant growth.  Plants really need 1000 parts per million of carbon dioxide from the air.  Yet today the atmosphere only contains about 415 parts per million.  To remedy this deficiency, horticulturalists pump bottled gas into glass houses and growing tunnels at up to 2,000 parts per million.  So carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but it is also in relatively short supply.  There is clearly no possibility of influencing climate change by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) which anyway constitute less than 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  So NZ Government actions are just part of the UN IPCC coordinated fraud.
  6. Because methane emissions have even less effect than CO2, the present demands being made on the NZ farming community are somewhere between bizarre and ridiculous.
  7. But why is your Government lying to you?  I cannot answer for them, but I can assure you that after a year of failing to get satisfactory reasons for their fraudulent behaviour, I laid allegations against Minister James Shaw and PM Jacinda Ardern with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in mid-April 2019…and later also laid a complaint with the NZ Commerce Commission against Minister James Shaw and the NZ Green Party under s.13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be revealed…for this one, let’s fix it today.

=======================

 

 

Covid: preventative measures and relief

This new post lists medications and treatments that have credible endorsements on reducing the chance of getting Covid, Influenza, colds and similar health issues, and to minimise the effects if you do get an allied problem. Clearly, the post does not make recommendations but aims to ensure people should have a wide range of information significant to their health issues.

Protecting your health

Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com, 21 September 2021

Most importantly, protect your health with nutrition and emergency remedies. Personally, I don’t travel without chlorine dioxide, colloidal silver, black cumin seed oil, oregano oil, iodine and other essentials which can cover a variety of health support needs. I have even begun to carry a supply of prescription ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, too. I’m also beginning to recommend people investigate sources of shikimic acid such as star anise herb, certain types of pine needles and fennel seeds (which can be chewed raw to release their shikimic acid).

I self-treated the sudden onset of aggressive symptoms with chlorine dioxide — and I shared this publicly on my podcasts at the time — which resolved the symptoms literally overnight. I am personally aware of another person who was sickened at the event and nearly died, taking about 3 weeks to recover. (See the site TheUniversalAntidote.com  [https://theuniversalantidote.com/] for details on chlorine dioxide and why flooding your body with oxygen produces such dramatic effects.)

Note: another reference to medical  use of Chlorine Dioxide to treat Covid, Influenza etc. can be viewed at: http://healyourselfathome.com/HOW/THERAPIES/CDT/ABOUT/CDT_MAIN.aspx

=========================

How To Obtain Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) & Ivermectin

Please note: we are NOT medical practitioners.  PSI does NOT personally provide or prescribe HCQ or any other drugs.  What is presented below is for information purposes so that you can do your own research and make your own decisions.

In addition, please be advised that it is the considered opinion of many of our scientists and researchers that the disease termed COVID19 is not a scientifically proven viral infection. A ‘COVID’ case is more likely influenza or a bad cold.  Much fraud abounds on the issue for the purposes of duping an ignorant public into having unnecessary and expensive expensive ‘vaccines’ (not vaccines at all, but gene modification).

One of the more useful websites for information on readily getting these incredible multi-purpose medicines is garyritter.com. The site has a recent update (September 5, 2021):

Our government, the medical establishment, and their lackeys in the media have recently done a full court press to demonize Ivermectin, just as they previously did with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

Here is a recent research paper on Ivermectin: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

This is a key line from the abstract: “There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19.”

Many people have experienced delays in using the telemed program from America’s Front Line Doctors (AFLDS) at: https://speakwithanmd.com/.

Editor’s note: On Feb. 2, 1996 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published an announcement in “The Pharma Letter” explaining that ivermectin had officially been approved for non-veterinary use.  However, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is really a private corporation posing as a public health agency, ivermectin should not be used by humans because it is intended for animals.

I wanted to provide additional resources for potential places to obtain Ivermectin and HCQ.  There are many, so I cannot vouch for any of them.  Here are some:

Please be advised: Many name brand pharmacies such as Walgreen’s likely won’t fill these prescriptions.  You will either need a local pharmacy willing to do so, or if the doctor you find who prescribes is able to refer to one he/she knows can fill the order quickly, then that’s also a good choice.

I hope many people have been seeking ways to obtain these meds because of the blackout by their own doctors.  Good luck.  I hope these resources are useful to you.

UPDATE: I just saw this concerning pharmacies at the FLCCC website.  They provide a list of pharmacies that will supposedly fill prescriptions for HCQ and Ivermectin: https://covid19criticalcare.com/pharmacies/

================================

Empires: rises and falls, so now what?

The US was the dominant world power after WWII but has been failing, compounded by lies and desperate plans for hegemony compounded by declining culture and values. Previous empires such as the UK and Roman empires failed in similar manner.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny

 

20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny  By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead, 7 September 2021

20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny: The Rise of the Security-Industrial Complex from 9/11 to COVID-19

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN

What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.

Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act  has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.

Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.

Indeed, since the towers fell on 9/11, the U.S. government has posed a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.

While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations (which too often fall into the hands of terrorists), and foment civil unrest in order to keep the security industrial complex gainfully employed.

The American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.

In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, pandemic lockdowns and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.

Consider that the government’s answer to every problem has been more government—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.

Every crisis—manufactured or otherwise—since the nation’s early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic.

Viewed in this light, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. Or, to put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.

This is how the emergency state operates, after all, and we should know: after all, we have spent the past 20 years in a state of emergency.

From 9/11 to COVID-19, “we the people” have acted the part of the helpless, gullible victims desperately in need of the government to save us from whatever danger threatens. In turn, the government has been all too accommodating and eager while also expanding its power and authority in the so-called name of national security.

This is a government that has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).

What this really amounts to is a war on the American people, fought on American soil, funded with taxpayer dollars, and waged with a single-minded determination to use national crises, manufactured or otherwise, in order to transform the American homeland into a battlefield.

Indeed, the government’s (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before. According to the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression.”

Clearly, this is not a government that is a friend to freedom.

Rather, this is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold and traded.

This is a government that spies on and treats its people as if they have no right to privacy, especially in their own homes while the freedom to be human is being erased.

This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors. Incredibly, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

This is a government that routinely engages in taxation without representation, whose elected officials lobby for our votes only to ignore us once elected.

This is a government comprised of petty bureaucrats, vigilantes masquerading as cops, and faceless technicians.

This is a government that railroads taxpayers into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.

This is a government—a warring empire—that forces its taxpayers to pay for wars abroad that serve no other purpose except to expand the reach of the military industrial complex.

This is a government that subjects its people to scans, searches, pat downs and other indignities by the TSA and VIPR raids on so-called “soft” targets like shopping malls and bus depots by black-clad, Darth Vader look-alikes.

This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry’s movements, record their conversations, and catalogue their transactions.

This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.

This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights, and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.

This is a government that uses free speech zones, roving bubble zones and trespass laws to silence, censor and marginalize Americans and restrict their First Amendment right to speak truth to power.

This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely based on the say-so of the government.

This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.

This is a government that, in direct opposition to the dire warnings of those who founded our country, has allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a standing army by way of programs that transfer surplus military hardware to local and state police.

This is a government that has militarized American’s domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; a million hollow-point bullets; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.

This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

This is a government that has created a Constitution-free zone within 100 miles inland of the border around the United States, paving the way for Border Patrol agents to search people’s homes, intimately probe their bodies, and rifle through their belongings, all without a warrant. Nearly 66% of Americans (2/3 of the U.S. population, 197.4 million people) now live within that 100-mile-deep, Constitution-free zone.

This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.

This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.

This is a government that has empowered police departments to make a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, and red light cameras.

This is a government whose gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.

This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.

This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.

This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.

This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.

This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.

This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises and national emergencies.

This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.

This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.

This is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, eviscerating individual freedoms so that its own powers can be expanded.

This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.

In other words, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is not a government that believes in, let alone upholds, freedom.

WC: 2184

ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

====================

Key Questions For Globalist Swamp Creatures

Key Questions For Globalist Swamp Creatures  By stateofthenation.co, 20 April 2021

Jean Luc Montagnier won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2008. He said that covid-19 was made in a lab. It contains strands from the HIV virus. The Spike protein was engineered from SARS into Covid. This allows it to enter human cells. 4 new sequences were engineered into Covid from the HIV virus including the GP 41 envelope which is the key for HIV to infect human bodies.

Dr Francis Anthony Boyle who wrote America’s Bio-terrorism law agrees that it was made in a lab. Question: Do you support a criminal investigation with criminal charges and a death penalty for all those involved in killing millions of people worldwide? If not, why not?

The covid-19 virus was made in a lab at the University of North Carolina. Dr Fauci sent funds from NIH to a military Level 4 lab in Wuhan China to enhance the contagion abilities of covid 19. He also covered up the funding process so others in the government would not know what he had done. Question: Should Dr Anthony Fauci be the first one we arrest for Bio-terrorism and mass murder for the creation of covid-19? If you don’t want him arrested for killing people, why not?

Epidemiological studies show that 70% of both Americans and of people around the world are deficient in Vitamin D. Scientific studies reveal that we could reduce the covid death rate by 80% by giving everyone minimal doses of Vitamin D-3. Also Ivermectin has clearly shown an ability to cure covid. Would you support adding Vitamin D-3 and Ivermectin to the standards of best medical care for covid?

Would you support criminal charges, hefty fines and possible civil court cases against any doctor, clinic or government official who resists using cheaper and more effective treatments (i.e. Vitamin D and Ivermectin) and instead pushes expensive and ineffective treatments to enhance the profits of Big Pharma? If not, why not?

On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld went on CBS Evening News and admitted that neither he nor the Pentagon comptroller rabbi Dov Zakheim could trace $2.3 trillion from the DOD budget. On September 11 the Pentagon was attacked killing over 50 civilian and military auditors who had been trying to see what happened to the missing trillions. Question: would you support the release of all crime scene photos from the interior of the Pentagon so we can determine what actually happened that morning? If not, why not?

There was a COMEX vault containing gold and silver bullion in the basement vault four levels down at WTC Tower 4. Were you aware that one billion dollars of gold and silver went missing from that supposedly secure vault the night before 911? Does this convince you that many Americans in elite New York circles knew that 911 was going to happen?

On September 11, 2001 BBC announced the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 some 23 minutes before it actually fell down. The BBC said that they had been told by the then Rothschild owned Reuters News Agency that Tower 7 had already collapsed. The Tower had been hit by debris from the South Tower but the fires had been put out for several hours. Can you explain how the 47 story steel frame structure fell down in 6.5 seconds? Would you support a criminal investigation into the deaths of the 3,000 people who died that day? If not, why not?

Did you know that rabbi Dov Zakheim, the DOD Comptroller on 911, was President of SPC International in the 1990s which had a device called the Command Transmitter System that allowed the user to electronically and remotely control up to 8 planes at once so there was no need to have hijackers on board the planes? Do you think he needs to be investigated for murder in relation to 911? If not, why not?

The North and South Towers had 47 central core steel columns and 236 perimeter columns for a total of 283. For the buildings to fall straight down at nearly free fall speed all 283 connections from the columns to each of the 110 floors had to be cut within a second of each other. Keeping in mind open air fires cannot reach half of the temperature required to melt steel, how do you explain (2 X 110 X 283) 62,260 connections in the two Towers all being severed simultaneously by an office fire? Isn’t this a definition of a controlled demolition?

If you do not think the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, please gives us a credible scientific explanation for what happened that day.

Dr. Mark Skidmore has demonstrated that at least $35 trillion has gone missing from government accounts since 1998. Would you be willing to support a Grand Jury criminal investigation into the theft of the missing trillions? If not, why not?

Dr. Mark Skidmore and others before him noticed discrepancies on the orders of trillions of dollars in the sale of US Treasury bonds. They all have concluded that wealthy men are allowed to take money from the sale of Treasury bonds and stick the money into their very deep pockets. Would you support a Grand Jury criminal investigation into the theft of trillions from the sale of US Treasury bonds? Would you still support it if we could trace the thefts to members of the 30 Families? If not, why not?

Did you know that the US M1 Money Supply is growing faster than Argentina’s? At the current rate of growth the American Money supply will grow by at least 2,000% from October 2019 to Summer 2022. What is your plan to stop this runaway inflation of the dollar? What have you done before today to curb monetary expansionism?

Several States are looking into passing a law to require that the Congress declare war before state National Guard troops can be federalized and sent on long deployments overseas in combat zones. Would you support such efforts? If not, why not?

Covid-19 was also designed to kill the economy so you could blame the virus and not the Bankers who have robbed us of tens of trillions of dollars. David Rothkopf was the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates back in the 1990s. He wrote the book Superclass in which he said that the world was run by 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions. The Thirty Families are the New World Order. Lockdowns destroy all competition to the companies owned by the 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions.

Do you not see that Lockdowns are integral to the NWO plans for the Great Reset which will forever reduce everyone to slavery who is not a member of one of the 30 Families? Question: Would you support Congressional investigations into the Thirty Families, their 6,000 Minions and the NWO for the Lockdowns which destroyed the economy worldwide?

The kings of ancient Sumer and Babylon painlessly ended Depressions by cancelling debt. The Bible Writers called it a Jubilee. Since the self-appointed Elite stole tens of trillions of dollars from the taxpayers, don’t you think that it is just that we arrest the guilty, seize their assets and use them to fund worldwide debt cancellation? We will probably need to declare martial law when our cities are being burned down by rioters in search of food (see notes below).

The junior military officers could could easily turn martial law into a justice based military coup and arrest the Bankers who stole all those tens of trillions from us, seize their assets and fund worldwide debt cancellation. Do you think worldwide debt cancellation funded by seizing the assets of our criminal elite is a good idea?

See more here: stateofthenation

=======================

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse Than China’s

 

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse Than China’s  By Gregory Hood, The UNZ Review, 17 November 2020

China is notorious for a “Social Credit System” that controls the lives of citizens, rewarding what the authorities want and punishing what they don’t. The United States has a social credit system, too, even if we don’t call it that. And ours is worse.

The Chinese system tries to build social trust. Ours destroys trust. The Chinese system defends the interests of the Han, the ethnic group that built and sustains Chinese civilization. Our system hurts whites. The Chinese system encourages charity, good citizenship, and patriotism. Ours incites hatred and spreads bitterness and division.

The Chinese government’s goals are clear: According to a 2014 planning document, the state wants to build a “social credit environment of honesty, self-discipline, trustworthiness, and mutual trust.” Despite the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party, there is no central system of control, but that is only because the government lacks the capacity. According to the 2014 plan, by this year, China should have “basically” completed “a credit investigation system covering the entire society with credit information and resource sharing.”

Vox reports China has a grading system for people from A to D. Ds are “untrustworthy.” “Citizens can earn points for good deeds like volunteering, donating blood, or attracting investments to the city,” said the MIT Technology Review in 2019. “They can lose them for offenses like breaking traffic rules, evading taxes, or neglecting to care for their elderly parents.” Taking seats on public transportation reserved for old people or doing anything the South China Morning Post called “uncivilized behavior” can also cost points.

You can lose points for playing video games too oftenbuying too much alcoholarguing at check-in countersboarding a train without a ticketgetting into a fightposting stickers hostile to the governmentor letting chickens out of their coop. You can lose your dog if you walk it too often without a leash or if it bothers people. NPR reports that “if you spread rumors online” you could lose points, and even “spending frivolously” can cost points. The system punishes some things just as we do in the United States. If you drive drunk in China, you lose points. If you drive drunk in America, you can lose your license.

How does the system find out all this about you? The Chinese track people through a combination of cameras, facial recognition software, spies, and data from tech and social media companies. There are an estimated 626 million security cameras in China, capturing all sorts of behavior. The Straits Times reported that cameras caught a citizen jaywalking, recognized her face, and immediately put her photo up on a video screen above the street, along with her name and past infractions. The Chinese use drones disguised as birds.

There are groups of paid government informers. In one case, a group of senior citizens called the Chaoyang Masses supposedly tracked behavior, though some people thought the group was questionable. This could be a feature of the system; you don’t know who is watching. The New York Times reported in 2019 that the government uses students to track professors.

Companies such as Alibaba and Tencent track your online activity, and you can lose points if you publish political opinions without permission or talk about certain issues such as Tiananmen Square. You also lose points if your friends commit infractions; collective punishment helps isolate dissidents and discourage others. However, you can gain points if you parrot the government line. Some of this is self-reported and checked against data held by the government, tech companies, and surveillance records. There is an app called Sesame Credit that lets you track people’s scores. It is voluntary for now but will eventually be mandatory.

 

“Trust-breakers” go on an online “blacklist” that anyone can search. “Trust-keepers” go on an equivalent “redlist.” Everyone’s behavior is public, and the authorities encourage citizens to compete with each other to get good scores.

Good citizens can get discounts on energy bills, better returns on bank deposits, and can rent bikes or hotel rooms without paying deposits. Local officials praise them publicly. In Suzhou, “trust-keepers” get cut-rate public transportation.

Depending on the locale, if your credit score reaches 600, you can take out an instant loan of about $800 without collateral when shopping online. At a score of 650, you can rent a car without a deposit. At 700, you get priority for a Singapore travel permit, and at 750, you are on the fast track for a coveted Schengen visa for 28 European countries.

Punishments include banning you or your children from top schools, barring you from top jobs and the best hotels, and preventing you from buying high-speed train or air tickets.

Businesses also get grades on, for example, whether their advertising is deceptive. If their grades are too low, they can’t issue bonds or bid in land auctions.

There’s a financial aspect to the system. It costs points if a person or business fails to repay a loan. We have credit scores, too. The difference is that the Chinese government can — and does — deduct points for political reasons. It could cut a business or family out of normal activity for saying the wrong things. Your social credit “grade” could wreck your life.

If the system is fully imposed, it would be terrifying to be a D. China does not yet have a centralized, all-encompassing system. Different government agencies, localities, regions, and private companies share information and have different programs, rewards, and penalties. Two years ago, Foreign Policy explained that “unless people are sole proprietors or company representatives, have taken a loan or credit card, violated the law, or defaulted on a court judgment, they’re unlikely to be in the social credit database.”

China wants to get all 1.4 billion people into the system. Since China routed the Hong Kong autonomy movement, the system will surely spread there too. “All regions and departments should have ideological unity,” says the plan.

China is working hard in two areas that will help it control its people. The first is artificial intelligence to manage vast amounts of data. The United States and China are competing in AI systems, and that battle could help determine who rules this century. Collecting enormous amounts of data on citizens will mean finely detailed control.

The second area is digital currency. China is already experimenting with a digital yuan. Most people in China already use mobile apps for transactions, not cash. A full record of transactions, combined with AI, means tremendous government power to track individual behavior and modify social credit scores.

A “cashless,” total-social-credit China could be a prison. It would mean no unauthorized buying or selling, no political opposition (“ideological unity”), and little privacy. However, citizens would be forced to fulfill basic duties such as taking care of families and paying bills. They would be rewarded for helping their communities. The Chinese Communist Party would succeed in turning the people it rules into typical petit bourgeois with conservative norms.

The Chinese government wants to “broadly shape a strong atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful . . . .” In other words, China wants a high-trust society.

Diversity destroys trust, as white advocates often point out. China is working to overcome this problem by replacing Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese. The government is also Sinicizing these areas, especially by suppressing Islam. A faithful Muslim should rebel against these policies, but a Han Chinese sees this as protecting national interests.

Xi Jinping, President of China, can be seen on a video wall in the western Chinese city of Kashgar. Strict security measures are in place in the oasis city, making reporting difficult for journalists and affecting the lives of Uighur minorities. (Credit Image: © Simina Mistrenau / DPA via ZUMA Press)

We have the equivalent of a social credit system in the United States. It just has different incentives. You can lose your job for a politically incorrect remark caught on camera. Political dissidents find they can no longer use PayPal or even banks. Twitter bans people with whom it disagrees, while users with verified accounts can make threatening or violent statements.

“Spreading rumors” or “conspiracy theories” is cause for social media to boot you. Some journalists spend time hunting down people who spread “conspiracy theories.” If journalists or trolls decide that your small business or video channel needs to be deplatformed, they can complain to tech companies, and once you are off, there is no appeal. For many people, that means loss of livelihood.

Power-hungry people invent new forms of social credit all the time. Democrats have started a Trump Accountability Project so that Trump supporters can “never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society.” With a remarkable new website called Donor.Watch, you can find out exactly how much your neighbors (or anyone in the country) gave to any of the 2020 candidates. The tools are there for Democrats to set up shaming mobs to harass or intimidate Trump supporters.

Social media, which let ordinary people express themselves and were originally to be bastions of free speech, have taken it upon themselves to determine what is official information. Even now, Twitter is censoring President Trump, and Facebook is removing Trump supporters and their groups.

You can’t cast an informed vote or express yourself if you can’t learn or speak the truth. In his book Deleted, Allum Bokhari showed Google’s power to direct information, sway votes, and bury stories it doesn’t want covered. While the Democrats often say tech companies don’t censor enough, they at least recognize their power. A House Judiciary Committee report recently found that Amazon, Alphabet (Google/YouTube), Apple, and Facebook use monopoly power to suppress competition. President Trump’s Department of Justice recently sued Google, calling it the “gatekeeper of the Internet.”

Conservatives banned from the big platforms can go elsewhere, but what happens when Parler and Gab lose their payment processors or servers or even their bank accounts? Will we have to build our own banks and internet?

Our system is not exclusively punitive. The American system encourages banks to lend to non-whites with doubtful credit. There is a broad set of incentives to promote minority — especially black — bank ownership, even as black banks keep going under because they keep lending money to dubious black borrowers.

Social media openly promote Black Lives Matter, and every minority cause, holiday, and celebration. Book sellers direct you to endless titles on anti-racism and white privilege.

Unlike the Chinese version, American social credit is not state run and is even less centralized than China’s. However, it’s not true that the state has no involvement. Acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan admittedin 2019 that although the government cannot act as a censor, it expects to work with tech companies and “watchdog groups” to force ideas it doesn’t like off the internet.

The Republicans have done hardly anything about this. An American president is relatively weak, and unlike Xi Jinping, can’t issue orders through the bureaucracy and expect obedience. Perhaps President Trump lacks the will. Kamala Harris, probably the next vice president, appears to have plenty of it. She wants to give the FBI millions of dollars to “more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites” and “put pressure on online platforms to take down content that violates their terms and conditions.”

Under a Biden/Harris White House, the partnership between state and media would therefore grow stronger. Like Chinese officials, many Democrats and journalists take it for granted that not only traditional media should promote certain stories and suppress others, but “open” social media should do the same. The American system increasingly resembles the Chinese, with ideology imposed from the top.

We do not have single-party rule in the United States, but we do when it comes to white interests. Republicans and Democrats unanimously blamed “White nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups” for violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 — as if antifa were not even there — even though local officials deliberately forced demonstrators and antifa together so that violence would be an excuse to shut down a legal rally. There may be two parties, but both agree that whites must not promote their collective interests in the streets or online.

Just as the Chinese system punishes people for associating with low-scoring trust-breakers, the media and “watchdog” groups love to publicize “links.” The Washington Post recently revealed in an indignant article that a Trump Interior Department official had linked to an article at AmRen.com. American dissidents routinely use pen names, and “respectable” people keep their relations with them secret.

In some respects, an openly authoritarian government is better than our system. It’s clear who is in charge. Citizens know who rules them. It’s easier to remove a tyrant because you can always march on the palace or the party HQ. If you are ruled by a dictator, king, or party, you also know what the rules are; if you follow them, you can avoid trouble.

 

Our system is much more diffuse and therefore much harder to fight or even understand. Private companies, on a whim, can shut down your social media account, refuse to sell your books, make it impossible for your business to take credit cards, and close your bank account. You have no recourse, not even to the courts. Each company has its own inconsistent, arbitrary, ever-changing rules. Now, they all say, in effect, “We’ll kick you out if we don’t like you.” And that’s what they do.

If there were legal censorship, there would be laws that limited free speech. They might be vague and inconsistently enforced, but there would be rules. If the court system had any integrity, there could be litigation and legal appeals. In our system, every person you know is a potential commissar. If you become the subject of a “viral” story, literally millions of people can turn against you. This is “public shaming” worse than anything the Chinese face.

Their system is authoritarian, but it has this crucial difference from ours: It pushes people to behave correctly. In our Anglo-American tradition, personal virtue is the guarantor of our liberties, so we don’t need overarching government. However, we are no longer virtuous, at least not in the way the Founders understood virtue. Instead, anti-racism has become America’s moral code, and blacks are semi-sacred. Any social interaction with a non-white can be a life-changing disaster if it is caught on camera. The rules for what is politically correct change so quickly no one can be sure what to say to avoid trouble. We’re in an absurd system in which groups that enjoy government mandated “affirmative action” lecture us about our privilege. Although “racism” is the main sin our social credit system punishes there are others: “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “misogyny,” “xenophobia,” with more new ones invented all the time.

While the Chinese social credit system builds a better — if regimented — society, ours makes it worse. The media feed non-whites moral arguments to use against whites, whether they are about “racist” police, “systemic racism,” or “far-right extremists.” Anyone non-white, from educated elites to illiterate thugs, can feel justified in attacking middle-class whites because the only explanation for inequality is white racism.

Thus, our system doesn’t build “mutual trust” but suspicion and even hatred. Instead of building national unity, the American system undermines the foundation of patriotism by telling us our history and heroes were racist and evil. The Chinese system punishes destructive behavior and rewards charity. The American system winks at destructive behavior such as BLM rioting, and rewards “virtue signaling,” not real virtue.

White-owned business can be deplatfromed online and some can be ransacked by radicals, with no interference from the police. The right even to self-defense is under attack (ask Kyle Rittenhouse or Mark and Patricia McCloskey). In some areas, people cannot gather to demonstrate or even to worship, while antifa and BLM protesters can do almost anything with impunity.

Can we honestly say we have more freedom than the Chinese? Can we say that our government pursues our interests or protects our rights? Can we trust technology companies and major media? Are our elites pushing us towards greatness or towards dispossession and pariah status?

Still, we do have advantages. The great strength of the American Social Credit System is that it is ad hoc and unofficial. It’s hard to know exactly what or whom to attack but that’s also its weakness. There are “gaps” in the system we can exploit. At the same time, our rulers’ lust for power is clearer than ever. Donald Trump, however half-hearted and bumbling, forced our opponents to reveal their snarling hatreds and their breathtaking arrogance in believing they have the right to control what we read, hear, watch, and think.

 

We still have rights. American Renaissance sued the state of Tennessee, and won the right to use public facilities without paying for security. Others are suing tech companies. We are creating new ways of donating and accepting money, spreading our message, and building new platforms. These aren’t temporary workarounds, but steps towards community- and even nation-building. They are forcing us to do the things we should have been doing anyway.

What should a healthy society want? Perhaps every advanced society will have a formal or informal Social Credit System. Elites always try to control information, capital, and behavior. When we take control of our own destiny, we will promote strength, beauty, and virtue. We are a freedom-loving people, so I believe that if we slough off this current system, we can achieve these goals without repression.

Who rules the United States? I’d argue it’s media and Big Tech. They decide who can speak in the public square, raise money, do business online, or enjoy the full protection of law. They encourage victimhood instead of heroism, and distrust instead of unity. China’s system promotes positive values, exalts its people, and directs them towards positive ends.

It’s hard not to feel envious. The greatest threat to white Americans certainly isn’t Beijing. It’s those who presume to rule us, holding us captive, trapping us behind a blue screen.

====================

Trump and the real resistance

Trump and the real resistance  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 8 November 2020

The 70 million people who voted for Trump are revolting against the new elites. We should listen.

So, Joe Biden has won the highest popular vote in the history of the US. At the time of writing, more than 73 million people have voted for him. He has beaten the record set by Barack Obama who was swept to power on that famous wave of ‘HOPE’ and 69.5 million votes in 2008. But here’s the thing: so has Donald Trump. Trump might trail Biden in the popular vote of 2020, but he, too, has beaten Obama’s 2008 record. Trump, at the time of writing, has 69.7 million votes. So he has won the second-highest popular vote in the history of the American republic. That is remarkable. Far more remarkable than Biden’s very impressive count.

Why? For one simple reason. Trump is the man we’re all meant to hate. He has been raged against ceaselessly by the cultural elites for the past four years. Hardly any of the American media backed him in 2020. Globalist institutions loathe him. Academia, the media elites, the social-media oligarchies, the celebrity set and other hugely influential sectors have branded him a 21st-century Hitler and insisted that only a “white supremacist” could countenance voting for him. He’s the butt of every sniffy East Coast joke and the target of every fiery street protest. He’s the worst thing to happen to Western politics in decades, we’re told, by clever people, constantly.

And yet around 70 million Americans voted for him. The second-highest electoral bloc in the history of the US put their cross next to the name of a man who over the past four years has been turned by the political clerisy into the embodiment of evil.

That is what makes the vote for Trump so striking, and so important. Because what it speaks to is the existence of vast numbers of people who are outside of the purview of the cultural elites. People who have developed some kind of immunity to the cultural supremacy of the “woke” worldview so intensely mainstreamed by the political and media sets in recent years. People who are more than content to defy the diktats of the supposedly right-thinking elites and cast their ballots in a way that they think best tallies with their political, social and class interests. People who, no doubt to varying degrees, are at least sceptical towards the narratives of identitarianism, racial doom-mongering, climate-change hysteria and all the pronouns nonsense that have become dominant among political and cultural influencers, and which are essentially the new ideology of the ruling class.

READ MORE:‘Time to unite’: Biden to address nation|What’s next for Donald Trump?|Biden’s cabinet to transform US politics|Face it, Trump did get many things right

Hillary Clinton infamously referred to many Trump supporters as “the deplorables”. But a far better word for them would be “the unconquerables”. These are minds and hearts uncolonised by the new orthodoxies. Seventy million people in a peaceful state of revolt against the new establishment and its eccentric, authoritarian ideologies. This is the most important story of the

The fury of the elites in the wake of the US election is palpable, and at times visceral. Even though their man has won, they are incandescent. Already there is rage against the innate racism and “white supremacy” of the throng. Already there is neo-racist disgust with the Latinos and black people who, in larger numbers than 2016, voted for Trump. “We are surrounded by racists”, said New York Times columnist Charles M Blow, capturing the sense of siege felt by the woke clerisy. This rage of the elites against the masses, despite the victory of the elites’ preferred candidate, suggests they instinctively recognise their failure to bring significant sections of the masses to heel. They splutter out terms like “racist” and “white supremacist” as reprimands against the millions who refuse to take the knee to their politics of fear, politics of identity, and politics of cancellation and control.

The elites, despite getting their way with a Biden presidency, have been thrown by this election. First, because they called it so wrongly. Their predictions of a “blue wave” did not materialise. Their polls and punditry insisting that Trumpism would be resoundingly defeated turned out to be catastrophically incorrect. The stories of a 10-point swing to Biden evaporated upon contact with reality. So far, Trump has increased his vote by seven million.

The elite’s wrongness about this election is itself a crushing confirmation of their failure to ideologically domesticate large numbers of Americans. Many Americans have clearly chosen not to communicate their beliefs to pollsters, a key part of the new political clerisy, because they are aware that the political elites hold them in contempt. As one election analyst said, because of the “degree of hate” directed to Trump supporters “by nearly all the media”, we have a situation where “people didn’t necessarily want to admit to pollsters who they were supporting”. Not only do many Americans refuse to embrace the new orthodoxies of the uniformly anti-Trump cultural elites, but they also refuse to engage honestly with the cultural elites. They know it’s a waste of time. That is the size of the moral and political chasm that now exists between the guardians of correct-thought and millions of ordinary people.

The second reason this election has rattled the seeming victors — the pro-Biden establishment — is because of who voted for Trump. Exit polls suggest there were significant shifts of black and Latino voters to Trump. It is reported that 18 per cent of black men voted for Trump, up from the five per cent who voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 11 per cent who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A shift of this kind towards a politician relentlessly described as a “white supremacist” is very significant. According to the AP VoteCast, 35 per cent of Latinos seem to have voted for Trump. And a whopping 59 per cent of Native Hawaiians and 52 per cent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives opted for Trump. Seemingly these First Nation peoples didn’t get the NYT, SNL, DNC message that Trump is a racist who hates all non-white people.

As we should expect from the neo-racialists of the identitarian elites, there is already fierce denunciation of minority groups who voted for Trump. They have sold out to “white supremacy”, woke academics and columnists claim. Blow writes in the NYT that the Latino and black shift towards Trump is proof of the “power of the white patriarchy” and the influence it has even over oppressed racial groups: “Some people who have been historically oppressed will stand with their oppressors.” That’s a lot of words to say “Uncle Tom”. The anger with Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump is motivated by a view of these people as racial deviants, as traitors to their race. In the rigid worldview of the identitarian elites, people are not individuals or members of an economic class — they are mere manifestations of race and ethnicity and they must conform to that role. That many voters have clearly bristled at such racial fatalism is a very positive development. Identity politics was dealt a blow in this election, and the elites know it.

More striking still is the educational divide in terms of who voted for Biden and Trump. A majority of people whose educational level is high school or less voted for Trump, while a majority of college graduates voted for Biden. Among white voters, the educational divide is even more stark. Majorities of white men voted for Trump, but among white men who didn’t go to college 64 per cent voted for Trump, while among white men who did go to college it was only 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of white women who didn’t go to college voted for Trump, whereas 59 per cent of white women who did go to college voted for Biden.

The educational divide is telling. Naturally, some observers claim it is proof that clever people primarily vote for Biden while dumb people prefer Trump. In truth, this split is primarily reflective of the key role universities now play as communicators of the new orthodoxies. In recent years, universities in the Anglosphere have gone from being citadels of intellectual consideration and experimentation to being factories of woke indoctrination. From critical race theory to genderfluidity, from the view of American history as one crime after another to the myopic policing of speech — including conversational speech in the form of “microaggressions” — universities have become important transmitters of the ideologies of the new elites. As a consequence, one of the great ironies of our time is that it is those who have not attended a university who seem better able to think independently and to resist the coercions of elite-decreed correct-thought.

US President Donald Trump golfs at Trump National Golf Club, on November 7 in Sterling, Virginia. Picture: Getty

The ideas that hold on a university campus — that men can become women, that offensive people must be “cancelled”, that complimenting a woman on her hair is a racial microaggression, that describing America as a “melting pot” is a denial of people’s “racial essence”, as UCLA has claimed — hold no sway whatsoever in the factories, delivery centres, mess rooms or bars of vast swathes of America. That university-educated and non-university-educated people now think so differently is testament, not to uneducated people’s stupidity, but to the transformation of universities into machines for socialising young adults into the ways and creeds of the removed new elites.

Indeed, the split of Biden and Trump voters on issues is striking, too. Of the voters who think the economy and jobs is the most important issue, the vast majority are Trump supporters: 81 per cent compared with just 16 per cent of Biden supporters. Of the voters who think racism is the most important issue, 78 per cent were Biden supporters and just 19 per cent were Trump supporters. And of the voters who think climate change is the most important issue, 86 per cent were Biden supporters and just 11 per cent were Trump supporters. On Covid, 83 per cent of Biden supporters said it is “not under control at all”, while just 15 per cent of Trump voters said the same thing.

This is incredibly revealing. On issues that are central to the clerisy’s worldview — the idea that racism in America is as bad as ever, that the climate is heating uncontrollably, that COVID poses an existential challenge to the future of the nation — Trump voters deviate consistently from the elite narrative. That isn’t to say that they don’t think climate change or racism are problems we must address — I’m sure majorities of them do. But they clearly reject the fatalism and dominance of these issues in the body politic. They clearly baulk at the ceaseless discussions of America’s inescapable racism and the idea that if Americans do not radically alter their lifestyles then they will fry in the heat-death of climate catastrophe. They push back, in their thoughts and their votes, against the identitarianism and apocalypticism of the new elites. And they do so even on issues for which you can be cancelled for disagreeing. Try going on to a campus and saying that racism and climate change are not major issues for the US. You would be finished. But not in other parts of America. There, free discussion, or at least free thought, appears still to reign.

One study, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology after the 2016 election, described the widespread support for Trump among working-class or less-educated communities in particular as a form of “cultural deviance”. The study used over-psychologised language to describe people’s voting behaviour, but it hit on an important point: the evidence suggests that Trump-voting for many people was a form of “cultural deviance… [from] the salience of restrictive communication norms”. In short, the Trump phenomenon represents a revolt against the cultural supremacy of political correctness and its cancellation of any views or beliefs that are judged to be problematic. Trump became a vehicle for those who don’t agree that America is broken or racist, or that climate change will kill us all, or that identitarian correctness is more important than the economy and jobs, or that Trump is Hitler — things it is increasingly difficult to say in a polite society so feverishly policed by the new elites.

The real resistance

Perhaps the most important act of “cultural deviance” carried out by the millions who chose Trump over Biden is their attempt to re-elevate class over identity. This is why the shift of working-class blacks and Latinos towards Trump is so important. It is also why Trump voters’ overwhelming belief that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in the US right now — in contrast with very small numbers of Biden voters who think the same thing — is so relevant. What we have witnessed in the US is a reassertion of the importance of class over identity, of the shared social and economic interests of a significant section of society over the narrow cultural obsessions of the new elites and their supporters in the new knowledge industries. The emerging populist coalition of working-class blacks, Latinos and non-university whites is a quiet revolt against the stranglehold that the upper middle-class elites have over the political narrative, and against the elites’ self-conscious promotion of the neoliberal myopia of identity and their diminution of the importance of class.

This is another reason why the elites are so furious in the wake of their own election victory. It’s the key reason, in fact. Because they instinctively recognise that the economic concerns, and, more importantly, the economic consciousness, of substantial sections of society pose a threat to their ideological dominance. Witness the sneer, the naked contempt, with which the phrase “economic populism” has been uttered by Biden-backing observers in recent days. ‘Economic populism’ is a cover for racism, our moral superiors insist. They dread nothing more than the re-emergence of a more class-based politics because they know it would run entirely counter, politically, morally and economically, to the divide-and-rule identitarianism they have cultivated in recent decades.

Corporations, academia, the education system, the Democratic establishment, the media elites and the social-media oligarchies are heavily invested in the cult of identity because it is a means through which they can renew their economic dominance over society and exercise moral authority over the masses. Identitarianism has provided spiritual renewal for the capitalist elites, new means of rebuking and censuring the workforce in corporations, and a sense of purpose for a political class utterly adrift from the working masses it might once have sought to appeal to. And they are not about to let some uppity blacks and Latinos and uneducated whites disrupt this new ruling-class ideology with their vulgar concerns about the economy and jobs.

Trump has lost. But so has the anti-Trump establishment. In some ways, the establishment’s loss is far more significant. These elites see in the 70 million people who disobediently, flagrantly voted for “evil”, and who question the doom and divisiveness and censure of the new elites, a genuine mass threat to their right to rule and their self-serving ideologies. And they are right to. For these unconquerables, these teeming millions who have not been captured by the new orthodoxies, are proof that populism will survive Trump’s fall and that the self-protecting narratives of the new elites are not accepted by huge numbers of ordinary people.

This is the real resistance. Not the upper-middle-class TikTok revolutionaries and Antifa fantasists whose every view — on trans issues, Black Lives Matter, the wickedness of Trump — corresponds precisely with the outlook of Google and Nike and the New York Times. No, the resistance is these working people. These defiant Hispanics. Those black men who did what black men are not supposed to do. Those non-college whites who think college ideologies are crazy. These people are the ones who have the balls and the independence of mind to force a serious rethink and realignment of the political sphere in the 21st-century West. More power to them.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked www.spiked-online.com

========================

 Eyewitness To The Trial and Agony of Julian Assange  By John Pilger, JohnPilger.com, 4 October, 2020

John Pilger has watched Julian Assange’s extradition trial from the public gallery at London’s Old Bailey. He spoke with Timothy Erik Ström of Arena magazine, Australia:

Q: Having watched Julian Assange’s trial first-hand, can you describe the prevailing atmosphere in the court?

The prevailing atmosphere has been shocking. I say that without hesitation; I have sat in many courts and seldom known such a corruption of due process; this is due revenge. Putting aside the ritual associated with ‘British justice’, at times it has been evocative of a Stalinist show trial. One difference is that in the show trials, the defendant stood in the court proper. In the Assange trial, the defendant was caged behind thick glass, and had to crawl on his knees to a slit in the glass, overseen by his guard, to make contact with his lawyers. His message, whispered barely audibly through face masks, WAS then passed by post-it the length of the court to where his barristers were arguing the case against his extradition to an American hellhole.

Consider this daily routine of Julian Assange, an Australian on trial for truth-telling journalism. He was woken at five o’clock in his cell at Belmarsh prison in the bleak southern sprawl of London. The first time I saw Julian in Belmarsh, having passed through half an hour of ‘security’ checks, including a dog’s snout in my rear, I found a painfully thin figure sitting alone wearing a yellow armband. He had lost more than 10 kilos in a matter of months; his arms had no muscle. His first words were: ‘I think I am losing my mind’.

I tried to assure him he wasn’t. His resilience and courage are formidable, but there is a limit. That was more than a year ago. In the past three weeks, in the pre-dawn, he was strip-searched, shackled, and prepared for transport to the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in a truck that his partner, Stella Moris, described as an upended coffin. It had one small window; he had to stand precariously to look out. The truck and its guards were operated by Serco, one of many politically connected companies that run much of Boris Johnson’s Britain.

The journey to the Old Bailey took at least an hour and a half. That’s a minimum of three hours being jolted through snail-like traffic every day. He was led into his narrow cage at the back of the court, then look up, blinking, trying to make out faces in the public gallery through the reflection of the glass. He saw the courtly figure of his dad, John Shipton, and me, and our fists went up. Through the glass, he reached out to touch fingers with Stella, who is a lawyer and seated in the body of the court.

We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme.

The sheer bias in the courts I have sat in this year and last year, with Julian in the dock, blight any notion of British justice. When thuggish police dragged him from his asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy – look closely at the photo and you’ll see he is clutching a Gore Vidal book; Assange has a political humour similar to Vidal’s – a judge gave him an outrageous 50-week sentence in a maximum-security prison for mere bail infringement.

For months, he was denied exercise and held in solitary confinement disguised as ‘heath care’. He once told me he strode the length of his cell, back and forth, back and forth, for his own half-marathon. In the next cell, the occupant screamed through the night. At first he was denied his reading glasses, left behind in the embassy brutality. He was denied the legal documents with which to prepare his case, and access to the prison library and the use of a basic laptop. Books sent to him by a friend, the journalist Charles Glass, himself a survivor of hostage-taking in Beirut, were returned. He could not call his American lawyers. He has been constantly medicated by the prison authorities. When I asked him what they were giving him, he couldn’t say. The governor of Belmarsh has been awarded the Order of the British Empire.

At the Old Bailey, one of the expert medical witnesses, Dr Kate Humphrey, a clinical neuropsychologist at Imperial College, London, described the damage: Julian’s intellect had gone from ‘in the superior, or more likely very superior range’ to ‘significantly below’ this optimal level, to the point where he was struggling to absorb information and ‘perform in the low average range’.

This is what the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, calls ‘psychological torture’, the result of a gang-like ‘mobbing’ by governments and their media shills. Some of the expert medical evidence is so shocking I have no intention of repeating it here. Suffice to say that Assange is diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and, according to Professor Michael Kopelman, one of the world’s leading neuropsychiatrists, he suffers from ‘suicidal preoccupations’ and is likely to find a way to take his life if he is extradited to America.

James Lewis QC, America’s British prosecutor, spent the best part of his cross-examination of Professor Kopelman dismissing mental illness and its dangers as ‘malingering’. I have never heard in a modern setting such a primitive view of human frailty and vulnerability.

My own view is that if Assange is freed, he is likely to recover a substantial part of his life. He has a loving partner, devoted friends and allies and the innate strength of a principled political prisoner. He also has a wicked sense of humour.

But that is a long way off. The moments of collusion between the judge – a Gothic-looking magistrate called Vanessa Baraitser, about whom little is known – and the prosecution acting for the Trump regime have been brazen. Until the last few days, defence arguments have been routinely dismissed. The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured.

The dissident artist Ai Weiwei came to join us one morning in the public gallery. He noted that in China the judge’s decision would already have been made. This caused some dark ironic amusement. My companion in the gallery, the astute diarist and former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote:

I fear that all over London a very hard rain is now falling on those who for a lifetime have worked within institutions of liberal democracy that at least broadly and usually used to operate within the governance of their own professed principles. It has been clear to me from Day 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect. I have again and again reported to you that, where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her.

I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.

The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.

There are few records of the proceedings. They are: Craig Murray’s personal blog, Joe Lauria’s live reporting on Consortium News and the World Socialist Website. American journalist Kevin Gosztola’s blog, Shadowproof, funded mostly by himself, has reported more of the trial than the major US press and TV, including CNN, combined.

In Australia, Assange’s homeland, the ‘coverage’ follows a familiar formula set overseas. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke, wrote this recently:

The court heard Assange became depressed during the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy where he sought political asylum to escape extradition to Sweden to answer rape and sexual assault charges.

There were no ‘rape and sexual assault charges’ in Sweden. Bourke’s lazy falsehood is not uncommon. If the Assange trial is the political trial of the century, as I believe it is, its outcome will not only seal the fate of a journalist for doing his job but intimidate the very principles of free journalism and free speech. The absence of serious mainstream reporting of the proceedings is, at the very least, self-destructive. Journalists should ask: who is next?

How shaming it all is. A decade ago, the Guardian exploited Assange’s work, claimed its profit and prizes as well as a lucrative Hollywood deal, then turned on him with venom. Throughout the Old Bailey trial, two names have been cited by the prosecution, the Guardian’s David Leigh, now retired as ‘investigations editor’ and Luke Harding, the Russiaphobe and author of a fictional Guardian ‘scoop’ that claimed Trump adviser Paul Manafort and a group of Russians visited Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. This never happened, and the Guardian has yet to apologise. The Harding and Leigh book on Assange – written behind their subject’s back – disclosed a secret password to a WikiLeaks file that Assange had entrusted to Leigh during the Guardian’s ‘partnership’. Why the defence has not called this pair is difficult to understand.

Assange is quoted in their book declaring during a dinner at a London restaurant that he didn’t care if informants named in the leaks were harmed. Neither Harding nor Leigh was at the dinner. John Goetz, an investigations reporter with Der Spiegel, was at the dinner and testified that Assange said nothing of the kind. Incredibly, Judge Baraitser stopped Goetz actually saying this in court.

However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files. The renowned New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who worked with Assange on the Afghanistan and Iraq war leaks, described how Assange took ‘extraordinary precautions in redacting names of informants’.

Q: What are the implications of this trial’s verdict for journalism more broadly – is it an omen of things to come?

The ‘Assange effect’ is already being felt across the world. If they displease the regime in Washington, investigative journalists are liable to prosecution under the 1917 US Espionage Act; the precedent is stark. It doesn’t matter where you are. For Washington, other people’s nationality and sovereignty rarely mattered; now it does not exist. Britain has effectively surrendered its jurisdiction to Trump’s corrupt Department of Justice. In Australia, a National Security Information Act promises Kafkaesque trials for transgressors. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been raided by police and journalists’ computers taken away. The government has given unprecedented powers to intelligence officials, making journalistic whistle-blowing almost impossible. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Assange ‘must face the music’. The perfidious cruelty of his statement is reinforced by its banality.

‘Evil’, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil’.

Q: Having followed the story of WikiLeaks closely for a decade, how has this eyewitness experience shifted your understanding of what’s at stake with Assange’s trial?

I have long been a critic of journalism as an echo of unaccountable power and a champion of those who are beacons. So, for me, the arrival of WikiLeaks was exciting; I admired the way Assange regarded the public with respect, that he was prepared to share his work with the ‘mainstream’ but not join their collusive club. This, and naked jealousy, made him enemies among the overpaid and under-talented, insecure in their pretensions of independence and impartiality.

I admired the moral dimension to WikiLeaks. Assange was rarely asked about this, yet much of his remarkable energy comes from a powerful moral sense that governments and other vested interests should not operate behind walls of secrecy. He is a democrat. He explained this in one of our first interviews at my home in 2010.

What is at stake for the rest of us has long been at stake: freedom to call authority to account, freedom to challenge, to call out hypocrisy, to dissent. The difference today is that the world’s imperial power, the United States, has never been as unsure of its metastatic authority as it is today. Like a flailing rogue, it is spinning us towards a world war if we allow it. Little of this menace is reflected in the media.

WikiLeaks, on the other hand, has allowed us to glimpse a rampant imperial march through whole societies – think of the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, to name a few, the dispossession of 37 million people and the deaths of 12 million men, women and children in the ‘war on terror’ – most of it behind a façade of deception.

Julian Assange is a threat to these recurring horrors – that’s why he is being persecuted, why a court of law has become an instrument of oppression, why he ought to be our collective conscience: why we all should be the threat.

The judge’s decision will be known on the 4th of January.

===============================

The Saker’s View of the US Election

The Saker’s View of the US Election  From The Saker, via PaulCraigRoberts.org, 15 September 2020

In early July I wrote a piece entitled “Does the next Presidential election even matter?” in which I made the case that voting in the next election to choose who will be the next puppet in the White House will be tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking. I gave three specific reasons why I thought that the next election would be pretty much irrelevant:

1The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people

2The choice between the Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all

3The systemic crisis of the USA is too deep to be affected by who is in power in the White House

I have now reconsidered my position and I now see that I was wrong because I missed something important:

A lot has happened in the past couple of months and I now have come to conclude that while choosing a captain won’t make any difference to a sinking Titanic, it might make a huge difference to those passengers who are threatened by a group of passengers run amok. In other words, while I still do not think that the next election will change much for the rest of the planet (the decay of the Empire will continue), it is gradually becoming obvious that for the United States the difference between the two sides is becoming very real.

Why?

This is probably the first presidential election in US history where the choice will be not between two political programs or two political personalities, but the stark and binary choice between law and order and total chaos.

It is now clear that the Dems are supporting the rioting mobs and that they see these mobs as the way to beat Trump.

It is also becoming obvious that this is not a white vs. black issue: almost all the footage from the rioting mobs shows a large percentage of whites, sometimes even a majority of whites, especially amongst the most aggressive and violent rioters (the fact that these whites regularly get beat up by rampaging blacks hunting for “whitey” does not seem to deter these folks).

True, both sides blame each other for “dividing the country” and “creating the conditions for a civil war”, but any halfway objective and fact based appraisal of what is taking place shows that the Dems have comprehensively caved into the BLM/Antifa ideology (which is hardly surprising, since that ideology is a pure product of the Dems (pseudo-)liberal worldview in the first place). Yes, the Demolicans and the Republicrats are but two factions of the same “Party of Money”, but the election of Trump in 2016 and the subsequent 4 years of intense seditious efforts to delegitimize Trump have resulted in a political climate in which we roughly have, on one hand, what I would call the “Trump Party” (which is not the same as the GOP) and the “deplorables” objectively standing for law and order. On the other hand, we have the Dems, some Republicans, big corporations and the BLM/Antifa mobs who now all objectively stand for anarchy, chaos and random violence.

I have always criticized the AngloZionist Empire and the USA themselves for their messianic and supremacist ideology, and I agree that in their short history the United States have probably spilled more innocent blood than any other regime in history. Yet I also believe that there also have been many truly good things in US history, things which other countries should emulate (as many have!). I am referring to things like the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the spirit of self-reliance, a strong work ethic, the immense creativity of the people of the US and their love for their country.

It is now clear that the Dems find nothing good in the US or its history – hence their total support for the wanton (and, frankly, barbaric) destruction of historical statues or for the ridiculous notion that the United States was primarily built by black slaves and that modern whites are somehow guilty of what their ancestors did (including whites who did not have any slave owners amongst their ancestors).

Putin once said that he has no problems at all with any opposition to the Russian government, but that he categorically rejects the opposition to Russia herself (most of the non-systemic opposition in Russia is profoundly russophobic). I see the exact same thing happening here, in the USA: the Dem/BLM/Antifa gang are profoundly anti-USA, and not for the right reasons. It is just obvious that these people are motivated by pure hate and where there is hate, violence always follows!

To think that there will be no violence if these people come to power would be extremely naive: those who come to power by violence always end up ruling by violence.

For the past several decades, the US ruling elites have been gutting the Constitution by a million of legislative and regulatory cuts (I can personally attest to the fact that the country where I obtained my degrees in 1986-1991 is a totally different country from the one I am living in now. Thirty years ago there was real ideological freedom and pluralism in the US, and differences of opinion, even profound ones, were considered normal). Now the apparatus needed to crack down on the “deplorables” has been established, especially on the Federal level. If we now apply the “motive, means & opportunity” criterion we can only conclude that the Dem/BLM/Antifa have the motive and will sure have the means and opportunity if Biden makes it to the White House.

Furthermore, major media corporations are already cracking down against Trump supporters and even against President Trump himself (whom Twitter now threatens to censor if he declares that he won). YouTube is demonetizing “deplorable” channels and also de-ranking them in searches. Google does the same. For a President which heavily relies on short messages to his support base, this is a major threat.

[Sidebar: one of Trump’s biggest mistakes was to rely on Twitter instead of funding his own social media platform. He sure had the money. What he lacked was any foresight or understanding of the enemy]

Paul Craig Roberts has been one of the voices which has been warning us that anti-White racism is real and that the United States & Its Constitution Have Two Months Left. I submit that on the former he is undeniably correct and that we ought to pay heed to his warning about what might soon happen next. I also tend to agree with others who warn us that violence will happen next, no matter who wins. Not only are some clearly plotting a coup against Trump should he declare himself the winner, but things have now gone so far that the Chairmen of the JCS had to make an official statement saying that the US military will play no role in the election. Finally, and while I agree that Florida might not be a typical state, I see a lot of signs saying “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” with the word “domestic” emphasized in some manner. Is this the proverbial “writing on the wall”?

Conclusion:

The Empire is dying and nothing can save it, things have gone way too far to ever return to the bad old days of US world hegemony. Furthermore, I have the greatest doubts about Trump or his supporters being able to successfully defeat Dem/BLM/Antifa. “Just” winning the election won’t be enough, even if Trump wins by a landslide: we already know that the Dem/BLM/Antifa will never accept a Trump victory, no matter how big. I also suspect that 2020 will be dramatically different from the 2000 Gore-Bush election which saw the outcome decided by a consensus of the ruling elites: this time around the hatred is too deep, and there will be no negotiated compromise between the parties.

In 2016 I recommended a Trump vote for one, single, overwhelming reason: my profound belief that Hillary would have started a war against Syria and, almost immediately, against Russia (the Dems are, again, making noises about such a war should they return into the White House). As for Trump, for all his megalomaniacal threats and in spite of a few (thoroughly ineffective) missile strikes on Syria, he has not started a new war.

By the way, when was it the last time that a US president did NOT order a war during his time in office?

The fact is that the Trump victory in 2016 gave Russia the time to finalize her preparations for any time of aggression, or even a full-scale war, which the US might try to throw at her. The absence of any US reaction to the Iranian retaliatory missile strikes against US bases in Iraq in January has shown that US military commanders have no stomach for a war against Iran, nevermind China or, even less, Russia. By now it is too late, Russia is ready for anything, while the US is not. Trump bought the planet an extra four years to prepare for war, and the key adversaries of the US have used that time with great benefit. As for the former world hegemon, it can’t even take on Venezuela…

But inside the USA, what we see taking place before us is a weird kind of war against the people of the USA, a war waged by a very dangerous mix of ideologues and thugs (that is the toxic recipe for most revolutions!). And while Trump or Biden won’t really matter much to Russia, China or Iran, it still might matter a great deal to millions of people who deserve better than to live under a Dem/BLM/Antifa dictatorship (whether only ideological or actual).

The USA of 2020 in so many ways reminds me of Russia in February 1917: the ruling classes were drunk on their ideological dogmas and never realized that the revolution they so much wanted would end up killing most of them. This is exactly what the US ruling classes are doing: they are acting like a parasite who cannot understand that by killing its host it will also kill itself. The likes of Pelosi very much remind me of Kerensky, the man who first destroyed the 1000 year old Russian monarchy and who then proceeded to replace it with kind of totally dysfunctional “masonic democracy” which only lasted 8 months until the Bolsheviks finally seized power and restored law and order (albeit in a viciously ruthless manner).

The US political system is both non-viable and non-reformable. No matter what happens next, the US as we knew it will collapse this winter, PCR is right. The only questions remaining are:

  • What will replace it? and
  • How long (and painful) will the transition to a new USA be?

Trump in the White House might not make things better, but a Harris presidency (which is what a “Biden” victory will usher in) will make things much, much worse. Finally, there are millions of US Americans out there who did nothing wrong and who deserve to be protected from the rioting and looting mobs by their police agencies just as there are millions of US Americans who should retain the ability to defend themselves when no law enforcement is available. There is a good reason why the Second Amendment comes right after the First one – the two are organically linked! With the Dem/BLM/Antifa in power, the people of the USA can kiss both Amendments goodbye.

I still don’t see a typical civil war breaking out in the US. But I see many, smaller, “local wars” breaking out all over the country – yes, violence is at this point inevitable. It is, therefore, the moral obligation of every decent person to do whatever he/she can do, no matter how small, to help the “deplorables” in their struggle against the forces of chaos, violence and tyranny, especially during the upcoming “years of transition” which will be very, very hard on the majority of the people living in the US.

This includes doing whatever is possible to prevent the Dem/BLM/Antifa from getting into the White House.

The Saker

=========================

America’s Colour Revolution

America’s Colour Revolution  By Paul Craig Roberts, Zerohedge, 14 September 2020

I have provided evidence that the military/security complex, using the media and the Democrats, intends to turn the November election into a colour revolution – here, here, and here.

 

The CIA is very experienced at colour revolutions, having pulled them off in a number of countries where the existing government did not suit the CIA.  As we have known since CIA Director John Brennan’s denunciations of President Trump, Trump doesn’t suit the CIA either. As far as the CIA is concerned, Trump is no different from Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro, Charles de Gaulle, Manuel Zelaya, Evo Morales, Viktor Yanukovych, and a large number of others.

Russiagate was a coup that failed, followed by the failed Impeachgate coup.  Faced with Trump’s re-election and the realization that upon re-election Trump will be able to deal with the treason against him, the Deep State has decided to take him out with a colour revolution.

The evidence of a colour revolution in the works is abundantly supplied by CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, NPR, Washington Post and numerous Internet sites funded by the CIA and the foundations and corporations through which it operates, all of which are committed to Trump’s ejection from the Oval Office.  The American public does not realize the extent to which the institutions of a free society have been penetrated and turned against freedom. All of these media organizations are establishing the story in the mind of Americans that Trump will not leave office when he loses or steals the election and must be driven out. 

Emails are arriving from readers in the UK and Europe reporting that the British and European media are at work preparing the acceptability of the CIA’s colour revolution against President Trump.  It is taken for granted by both media and politicians in Europe and the UK that Trump cannot win re-election because he:

(1) is a Putin agent,

(2) abuses the power of his office,

(3) represents racist “Trump Deplorables,”

(4) is a womanizer – “grab them by the pussy,”

(5) is responsible for America leading the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths,

(6) doesn’t support NATO (a sinecure for many Europeans),

(7) is an outsider and not a member of The Establishment and “is not like us,”

(8) “has orange hair” (orange is considered a low-class colour). 

You can add your own to the list.

The scenarios for what the American, British, and European media assume to be a necessary colour revolution  to drive Trump from office are:

  1. Trump loses the election, refuses to leave office and must be dislodged or democracy is lost.
  2. Trump wins the election by fraud and must be dislodged or democracy is lost.

The scenarios do not accommodate Trump actually winning the election by the vote of the people.  That outcome is outside the possibilities.

According to the media, Trump can only lose or steal the election.

With Antifa and Black Lives Matter now experienced in violent protests, they will be unleashed anew on American cities when there is news of a Trump election victory. The media will explain the violence as necessary to free us from a tyrant and egg on the violence, as will the Democrat Party.  The CIA will be certain that the violence is well funded.

Trump, isolated in his own government, which has failed to bring charges against the Obama regime officials who tried to frame the President of the United States and drive him from office—Barr and Durham represent The Establishment, not the President or law—will be cut off from Twitter, Facebook and from the print and TV media.  All Americans and the world will hear is that Trump lost and must go or Trump won by vote fraud and must go. It will be impossible for Trump or anyone to refute the charges. The weak-minded, weak-willed Republicans will collapse. Republicans are not people capable of combat. Republicans believe that to disparage the military/security complex is unpatriotic. Thus, they are sitting ducks.

Bottom of Form

The CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, Radio Liberty, etc., have used color revolution against others who stood in the way of the American National Security State. Only Maduro has survived them.  So far.

The Secret Service cooperated with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. What is a re-elected President Trump going to do when the Secret Service refuses to repel Antifa and Black Lives Matter when they breach White House Security?  There is no doubt whatsoever that the Secret Service is penetrated by the CIA.  How else could President Kennedy have been assassinated?

American Democracy is on the verge of being ended for all times, and the world media will herald the event as the successful overthrowing of a tyrant.  

====================

Previous articles

    • US CFR Says China Must Be Defeated  By Eric Zuesse, Zerohedge, 6 May 2015
    • Obama’s foreign policy disasters  By Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 2 April 2015
    • Why the American dream is dead  By Bill Bonner, 2 April 2015
    • The ‘Deep State’ is now in charge  From Zerohedge, 31 March 2015
    • The next empire  By Jeff Thomas, International Man, 4 Feb 2015
  • Netanyahu’s rapturous welcome  From Andrew Bolt’s website, 4 Mar 2015

Covid-19: Court cases pending charging government and corporate illegal actions

This new post presents information about court cases and those currently in the process of presentation to several courts around the world.  They all have one theme: many actions taken in the name of Covid-19 are illegal and against the interests of ‘the people’.

Scroll down to see all articles:

  1. Spanish Supreme Court Rules Vax Passports Illegal
  2. Sydney law firm also takes action against NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard
  3. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: Anti-Covid Side Winning in Courts
  4. High Court Case brought by Heterodoxies Society over Covid Pandemic
  5. Case against the NSW Health Minister Hazzard in the NSW, Australia, Supreme Court
  6. Indian Bar Association sues WHO scientist over Ivermectin

Spanish Supreme Court Rules Vax Passports Illegal

From PrincipiaScientific.com, 17 September 2021

Spanish Supreme Court Rules Vax Passports Illegal

That was the ruling by the Spanish Supreme Court on August 18 that the imposition of vaccination passports by the regional government of Andalusia was unconstitutional.

The ruling states that insufficient evidence had been presented to justify the requirement for vaccine certification in order to enter bars and nightclubs.

The court stated that the restriction endangers “basic elements of freedoms of movement and the right of assembly.”

The Spanish Supreme Court did not confine its judgement solely to the strictly constitutional aspects of enforcing such passports, but went on to state that using them to restrict entry into public spaces might not only not assist in preventing infections, but might exacerbate the possibility of transmission.

It based that part of the ruling on cited evidence that those who have been fully vaccinated are still capable of contracting and passing on the virus.

==========================

Sydney law firm also takes action against NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard

This is a similar action to AFL filed by G&B Lawyers which was included in the Directions Hearing we reported last Wednesday

RE: SUPREME COURT OF NSW PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED TO CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF THE NSW PUBLIC HEALTH ORDERS REGARDING
MANDATORY COVID-19 VACCINATIONS

NATASHA HENRY AND ORS V THE HON BRADLEY RONALD HAZZARD,
MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH

SUPREME COURT FILE NUMBER 2021/00252587

The plaintiffs in this case have today filed a challenge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking declarations that the New South Wales government has acted unlawfully in making orders that require people to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
This claim represents a courageous challenge by ordinary, law-abiding New South Wales residents who wish to have their fundamental human rights respected. The law prohibits any government in Australia from creating a compulsory vaccination program.

Yet that is exactly what the New South Wales government has attempted to do with the issuing of these public health orders. The plaintiffs allege that those public health orders have been made without any legal authority and the Minister for Health has exceeded his powers. In doing so, he has contravened at least 13 individual rights and freedoms recognised by Australian and international law.

The government has also co-opted the entire healthcare services industry into this public
vaccination program who are unwitting players in what can only be characterised as an
unprecedented systemic violation of human rights by our State government. This gross and flagrant breach of the law will not be tolerated. The plaintiffs now move forward to hold the New South Wales government legally accountable for its unlawful actions.

The 13 individual rights and freedoms infringed by NSW’s public health orders:
– the right to bodily integrity
– the right not to be subject to medical treatment without consent
– the right not to be subject to medical or scientific experimentation without consent
– the right to liberty

-the right to security
– the right to earn a living
– the right not to be conscripted to take part in a public vaccination program
– the right to privacy

– the right to anonymity
– the right not to be discriminated against
– the right to silence
– the privilege against self-incrimination
– the right to the presumption of innocence

Nathan Buckley | Partner

G&B Lawyers, Sydney

===========================

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: Anti-Covid Side Winning in Courts

A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity.

Dr Fuellmich led and won court cases against Volkswagen and Deutsch Bank resulting in fines of billions of dollars.

Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles.

All the PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result.

This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases / ”infections” tracked by the use of this faulty test.

In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited.

According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.

The “vaccine” fails to meet the five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment”.

Numerous documents and videos are available describing Dr Fuellmich’s cases and evidence.  One such link is https://humansarefree.com/2021/07/nuremberg-trials-2021.html

An update dated 10 September 2021 can  be viewed at: https://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2021/09/new-dr-reiner-fuellmich-with-laura-thompson-2523761.html

======================

High Court Case brought by Heterodoxies Society over Covid Pandemic

The full 190-page document can be downloaded from:  https://docdro.id/l69Brc8
Editor’s note: No other reference to this document has been located to date.  This/these will be added when available. 
Discussion

190 pages of riveting reading for those interested where Heterodoxies Society Incorporated is bringing a case against the government and other persons of interest in the High court over deceptive and fraudulent actions by these persons regarding the Covid pandemic.

A case is brought against the following persons: NZ Government, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern,  NZ Ministers Andrew Little, Chris Hipkins, Ashley Bloomfield and 10 others.

The basic claim

  • SARS-Cov-2 virus does not exist as it has never been isolated from a human sample.
  • The PCR primers used to detect SARS-Cov-2 are apart of the human genome so all cases are 100% false positive.
  • The Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine hasn’t completed clinical trials so can’t be promoted as safe.

The named persons in the case are charged with committing crimes and being terrorists according to: Nuremberg Code, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, Medicines Act, NZ Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act, International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act, Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court, Terrorism Suppression Act, … and many more

It then provides an excellent and detailed summary of the fraud and lies that have occurred in the past 18 months relating to Covid-19 and how it evolved. The document provides numerous supporting data/document references that confirm the document’s credibility.

Then it attacks the Pfizer vaccine being a basic poison, unsafe, responsible for worldwide deaths and adverse reactions, pharmacokinetic issues and explains the extreme dangers as warned by numerous independent specialists.

It discusses how the public is being coerced into getting the so-called ‘vaccination’ and how the State going rogue through the surveillance of the public by GCSB and NZSIS.

Lastly, it proposes action to cease the vax program, stop covid propaganda, and seek and award damages.

Note: The above summary doesn’t really do the document justice, you really need to read it to understand this seminal document.

==========================

Case against the NSW Health Minister Hazzard in the NSW, Australia, Supreme Court

By Editor, CairnsNews.org, 8 September 2021

See full article, including all specific charges, at:

NSW vaccine apartheid is a lawless con job – time for people to take a stand

Australia’s Palmer United Party leader Craig Kelly and AFL Solicitors of Sydney are running a case against the NSW Health Minister Hazzard and Chief Medical Officer Chant in the NSW Supreme Court. They seek to obtain a ruling to declare vaccine mandates unlawful and in breach of the Australian Constitution section 51(xxiiiA), the Nuremberg Code of which Australia upheld after WWII and is a signatory, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as other federal and state laws including the Federal Biosecurity Act which makes any coercion or compulsion of any medical procedure unlawful including expressly “vaccines” without freely given informed consent.

Kelly and Tony Nikolic of AFL Solicitors note the following major points in law:

“1. First thing to remember is that at law in Australia, any so-called vaccine mandate is all lies, smoke and mirrors as there is no lawful authority whatsoever in this country to impose a vaccine mandate on the people collectively or any human person individually without a Court order after they have attended in court in person and had a chance to defend themself and oppose any such order, which a judge can only lawfully approve if they are proven to be without legal capacity (that is mentally incompetent to be exercise legal capacity).

2. “It is unlawful and impossible to mandate the vaccine on you or your children by any government agency, representative or individual, or by any employer or by any school – so calm down and take a deep breath.

3. “State Governments carefully use words and misconstrue facts to make it sound like it’s mandatory but it is not and your employer or school principal has no legal grounds to make it mandatory. They are trying to force you to voluntarily take the vaccine, Scomo has even said, its your choice and their is no liability because you chose it.

4. “Schools acted preemptively to send out letters implying, some even stating the vaccine was mandatory for children, when it is not. Forcing children and parents to volunteer to take the jab. School principals seeking to impose vaccine mandates are guilty of crimes against humanity, the Australian Constitutuon, the Federal Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the Privacy Amendment Act 2020 (Cth), the Bio-Security Act 2015 (Cth) and the Nuremburg code.

=========================

Indian Bar Association sues WHO scientist over Ivermectin

By Justus R. Hope, MD, 10 June 2021

The Indian Bar Association (IBA) sued WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan on May 25, accusing her in a 71-point brief of causing the deaths of Indian citizens by misleading them about Ivermectin.

Advocate Dipali Ojha, lead attorney for the Indian Bar Association, threatened criminal prosecution against Dr.  Swaminathan “for each death” caused by her acts of commission and omission. The brief accused Swaminathan of misconduct by using her position as a health authority to further the agenda of special interests to maintain an EUA for the lucrative vaccine industry.

https://indianbarassociation.in/press-releases/

See full article: https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/indian-bar-association-sues-who-scientist-over-ivermectin/article_f90599f8-c7be-11eb-a8dc-0b3cbb3b4dfa.html

Research on Cognitive Decline and Alzheimer’s Disease

This post presents  the results of initial research into the possibilities of delaying or reversing the onset of cognitive decline that often leads onto Alzheimer’s and other dementia conditions.

If you have any comments that will enhance this initial research before conclusions are formed, please email them to petersenior42@gmail.com.

The complete initial research paper can be downloaded from Research on cognitive decline and Alzheimers, update, 210620

By Peter Senior, 20 June 2021

The objective: find out whether or not cognitive decline (CD), Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and related effects can be slowed, reversed and/or prevented.

Hypothesis: the standard medical view that CD and AD can at best be partly alleviated and that the is no way to reverse it may be false, depending on the individual.

This paper comprises an initial list of key overall findings followed by a chronological list of specific findings that appear to be significant.

The most promising finding to date is Dr Dale Bredesen’s protocol; the first listed, together with several details of Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE protocol. A 52-minute video interview with Dr Bredesen, 4 September 2019, provides a comprehensive introduction, including his comment: “We’ve never seen a case of cognitive decline where there are less than 10 primary causes.”  https://www.beingpatient.com/dale-bredesen-lifestyle-changes-prevent-alzheimers/. Several other areas of research show considerable promise.

Key findings to date

  1. There is now ample compelling evidence that CD and AD can at least be delayed, sometimes reversed and often prevented by applying appropriate remedial actions.
  2. Dr Bredesen’s protocol, advice and lifestyle proposals demonstrate the most comprehensive and promising approach available at present.
  3. The sooner diagnosis and appropriate remedial actions are started, the sooner positive results will be achieved.
  4. Some of the largest organisations, including government and medical bodies, are the least optimistic, indicating little can be done to improve CD and AD. There is at least a suspicion that major organisations, including ‘Big Pharma’, are primarily interested in a single ‘magic pill’ that will greatly enhance their profits.
  5. If the causes of CD and AD are indeed multiple and personalized, as Dr Bredesen has demonstrated, the option of a universally effective single ‘magic pill’ would be excluded and could at best only be effective occasionally and randomly. Note: Dr Bredesen’s comment: “We’ve never seen a case of cognitive decline where there are less than 10 primary causes.”
  6. If there was such a treatment as the single cure-all ‘magic pill’, it surely would already have been discovered, developed, tested and widely marketed, most likely by one or more of the major international pharmaceutical companies.
  7. All significant official bodies and medical people and bodies associated with CD and AD recognise and warn about the massive dangers CD and AD presents for the future, including the current and fast-growing costs to countries for medical and care treatment.
  8. Several articles, videos etc. noted in this paper contain a few aspects that are covered in Dr Bredesen’s protocol and life-style approach, but with few additions. A few, such as the well-known Dr Mercola (page 50), include a reference to Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE protocol.
  9. Most of the single approach solutions offer minimal diagnosis or validation, but several indicate some significant successes in individual cases.
  10. All cases described by Dr Bredesen in his books as treated successfully exhibited major issues. None of the cases involved only mild issues.  It is possible these mild cases would not exhibit the medical shortfalls revealed by Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE. However, the old adage ‘prevention is better than cure’ remains prescient.
  11. At this stage, no specialists have been identified in Australia that are able to, or wish to, fully apply the ReCODE protocol.
  12. Dr Bredesen’s ReCODE appears to parallel the stomach ulcer about-turn. In 1982 two Australian scientists upset medical dogma by proving a bacterium, helicobacter pylori, causes stomach inflammation, ulcers and cancer, and so won the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine yesterday. The findings went so against medical thinking that it took many years for an entrenched medical profession to accept it, even then, reluctantly. Possibly another such breakthrough is in the process of emerging for CD and AD?
  13. Dr Bredesen has released a new book now available on Amazon’s Kindle – the printed version will be available on 20 October 2020: The End of Alzheimer’s Programme: The Practical Plan to Prevent and Reverse Cognitive Decline at Any Age.
  14. Dr Bredesen’s new book is another ‘must-read’. It is packed with practical approaches as well as explanations about how to treat CD and Alzheimers. As noted below, it would be wise for suffers and their carers to work with an empathetic doctor or another health professional in order to plan and apply a practical route through the very detailed and elaborate process recommended. But, again, Dr Bredesen’s approach is the only one available to date that is likely to treat CD and Alzheimers successfully.
  15. It is strongly recommended that all people interested in the subject should view the 84-minutes video Broken Brian, 20 August 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6pETdb6hKE
  16. It is strongly recommended that all people interested in the subject should view the 84-minutes video Broken Brian, 20 August 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6pETdb6hKE
  17. Also check the latest section Page 69 about the Aducanumab Debacle.

Further updates will be provided shortly.

Index of contents:

Index of contents:

Page 4   – Dr Dale Bredesen: End of Alzheimer’s. Description of book, protocol and articles

Page 12 – Summary of key tests for ReCODE Protocol

Page 16 – Adam MacDougall, News.com (summary of Dr Bredesen’s work)

Page 20 – The Buck Institute for Research on Aging

Page 20 – MoCA brain test

Page 20 – Brian exercises

Page 20 – Souvenaid

Page 20 – MCT oil 

Page 20 – Ashwagandha, an Indian herb

Page 20 – The APOE gene 

Page 20 – Redimind mixture / tonic (Nutreance)

Page 22 – Mayo Clinic

Page 22 – Webmd.com

Page 22 – National Institute of Aging

Page 22 – Dementia.org

Page 23 – Alzheimer’s Natural Treatment Options, Dr Josh Axe

Page 23 – New Scientist article

Page 23 – UK National Health

Page 25 – UCLA research May 2017

Page 25 – Natural News article

Page 27 – ScienceAlert.com article

Page 28 – ScienceDaily.com (2 articles)

Page 28 – Harvard Medical School

Page 29 – NCBI National Centre for Biological Information

Page 30 – Medical News Today – article

Page 30 – TED video

Page 30 – Dietician Amylee Amos

Page 31 – 7th BioCeuticals Research Symposium, May 2019

Page 31 – YouTube TED talk, Oct 17, 2015:

     Alzheimer’s Is Not Normal Aging — And We Can Cure It

Page 31 – Collective Evolution, 2018 article

Page 32 – The Neuro Development Centre, Providence, Rhone Island, USA

Page 34 – Life Extension

Page 37 – Alzheimers Association

Page 38 – UC Berkeley School of Public Health

Page 38 – World Health Organisation (WHO)

Page 38 – Emory University – ADRC Research Centre

Page 39 – Wikipedia

Page 40Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Dept of Health

Page 40 – FamilyDoctor.org

Page 41 – Functional Medicine Coaching Academy (training for Dr Bredesen’s protocol)

Page 43 – SharpAgainNaturally

Page 44 – Healing Advocates

Page 44 – Curing Alzheimer’s with Science and Song, 25 min video

Page 45 – MCT and coconut oil

Page 45 – Dementia is preventable through lifestyle. Start now

Page 46 – The latest news on Alzheimer’s disease and brain health research

Page 46 – Biogen Revives Aducanumab

Page 46 – MIT Scientists Reveal Brain Rhythm Role In Alzheimer’s Research

Page 47 – The End of Alzheimer’s, 67-minute interview, Dr Michael Fossel

Page 47 – Keto-nutrition, Dr Dominic D’Agostino

Page 48 – The link between diet, exercise and Alzheimer’s

Page 49 – Diagnosing Alzheimer’s Disease

Page 49 – What is Alzheimer disease? A simple explanation

Pages 49-51 Eight articles that explain how meditation can improve mental health

Page 51 – Cacao, a power drug for the brain

Page 52 – Harvard Medical School. Is my forgetfulness normal?

Page 54 – Analysis by Dr Joseph Mercola, 7 November 2019

Page 55 – Eat more citrus fruits & cucumbers, NaturalNews.com

Page 55 – Benefits of Ashwagandha

Page 55 – Distributed memory: the brain in the heart

Page 56 – Biogen aducanumab 

Page 56Sound Therapy

Page 57 – Drugs That Quell Brain Inflammation Reverse Dementia

Page 57 – How to Slow Aging (and even reverse it)

Page 57 – Another Alzheimer’s Vaccine Moves Closer to Human Trials

Page 58 – Biogen Plans to Buy Early-Stage Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Treatment

Page 59 – How Flavonols, Found in Fruit and Tea, Can Stave Off Alzheimer’s

Page 60 – A non-invasive ultrasound technology

Page 60 – The Neuroprotective Effects of Astaxanthin

Page 561 – Viruses and Bacteria Change Our Brains. What Can That Teach Us About Alzheimer’s?

Page 62 – ‘Three little pigs’: Musk’s Neuralink puts computer chips in animal brains

Page 63 – User Reviews & Ratings – donepezil oral

Page 63 – Colloidal Silver as a cure for many diseases, possibly Alzheimers

Page 64 Anticholinergics Can Quadruple Cognitive Decline Risk

Page 66 – UCalgary lab identifies a way to interrupt progression of Alzheimers

Page 67 – Link Between Alzheimer’s and Gut Confirmed

Page  69 –  Far Reaching Implications of the Aducanumab Debacle, 19 June 2021

(Analysis, Conclusions and Summary – to come)


It is strongly recommended that all people interested in the subject should view the 84-minutes video Broken Brian dated 20 August 2020: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6pETdb6hKE

 The video covers: How Alzheimer’s disease in the years to come will be a rare disease (3:09) – Why we need to change the way we think about medicine and health (10:15)

– Why amyloid plaque is not the cause of Alzheimer’s (13:37)

– Cognitive decline and nocturnal oxygen desaturation (16:59)

– The global statistics on Alzheimer’s and cognitive decline (18:39)

– How brain changes can be detected 20 years before Alzheimer’s symptoms are evident (22:38)

– How toxic exposure can lead to cognitive decline (44:26)

– What you can do today to prevent cognitive decline (54:43)

– How to assess your risk for neurodegenerative diseases (1:05:52) – The backlash Dr. Bredesen has faced for his work (1:13:48)

– Where to learn more about Dr. Bredesen (1:22:17)

Dr. Bredesen is on Instagram @drdalebredesen, on Facebook @drdalebredesen, on Twitter @drdalebredesen, and his website is https://www.apollohealthco.com. Also mentioned in this episode: – Cognoscopy – https://www.apollohealthco.com/soluti…https://www.apoe4.info

Note: Dr Bredesen can be contacted at www.drbredesen.com .  Re-CODE and related services can be viewed at  www.mycognoscopy.com or www.apollohealthco.com

Dr Dale Bredesen’s second book:

 THE END OF ALZHEIMER’S PROGRAMME The Practical Plan to Prevent and Reverse Cognitive Decline at Any Age.

This second book follows on and expands on Dr Bredesen’s first book discussed at length below. It both complements and provides considerable new material focused on practical ways to detect causative issues and how to treat them. The book is only available on Amazon  Kindle until the printed version is available on October 20 2020.

Some reviews on Amazon provide valuable comment on this book that also reflect the conclusions of the writer of this research paper:

This is a comprehensive follow up to Dr Bredesen’s last book. It’s inspiring and concise, even if the list of different tests to take seems long. Another review suggests the book’s recommendations are too difficult to put into practice. I understand where he’s coming from, but it really is worth a go – you might notice quite big changes from smaller portions of meat, or more olive oil, or cutting the carbs, or mixing up your veg, or taking curcumin, or… the list goes on.

 Dr Bredesen’s excellent new book follows on from his last book in cementing the fact that Alzheimer’s is treatable for most people, especially in the early stages. Dr Bredesen is leading the charge in a revolution that will save the lives of millions. Every person who has had an Alzheimer’s diagnosis in the family must read this book, their journey of despair will become a journey of hope and, if they act on the book’s recommendations, very likely a journey to success. Dr Bredesen has saved my wife’s life, what more can I say?

 This book should be a required reading material for every single human being! If you haven’t read this book, buy it, read it, implement the suggestions, and then buy and gift the book to others. I own Dr Bredesen’s first book but this one is just amazing- a summary of everything one should do.

 An important conclusion too is that the book has such a myriad of information – some simple, others very complex, that it is impossible to take in on first reading.  To apply all recommendations would be a full-time job.  It would be wise, as recommended in the book, to gain the confidence and assistance of a doctor who has an open mind and is keen to explore where the medical profession is mostly stuck in a negative rut – as described in the Key Findings to Date, above. This doctor, or knowledgeable medical person, should be able to help navigate the maze of information and organise a practical path for both the carer and person suffering from cognitive decline or Alzheimers.  Or for the person who wants to apply practical preventative measures before the onset of cognitive decline or Alzheimers.

The Epilogue is copied in full at the end of this research paper.  Some key points that should be carefully absorbed are:

  • When I was taught medicine, we studied, we practised, and we taught end-stage medicine—we learned and looked for signs of cancer metastasis and heart failure and dementia that were years down the road from when we should be identifying and treating the associated conditions. As I look back on all of this, it is discomfiting to recall how bad it was.
  • We need such a [new] movement now to effect a tectonic shift in health—the way we think about it, learn it, practise it, and benefit from it.
  • The twenty-first century will see the virtual end to the scourges of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Lewy body disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, schizophrenia, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, ulcerative colitis, and other complex chronic illnesses.
  • Thus the road map is clear. We know what to look for in each person, we know how to identify the contributors, we know how to deal with each one. Now we need to enact it, perfect it, and scale it.
  • Fixing cognition will become as routine as straightening teeth
  • Each one of us is a unique, N-of-1 experiment. May your experiment be successful, fulfilling, joyous, and lasting.

 ———————————————————–

 Dr Dale Bredesen’s first book: End of Alzheimer’s

 https://www.amazon.com.au/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=dr+dale+bredesen

 https://www.apoe4.info/wiki/Bredesen_Protocol :

Dr. Dale Bredesen has created the ReCODE protocol that involves multiple strategies to address specific health issues that contribute to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). The results of each strategy are measured by using blood tests, cognitive evaluations, and other markers of overall health improvements. Actions are tweaked over time to aim for optimal lab and evaluation results. His analogy is to think of AD as a leaky roof – there are as many as 36 leaks in the AD roof that need to be addressed to stop the problem. Not every patient will have the same leaks, and the protocol is customized based on the patient’s genetics, current health, and lifestyle.

  In 2014, his first published paper on the protocol, Reversal of Cognitive Decline, highlighted 10 case studies. Of those 10 people, nine showed enough improvement to return to normal life activities. Several hundred people with cognitive impairment have since followed the protocol, and most have seen a reversal of cognitive impairment. He published results of reversing various levels of cognitive decline in Reversal of Cognitive Decline: 100 patients, published October 2018. His book The End of Alzheimer’s, published August 2017 discusses his protocol and explains many of the mechanisms of Alzheimer’s.

  Bredesen’s protocol has not been tested as a preventative, however in a May 2019 podcast interview, Dr Bredesen did say that he’s never had someone at risk come in for prevention and develop even mild cognitive impairment. Research has shown that amyloid-? is deposited in E4 carriers as early as their thirties, so addressing components prior to experiencing cognitive impairment symptoms will likely lead to better health and cognition in aging. Members on the APOE4.Info forum who follow the protocol report improvements not only in health but also in cognition, even if they do not have an SCI or MCI diagnosis.

  Although Bredesen does not see private patients, he has made his protocol available to those seeking doctor assistance through AHNP: Precision Health. MPI Cognition, his previous affiliation, was acquired by AHNP and his prior affiliation with Muses Labs has ended.

  Dr Dale Bredeson End of Alzheimer’s book:  AUD4.99 on Kindle.  He has been researching Alzheimers with a highly qualified team for 25 years. Their view is that what is measured, in particular plaques and tangles (all explained in the book) are only the indirect cause of brain cells being killed deliberately.  The real cause, he explains, is that the brain has a natural defence mechanism that tries to stop the plaques and tangles forming and, if these build up too much, it goes haywire and starts killing too many brain cells.  The trick is to stop the mechanisms that cause the plaque and tangle growth. They have identified 36 so far (see below) and expect just a few more to be found.  These come in categories of inflammatory, toxic and nutrients.  Their programme is to identify which are the major causes for each individual – it varies it seems – and tackle each one starting with the most prominent.  Their program is called ReCODE, and they are training numerous nurses and doctors to apply it.  The reason ReCODE hasn’t made the mainstream is they are not allowed to carry out formal test approval programs, as required for all approved medical drugs.  Big Pharma only want to sell huge numbers of pills.  Problem is, it isn’t a matter of one super pill as each person’s needs vary as which of the 36+ are the major causes, so testing just one would be a waste of time and only appear to prove the treatment doesn’t work.  Ie stop the plaques and tangles forming and the brain’s defence mechanism reckons all is now well, stops killing cells and shuts down until needed.  But the official approval mechanism only allows one factor at a time to be tested, so the approval mechanism for multiple factors has not been approved.  They have had many successes when doctors who knew of this program sent their patients to Dr Bredersen – with amazing full recoveries. The list below links to summaries of why each strategy is important, what you can do, and a selection of research references. NB: Cognoscopy, chapter 7

  Diet Strategies

Optimize diet

Enhance autophagy and ketogenesis

Improve GI Health

  Lifestyle Strategies

Reduce stress

Optimize sleep

Exercise

Rule out sleep apnea

Optimize mitochondrial function

  Lab Tests to Track and Treat

Homocysteine

B vitamins

Inflammation

Insulin sensitivity (insulin and blood glucose)

Hormones

Zn:Cu ratio

Vitamin D

Rule out heavy metal toxicity

Optimize antioxidants  ??

  Brain Strategies

Brain stimulation

Reduction of Aß

Cognitive enhancement

Increase NGF

Provide synaptic structural components

Increase focus

Increase SirT1 function

Inhalational Alzheimer’s (editing note: update to types of AD)

Resources

The latest news on Alzheimer’s disease and brain health research, interview, see page 40

52-minute video interview with Dr Bredesen, 4 September 2019. https://www.beingpatient.com/dale-bredesen-lifestyle-changes-prevent-alzheimers/

“We’ve never seen a case of cognitive decline where there are less than 10 primary causes”.

Dr. Dale Bredesen on Preventing and Reversing Alzheimer’s Disease

68-minute video interview, 1 Oct 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq7uVZ_0D3U&t=472s

Dr Dale Bredesen discusses the metabolic factors underlying Alzheimer’s Disease

86-minute video, 2 June 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS7VZydS8HI

Dr. Dale Bredesen, Changing the world of Alzheimer’s Disease Research https://www.apollohealthco.com/dr-bredesen/

Dr. Mark Hyman Interviews Dr. Dale Bredesen on Cognitive Decline

19-minute video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up8cGbUKS_c

The Bredesen protocol’s “Ketoflex” approach to diet and eating for Alzheimer’s disease.

5-minute video interview, 29 January 2019 video interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgi9IgdXr40

 

Presentation: Dementogens, Exposome, and Alzheimer’s: The Hidden Epidemic

36-minutes presentation, 2 Oct 2018, Dale Bredesen, MD, UCSF and UCLA, discusses how environmental toxins may lead to Alzheimers disease. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM8ouHPnQLI

Video Presentation: “The End of Alzheimer’s: The First Survivors”

Dale E. Bredesen, M.D., UCLA and Buck Institute | Professor of Neurology, Easton Laboratories for Neurodegenerative Disease Research | David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 6 Sept 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmIqeZvKpQ

The remainder of the initial research paper can be downloaded from Research on cognitive decline and Alzheimers, update, 200907

 

 

Environmentalism and ‘Science’: Failures, gravy trains, lies, hidden agendas and alarms such as 5G and GSMs.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 3 May 2021

The green-left Australian Academy of Science has produced another outburst of climate doomism: “The risks to Australia of a 3 degC warmer world.” Nearly 50 years ago the same Academy was assessing the risks to Australia of a cooling world that climate scientists feared might nip crops and leave us shivering under our Doonas. Who would deny that climate science is a slave to fashion? [1]

The Academy report of last March opens and closes with scary pics of fire-blackened bushland. It’s a vanity project, with the authors citing their own works multiple times, especially chair Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (16 self-citations), Mark Howden (11 times) Lesley Hughes (10 times), Will Steffen (10 times), and David Karoly and John Church (8 times). Even Sarah Perkins-Kilpatrick, who is supposed to be reviewing the document, is reviewing herself as she’s cited seven times in the references.[2] Reviewer Jason Evans is cited nine times. Another reviewer is Martin Rice, who works for Tim Flannery’s propaganda outfit Climate Council, but he features only four times in the body of the report.

Perkins-Kilpatrick is convinced by her climate models that warming is turbo-charging everything (but apparently not our cool summer of 2020-21, nor the current deep freeze in the Northern Hemisphere).[3] She’s so confident about the modelling that she’ll mortgage her house and happily bet her kids lives on it.[4] I will necessarily win this bet as the RCPs (Representative Modelling Pathways or official scenarios) she uses are discredited and climate models have overshot actual warming to date by a factor of at least two.[5] I’ll enjoy her house but I promise not to slay her kids.

The above-mentioned Will Steffen’s co-authored piece on “climate tipping points”, was headlined, “The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions.” The Nature paper included political rodomontade like:

In our view, the consideration of tipping points helps to define that we are in a climate emergency and strengthens this year’s chorus of calls for urgent climate action — from schoolchildren to scientists, cities and countries.

The Australian Academy’s 3deg scare paper in March, also co-authored by Steffen, draws on that Steffen et al Nature article and re-produces its text and graphics of tipping point “domino effects”. Five months after the Nature paper was published, the journal had to grovel horrifically because the seven apex climate scientists had screwed up.[6] Here’s the grovel – try to restrain your mirth (emphasis added):

Correction 09 April 2020: The figure ‘Too close for comfort’ in this Comment incorrectly synthesized and interpreted data from the IPCC. The graph labelled the temperatures as absolute, rather than risesmisrepresented the levels of riskmisinterpreted data as coming from a 2007 IPCC report; extrapolated the focus of a 2018 report; and was not clear about the specific sources of the data. The graphic has been extensively modified online to correct these errors.

Mercifully, Hoegh-Guldberg, Steffen et al have pasted the corrected graphic into their Academy report, not the discarded FUBAR version.[7] Maybe climate science isn’t so “irrefutable” after all.

Just in case, the Academy has given itself a free card to exaggerate and scaremonger:

We adopted the precautionary principle: if a potentially damaging effect cannot be ruled out, it needs to be taken seriously.

The Academy’s authors failed to heed the devastating critique of their scenario methods in a paper last May led by Roger Pielke of University of Colorado, titled “Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment.”  The Academy paper has about 20 mentions of official but discredited scenario RCP8.5 and about 50 mentions of other RCP scenarios. Typical:

RCP8.5 assumes little mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and is associated with global warming of 4°c or more above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Up to now, anthropogenic emissions have tracked the RCP8.5 pathway most closely…

Graphics misleadingly show the various scenarios as consistent and comparable. And RCP8.5 is used in the body of the report to imagine horrible warming outcomes, e.g. hailstorms, p32.

Pielke, who is not a climate sceptic, says that, at worst, the extreme and implausible projections of RCP8.5 are touted as “business as usual”. He wrote:

The misuse of scenarios in climate research means that much of what we think we know about our collective climate future may be incomplete, myopic or even misleading or wrong, and as such, ‘uncomfortable knowledge’.

Pielke tracked 4,500 scientific papers misusing the most extreme scenario RCP8.5. The dud scenario featured in 16,800 scholarly articles since 2010. In January-February 2020 alone, more than 1300 studies quoted RCP8.5, at the rate of about 20 per day, with serious misuse at the rate of two studies per day.

The consequences of RCP scenario misuse include a myopic perspective on alternative futures and a correspondingly limited view on policy alternatives, the creation of a vast academic literature with little to no connection to the real world, and an unwarranted emphasis on apocalyptic climate futures that influences public and policy-maker perspectives.

The objective of understanding scenario misuse is not to apportion or assign blame, but to understand how such a pervasive and consequential failure of scientific integrity came to be on such an important topic, how it can be corrected and how it can be avoided in the future.

Pielke and co-author Ritchie sheet some blame home to the incestuous connections among prominent climate scientists.

The IPCC scenario process has been led by a small group of academics for more than a decade, and decisions made by this small community have profoundly shaped the scientific literature and correspondingly, how the media and policy communities interpret the issue of climate change.

The Academy paper, with its incestuous group of self-citing authors-cum-IPCC-contributors, could be a case in point.

Their chair Hoegh-Guldberg is a climate activist par excellenceAs the ABC put it in a fawning interview in 2009 “Hoegh-Guldberg’s work has been embraced by the likes of Al Gore and David Attenborough” and “his mission now is to travel the globe as he fights to raise awareness of what we stand to lose.” He’s been forecasting the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef from climate change since 1998, when his modelling put the Reef’s demise as early as 2030 – less than a decade from now. He lamented that his science peers were giving his research bad reviews: “They were meant to be anonymous but someone slipped them to me, and they were very scathing …” Climategate’s cynical emails of 2009 threw plenty more light on this “anonymous” and gamed peer-review system.

In the same 2009 interview Hoegh-Guldberg forecast the disappearance of Arctic sea ice by 2019. He argued with Andrew Bolt: “This is four million kilometres square of ice that’s disappearing. It’s not a tiny thing! But wouldn’t you say that’s a bad sign?” Fact Check: Hoegh-Guldberg confused square miles with square kilometres – but in any event the ice extent last month was 5.7 million square miles or 14.8 million square kilometres. (Hoegh-Guldberg’s “This is four million kilometres square of ice” could not be more wrong. What he said, but doesn’t mean, is a square with sides of 4 million km to give a total area of 16 trillion sq km.)

The ABC interviewer spliced in tape of Hoegh-Guldberg addressing a conference in Saudi Arabia (of all places) and saying, “Let’s now change the world.”

Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has provided detailed history on Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, under the header, The WWF Activist in Charge at the IPCC (March 30, 2014). Among other things, she accuses him of using “drama queen language”, such as this (you be the judge):

The world is currently facing the greatest challenge of all time … Humanity is at the crossroads. The message is quite simple and the choice stark: act now or face an uncertain, potentially catastrophic future … World leaders can change the history of the planet and directly influence the survival of millions upon millions of people … Basically, the future is looking very gloomy unless we act immediately and decisively.

Laframboise wrote,

The fact that he has spent his career cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was no impediment to him participating in the latest [Fifth] IPCC assessment. The geniuses there decided he wasn’t merely lead-author material, but that he deserved to be placed in charge of a chapter it’s called  The Ocean.

WWF Australia published a spiffy, 16-page brochure titled “Lights Out for the Reef”. Hoegh-Guldberg’s photo and biographical sketch are one of the first things you see. In the foreword, he says that unless we “increase our commitment” to caring for the Great Barrier Reef, it “will disappear.” He knows what the future holds – and he knows it’s apocalyptic. Not content to merely express his own opinions, he presumes to lecture the rest of us. We need to “take action” and “act now.” We need to “deal decisively with climate change.” Behind all of this, of course, lurks a threat: if we don’t follow his advice, we’ll be really, really sorry.

Hoegh-Guldberg’s Queensland University biography lists four reports he did for Greenpeace from 1994-2000. After Laframboise’s post, Hoegh-Guldberg penned yet another tract for WWF, “Reviving the Ocean Economy – the Case for Action – 2015” and the following year he conducted a WWF seminar. The president and CEO of WWF (US), Carter Roberts, recalled schmoozing with him on a diving trip and:

Ove showed us maps tracking elevated levels of CO2 in the oceans, and how those levels corresponded with the declining health of the world’s coral reefs. If current trends continue, he told us, we will watch corals around the world wink out year after year until the only reefs left alive are found in a small remote spot in the South Pacific…

James Cook University’s Professor Peter Ridd was sacked in 2017 for demanding audits of alleged systemic flaws in Barrier Reef scientists’ methodology. He’s now taken his case to the High Court. As a further example of contested reef science, researcher Dr Jennifer Marohasy has challenged the standard methodology of assessing GBR coral die-back from the window of an aeroplane overflying at 120 metres. She says this is too high to give realistic results and when she has dived or used a drone on the same reefs, she’s found the corals perfectly healthy.

None of the Academy folk doing the 3deg report noticed that they were reinventing the (square) wheel. In 2007 climate guru of the era Dr Barrie Pittock wrote a 16,000-word tract for WWF headed: “Dangerous Aspirations: Beyond 3degC warming in Australia”. It’s full of the same guff and doomism as that of the Academy’s folk, who toiled a year over their “Risk to Australia of a 3degC warmer world” lookalike.[8]

The supposedly dispassionate Academy paper makes no mention whatsoever of nuclear power, and just one passing mention of China – whose emissions will swamp whatever cuts Australia tries to make.[9] The Academy paper appears even more ridiculous when set against the views this month of Obama’s chief scientist of the Energy Department, physicist Steven Koonin, who is by no means a sceptic. He expects only 1degC more warming this century – hardly worth spending trillions to combat and easy to adapt to. Further, he says the scientists, politicians and the media have generated a narrative that is absurdly, demonstrably false. That includes the “extreme weather” meme which the IPCC itself rates as “low confidence” – and which the Academy paper touts at least 27 times. The models can’t even agree on the current actual global temperature to within 3degC while claiming 1 per cent precision on key variables. The modellers’ guesses on the temperature impact of doubled  CO2 have not improved in 40 years and are now diverging even more widely, Koonin gripes.[10] The darling of catastrophists circa 2019 was David Wallace Wells with his scare book The Uninhabitable Earth. But even he is calling on fellow activists to revise their advocacy “in a less alarmist direction.”

The Academy – its members are overwhelmingly taxpayer-funded – wants to force Australia’s blue-collars, tradies and non-public servant middle classes into unpalatable and dark-green lifestyle changes. One example: “large-scale adoption of EVs [electric vehicles].” Let’s check the data (the report does not).

EV sales last year were just 6,900, up a mere 182 cars on 2019. That 6,900 total was not even 1 per cent of car sales. To date in 2021, EV sales (excluding Teslas at $73,000 upwards but including hybrids) are just 0.6 per cent. Last year 50 per cent of sales were fat gas-guzzling SUVs, up from 45 per cent in 2019. The Academy wants to push us into EVs via government subsidies and by penalties/restrictions on normal cars.

Ponder the  EV handwaving by the Academy, as evident in the passage below, taken from Academy paper March 31, 2021 (emphasis added):

On current estimates, lifetime costs of electric vehicles (EVs) are similar to those of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and are likely to fall further.

Now check back into the real world, as described in a Federal Department of Industry, Science and Energy paper published last February:

Currently, closing the total cost-of-ownership gap with battery electric vehicle subsidies would not represent value-for-money. Analysis shows that this would be expected to cost the taxpayer $195-747 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, depending on the vehicle type and usage. This is high when compared to the Emissions Reduction Fund price of $16 per tonne of carbon emitted. This translates to around $4,500 to $8,000 over the life of the vehicle, or around 10-40 cents per kilometre over a 10 year vehicle life.

The Academy leaves it to the omniscient government to fix the “adjustment challenges” to jobs and industries arising from its pro-EV policies. Otherwise, “Australia will be left with an inefficient car fleet, dependent on mostly imported oil, for many years to come.” What’s “inefficient” about my little family car Hyundai i30 (price new, $23,000)? It carries us like a charm on a whiff of petrol.

The Academy calls for “an immediate halt to new thermal coal mines and coal-fired power stations” and expects the bureaucracy to somehow find coal workers better jobs or earlier retirement. But anyway, it cites its own author, economist John Quiggin,

Thermal coal mining is not a major employer in Australia’s overall labour market and most employees in the industry have skills that make them employable in a wide range of industries. Only a small number of communities, mostly in central and northern Queensland, depend critically on coal mining…

Those thermal coal miners whom the Academy is happy to disappear, number about 20,000, out of about 40,000 coal miners in total, plus, of course, their household and commercial dependents. Nevertheless, the Academy continues:

Many coal-dependent workers and communities will be better off under a compassionate, pro-active transition program than by simply carrying on with ‘business as usual’ (Wiseman et al. 2017).”

Professor John Wiseman works at the dark-green end of Melbourne University at its Sustainable Society Institute. The title of one of his co-authored publications, “The Degrowth Imperative: Reducing energy and resource consumption as an essential component in achieving carbon budget targets” gives the flavour. “Degrowth” means reducing living standards like GDP per capita. As Wiseman’s co-author, Samuel Alexander, puts it, “And can we come together to build resilient, relocalised economies as globalised, carbon capitalism comes to an end in coming years and decades?” Wiseman’s also a writer on climate change and mental health, e.g. “And while many people feel grief and despair about the prospects of climate change, others see transformational hope…”

The Academy report starts with a full-page 230-word kow-tow to Aborigines, including a homily by Aboriginal Dr Emma Lee, one of the 15 members of the expert panel of authors. (The Academy signed up to a “Reconciliation Action Plan” in August 2019 to burnish its woke credentials). Dr  Lee told a conference in March about living in Country with ancestors “every day watching our midden sites along the coast getting washed away with increasing tides.”[11] One of the oldest-tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. CSIRO says it shows 160 years of sea rise there totalling a mere 13.5cm, or about two-thirds of my palm and fingers. A more precise study put the rise there at 1mm a year or 10cm per century. I had no idea that modern Tasmanian Aboriginals could so closely detect the tides increasing.

I checked other recent Academy reports for apologies for squatting on Aboriginal land, without success. One report reviewing “Decadal plans for Australian Astronomy” has 90 words of acknowledgements to whites but not one mention of Aborigines or the pioneering work of Aboriginal astronomers , now being dinned into Australian schoolkids by the ABC and officialdom.

How left can the Academy get? Last November it bagged President Trump and threw in its lot with the doddering fraud Joe Biden:

He will restore funding to environmental and climate programs and, most importantly for Australia, pressure other nations to raise their emissions reductions ambitions…

The [Trump] administration has also harmed the free movement of scientists and ideas. Travel restrictions have made it more difficult for foreigners from different countries to work or study in the US… Rising concerns about Chinese technological advancements have resulted in investigations into links between US-based scientists and China, leading to Chinese claims of McCarthyism—a claim familiar to Australians (My emphases).

What? Why is the Academy recycling propaganda from China intended to minimise the Communist Party’s wholesale stealing of Western know-how? I sought clarification from the Academy but got no response. [12]

And what’s behind the Academy saying that the China-alleged “McCarthyism” is a “claim familiar to Australians”? That comment appears to derive from a Senate committee hearing last October. Liberal Senator Eric Abetz asked three Chinese-Australian researchers whether they were prepared to “unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship”. One of them, a Labor candidate for Melbourne’s deputy mayor, later called the question “race-baiting McCarthyism.” [I make no suggestion that the three witnesses are in any way disloyal]. The Venona code-breaking transcripts proved that in the US, Senator McCarthy was not just imagining nests of traitors within the post-war establishment.

The Academy’s climate doomism is squandering prestige built over half a century. Someone there should have run a check on its 3degC warming nonsense before the Academy does any more damage – to itself.

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

 

[1] The fourteen Academy people wrote sagely in 1976, “We conclude that there is no evidence that the world is now on the brink of a major climatic change. There is ample evidence that the world’s climate has changed widely during the geological past, and while there is every expectation that it will continue to change in the future, the time scale of these changes is in the range of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years rather than decades or centuries.” (My emphasis).

[2] There is scientific etiquette that a reviewer does not review his/her own prior publications, yet here we see senior climate scientists doing just that.

[3] The UK is copping its frostiest April in at least 60 years, CO2 notwithstanding, according to its Met Office.

[4] At 1.10.00secs in the video.

[5] IPCC’s Third Report 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )

IPCC’s Fifth Report, 2014: 111 out of 114 model runs showed temperatures above actual data. [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[6] “The Australian Academy of Science comprises 550 Fellows whose common link is their exceptional scientific achievement.

[7] Fouled up beyond all recognition.

[8] The Pittock biography incorrectly credits him with a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which the ABC’s Sophie Scott elevated even further to describe Pittock as a “Nobel Prize winner”.[8]

[9] China, pretending at the Paris talks to be a less-developed country, intends to reach peak emissions only in 2030. It’s burning more than half the globe’s thermal coal consumption and is planning or starting 247 gigawatts of new coal-fired power, six times the total coal-power use of Germany and equal to about 80 Loy Yang power plants.

[10] The last official IPCC statement was a footnote in IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. SPM page 16. It reads ‘No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.’

[11] at 1.24.40sec.

[12] In a marvellous each-way bet, the Academy’s anti-Trump document says

  • This analysis has the endorsement of the Secretary for Science Policy, President and Chief Executive of the Australian Academy of Science.
  • “Views expressed in this feature remain those of the authors.”

=======================

A Mass Deception Of Virology & Vaccines: Case Proven?

A Mass Deception Of Virology and Vaccines  By John O’Sullivan, PrincipiaScientific.com, 28 April 2021

Last year we posted an article that triggered both ridicule and debate. It dared to question the accepted narrative of viruses and vaccines; that COVID19 did not exist and terrain theory would topple germ theory when the world awakens from the nonsense of the fake pandemic. Is the passage of time vindicating us?

Today, a clear and undeniable fact persists to annoy the defenders of Louis Pasteur’s theory and undermines all the claims that COVID19 is a deadly virus requiring mass global vaccinations as a remedy.

Have you ever questioned Germ Theory? Our whole society is based on it. The whole medical profession – especially virology – is based on it. It is why they give us vaccines.

One year on, the Achilles Heel for medical science and virology remains: no lab anywhere in the world has provided a gold standard isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – alleged to cause COVID19 – a supposedly novel respiratory disease but with identical systems to colds and flu.

Our own inhouse expert, Dr Saeed Qureshi, has been at the forefront of exposing that telling omission. It is why we are strong supporters of the Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI).

Moreover, as our corrupt governments and media keep telling us, cases and deaths from COVID run into the millions but we note a strange corresponding collapse in reported cases and deaths from influenza. How is that possible?

Did the novel virus somehow act as an antidote to other respiratory diseases that have plagued humans for millennia?

Hardly.

 

So, as this is the anniversary of our publication of the controversial article,  it behoves us to take stock.

Herein we post the empirical, proven outcomes. The most telling of which, in terms of discrediting virology as pseudo science, may be in this German video presentation of a controlled experiment that exposes a cornerstone of virology as not only unreliable, but patently false.

As reported in thefreedomarticles.com:

“German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who won a landmark case in 2017 which went all the way to the German Supreme Court. Lanka proved in the highest court of the land that measles was not caused by a virus, and that there was in fact no such thing as a measles virus. Lanka is still busy working, and he wrote this article earlier this year (translated into English here) entitled ““The Misconception called Virus”” in which he explains the history of how mainstream science went horribly wrong with its conclusions (really assumptions) to demonize the humble virus and to falsely ascribe pathogenicity to it when there is none.”

Watch the video by Dr Stefan Lanka and Dean Braus and judge for yourselves:

If these lab tests are validated elsewhere, then it would seem that Drs Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Judy Wilyman, Qureshi, et al. are vindicated.

They have shown us that virology incorrectly states – without proof – that viruses originate outside the body, then ‘hijack’ the RNA or DNA of the cell, and then replicate whilst attacking cells indiscriminately.

If this were true, viruses would replicate endlessly, eventually attacking all healthy cells, but they do not. We know that antibodies, a type of white blood cell, regulates the virus.

There exists no video evidence of viruses hijacking cells, except for 3D renders, and animations based on theory

As so-called “conspiracy theorist” the aforementioned mavericks stayed true to the scientific method and insisted upon actual verifiable proofs as to the nature and cause of the most economically devastating pandemic in modern human history. Their persistence and methodological acumen appear to have saved the world from an evil Big Pharma lie that has corrupted medical science for over half a century.

As thefreedomarticles.com neatly puts it:

“When modern scientists are working with diseased tissue, they think the presence of a virus is causing the disease, instead of realizing that the tissue in question has been cut off and isolated from its host, then doused with antibiotics, and that this separation and poison make it diseased and kill it, rather than any virus. Lanka writes:

“All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations … All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”

” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”

“These control experiment have never been carried out by the official  “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”

In other words, the studied cells and tissues die with or without the presence of a virus in exactly the same way; therefore, the virus cannot be the cause of the morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, this exactly what many health experts have stated, namely that there are only two causes of disease: deficiency and toxicity.

  • Viruses are not living organisms or living microbes
  • Viruses do not have a respiratory system, nor a nucleus or digestive system
  • Viruses are not alive and viruses are not contagious
  • Thus, the fear behind COVID19 is wholly unwarranted

At Principia Scientific International, our words live or die by the scientific method. If claims cannot be verified empirically then they should be taken with a grain of salt. Viruses do not multiply on their own. When added to fertile petri-dishes that sustain cellular life, no additional viral protein structures appear.

Dr Lanka has yet to share all the experiment’s details including SOPs, copies of original run sheets, batch records, solutions, concentrations, incubation times, etc. of the CPE experiment. For that reason, we pose the title of this article as a question. It awaits wider confirmation.

Likewise, we urge the medical community to hold true to Koch’s Postulates: if there is no isolation of a virus, there is no purification. Without purification you have only speculation – and that is not solid science!

About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.

=====================

GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE?

 

GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE  By Joseph P.Farrell, 3 March 2021

 

If you’re a GMO seeds proponent, or an employee of Mon(ster)santo or I.G. Farbensanto, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Our warning was that by trying to create genetically modified crops that would repel pests, that nature would adapt to the modifications faster than research laboratories could adapt GMOs to nature’s adaptations, thus rendering them not only potentially obsolete, but by creating a pest problem, endangering the food supply (and don’t forget those falling crop yields-per-acre that the University of Iowa documented a couple of years ago with respect to GMO yields: falling yields + higher costs to maintain GMO crops = GMO failure, and cost effectiveness makes natural seeds over the long term a better investment. Now it’s officially come home to roost, according to this article shared by B.:

The coming obsolescence of GMO seeds

There’s much to note about this article, but there was one thing that it stated that leaped out at me:

For the $55 billion genetically modified seed industry, the news hasn’t been good lately. The great “successes” of Bt corn and cotton seeds are turning to failure as insects such as corn rootworms and cotton bollworms are developing resistance to the GMO crops. As a result, farmers have to spray more toxic insecticides to kill the resistant insects.

The situation has become so bad that the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed phasing out more than 40 varieties of Bt corn and cotton over the next three to five years as a way to reduce the insect resistance.

Meanwhile, herbicide-tolerant GMO soybeans are facing massive weed resistance problems. With U.S. farmers spraying 300 million pounds of glyphosate on their fields each year, weeds have naturally developed resistance. Monsanto and other biotech companies’ solution was to develop new GMO seeds that would work with dicamba and 2,4-D herbicides, which are more toxic than glyphosate and prone to drift, causing damage to other crops.

The result has been a disaster. Dicamba has damaged millions of acres of non-dicamba tolerant soybeans as well as other crops, fruit orchards, millions of trees, and gardens in the past four years. The largest peach producer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees to dicamba drift damage. He sued Monsanto, now Bayer, and won a $265 million settlement. One farmer even murdered another over a dicamba drift dispute.

GMO seeds are failing because GMO technology is short-sighted and supports a failing system of agriculture. GMOs still dominate U.S. corn, soybean, and cotton production but I believe their days are numbered. They are going against the trends in agriculture, which are toward regenerative and organic methods.

growing number of farmers are focusing on practices to build soil health such as planting cover crops and diverse crop rotations and grazing livestock. Because of those practices, regenerative farmers find they no longer need the GMO seeds, and they are also able to slash their use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.(Boldface emphasis added)

“… a failing system of agriculture”: Let those words sink in. And let the other words “the result has been a disaster” sink in too. But wait, there’s more:

The main point is that soil health and regenerative practices are the leading trends in agriculture today, and as farmers journey on the path to soil health, many don’t see the need to plant GMO seeds.

GMO seed technology was designed to work with a system of industrial agriculture whose toxic effects—pesticides that threaten human health, depleted and eroded soils, polluted waterways from fertilizer runoff, greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, among others—are becoming more apparent and threatening to the world. As more farmers move away from this system toward regenerative and organic practices, the use of ag chemicals and GMOs will fall away.

Biotechnology proponents point to the emergence of gene editing, and say that new gene edited seeds and crops will be developed. They say these crops will increase crop yields, produce more nutritious foods, reduce pesticide use, and help to “feed the world.” Wait, wasn’t that the promise of the “old” GMO seeds? Gene editing supporters say the technology is precise. But a study published in Nature magazine last July found that gene editing of human embryonic cells caused “chromosomal mayhem.” That isn’t precise. Similar genetic mayhem has been seen in gene edited rice and other crops. Gene edited crops will have the same problems as the older GMO crops, and consumers will likely reject them.(Boldface emphasis added)

In other words, human genetic tinkering is creating chaos in agriculture; think of the growing number of stories about adverse reactions to the mRNA covid “vaccines” and transfer that to crops and you get the picture: we are playing with systems which in spite of our vaunted “science” we do not yet completely understand, and in our rush to “play” with them and “improve” them, are creating a mess, possibly one that could threaten the food supply. And in both cases, crops and “vaccines”, the model used is one to maximize profits of a few big corporations. Why sponsor hydroxychloroquine for covid, when it’s so cheap, when profits can be maximized for a “vaccine” which comes with all sorts of health risks. Why sponsor ordinary seeds, when GMO seeds and their associated pesticides are so much more expensive, and can maximize profits?

Similarly, note the response to these models: “organic” crops and “holistic” medicine. In other words, more and more involved in the practice of farming or medicine are turning away from technological and artificial fixes more natural ones. Note that Russia, for example, not only turned very deliberately away from GMOs, but that its vaccine is not an experimental one tinkering with messenger RNA and human genetics.

And also note the response of “Big Agribusiness” (or as we like to call it here, I.G. Farbensanto or Mon[ster]santo) and Big Pharma (or as we like to call it, Muck Pharmaceuticals) to those who’ve opposed their agendas: Mon(ster)santo would sue farmers if one of their plants was spotted on their fields (meaning that Mon[ster]santo was actually spying on people), and Muck Pharmaceuticals? Well, it’s a curious thing that so many holistic doctors were being murdered in the years running up to the covid planscamdemic, and we all saw how apopleptic some doctors and media became at the mere mention of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin d, or zinc.

So yes, perhaps we need a new model of doing things. One that isn’t anti-science, but skeptical of rushed scientism, of rushed promises of “a better world” and “cures” without adequate testing and skepticism. In this, the whole GMO panacea has been a lesson in the dangers of rushed technologies, lack of inter-generational testing, and bought-off and corrupted “corporate science” and media promising the utmost safety of their witches’ brews.

Or to put that lesson more succinctly, no more Mon(ster)santo’s, and no more “Operation Warp Speeds” either. And here’s the good news:

The good news is that a seed industry independent of the big biotech/pesticide companies—Bayer, BASF, Corteva, and Syngenta—is growing stronger, worth an estimated $10 billion. This includes organic seed companies such as Albert Lea Seed, Great Harvest Organics, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and others. There are also seed companies emerging to meet the demand for non-GMO corn including SureFlex Hybrids in Minnesota, Spectrum Non-GMO in Indiana, Hybrid85 in Nebraska, and De Dell Seeds in Canada, to name a few.

Now, hopefully, we’ll see the emergence of doctors’ and physicians’ consortia that will treat their covid patients with things other than questionable “vaccines”. We’ve seen a few individuals questioning the whole narrative, but the whole idea of other points of view should, perhaps, become a business model.

======================

Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface

Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface  By Professor Peter Ridd, an independent scientist, The Australian, 16 September 2020

 

Editor’s note: Professor Ridd was sacked by James Cook University, Queensland, for challenging some university colleagues regarding the accuracy of their reports concerning the Great Barrier Reef.  Ridd challenged this in court and won a resounding victory in which the judge castigated JCU. An appeal by JCU was lost based on some convoluted points.  Ridd is escalating an appeal to the highest Australian court.  Over $760,000 has been collected for Ridd’s appeal in a Go-Fund appeal. Ridd is pushing in particular for a far better level of quality control in science.

The Senate committee inquiry into the regulation of farm practices impacting water quality on the Great Barrier Reef has yielded some remarkable confessions by science institutions about the state of the reef. It has been the first time many of the scientists have been asked difficult questions and publicly challenged by hard evidence. They have been forced out of their bubble.

It was revealed by Paul Hardisty, boss of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, that only 3 per cent of the reef, the “inshore reefs”, is affected by farm pesticides and sediment. He also stated that pesticides, are a “low to negligible risk”, even for that 3 per cent.

The other 97 per cent, the true offshore Great Barrier Reef, mostly 50km to 100km from the coast, is effectively totally unharmed by pesticides and sediment.

This has been evident in the data for decades but it is nice to see an honest appraisal of the situation.

Why has this fact not been brought to the public’s attention in major documents such as the GBR Outlook Report produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Why has everybody been deceived about the true extent of the problem?

AIMS was also forthcoming on other important points. Records of coral growth rates show no impact from agriculture. Large corals live centuries, and have annual growth rings like trees. They record their own rate of growth. If farming, which started about 100 years ago on the reef coast, was damaging the it, there should be a slowing of the growth rate. The records show no slowing when agriculture started a century ago, or when large-scale use of fertiliser and pesticides began in the 1950s.

I have written previously that AIMS has been negligent in not updating the GBR-average coral growth data for the past 15 years. We have the scandalous situation that there is data going back centuries – but nothing since 2005. AIMS claimed coral growth rates collapsed between 1990 and 2005, due to climate change; however, there is considerable doubt about this result because AIMS changed the methodology for the data between 1990 and 2005. At the Senate inquiry, under some duress, AIMS agreed it would be a good idea to update this data if the government will fund the project.

Updating the coral growth rate data will be a major step forward. It will prove or disprove the doubtful decline between 1990 and 2005. It will also give the complete record of how the GBR has fared in the past 15 years, a period when scientists have become more strident in their claims that it is on its last legs.

Hardisty, to his credit, has recently implemented red-blue teams within his organisation to help with quality assurance of the work that AIMS produces. A red team is a group of scientists that takes a deliberately antagonist approach to check, test and replicate scientific evidence. A genuine red team is a far more rigorous quality assurance approach than the present system used in science – peer review – which is often little more than a quick read of the work by the scientist’s mates. What AIMS has done internally is similar to what I have been proposing – an Office of Science Quality Assurance that would check, test, and replicate scientific evidence used for public policy.

Unfortunately, Hardisty’s commitment to quality in science was not reflected by many other important witnesses at the Senate inquiry. Many are in denial and resorted to shooting the messengers. An extract from a letter signed by Professor Ian Chubb, a former Australian chief scientist, was read out by Senator Kim Carr.

Disputing the conventional wisdom on the reef was likened to denying that tobacco causes cancer, or that lead in petrol is a health risk. Worse still, the reason sceptics do this, apparently, is “usually money”. Scientists such as Dr Piers Larcombe, the pre-eminent expert on the movement of sediment on the reef, with decades of experience, is thus written off as a corrupt charlatan.

It is scientific “cancel culture”. It is easier than confronting Larcombe’s evidence that farming has very limited impact on the GBR.

It is customary to be very cynical of our politicians, but it was senators Roberts, Rennick, Canavan and McDonald who forced some truth from our generally untrustworthy science institutions. Only our politicians can save us from them.

The evidence about the reef will not be buried forever. All the data indicates agriculture is having a negligible impact on the reef, and recent draconian Queensland legislation against farmers is unwarranted. And this issue will be influential come the Queensland state election on October 31.

(Professor) Peter Ridd is an independent scientist.

======================

We need an inquiry into climate alarmism

 

We need an inquiry into climate alarmism  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 29 August 2020

I hope you are sitting down; this foray into political and media madness over bushfires and climate change starts with recognising some excellent, forensic journalism by the ABC. Investigating last summer’s devastating Gospers Mountain fire, journalist Philippa McDonald took us to the very tree where the fire is believed to have been started when it was struck by lightning in a thunderstorm.

McDonald used this to give us the brilliantly counterintuitive opening line; “It began not with fire, but ice.” In a series of reports, McDonald and her team retraced the history of the fire over a number of weeks, how it was almost extinguished by rain, how bushwalkers in the wrong place at the wrong time thwarted a backburn that might have stopped it, how another prescribed burn got out of control and destroyed houses, and how a fortuitous wind change stopped it encroaching on suburban Sydney.

We might quibble with some of the alarmist language — repeating the silly new “megafire” term and pretending that when fires meet they join and get bigger when, in fact, this reduces the number of fronts and total length of fire perimeter — but overall the reporting was factual and admirable because it explained the many variables in fire behaviour and the factors that can influence whether a fire can be contained or extinguished before weather conditions turn it into an unstoppable beast. Surprisingly, and refreshingly, the reports did not dwell on climate change.

When it comes to our bushfires climate change is so close to being irrelevant, it should hardly warrant a passing reference — we have always faced disastrous bushfire conditions and always will. If climate change makes the worst conditions either marginally more or less common, it matters not; we still need to do the same things to protect ourselves.

In previous articles I have detailed the leading scientific analysis showing the main precondition for the NSW fires — a long drought — cannot be attributed to climate change. Unless climate activists want to argue Australia could do something to alter the global climate sufficiently to reduce our bushfire threat, they are exposed as cynical campaigners who used the sure bet of bushfires to advance their political scare campaign.

The NSW bushfire inquiry released this week took a dive into the climate science — as it was tasked to do — and found, predictably enough, that climate change “clearly played a role in the conditions” that led up to the fires and helped spread them. But thankfully it did not waste much time on climate in its recommendations, merely suggesting climate trends need to be monitored and factored in.

Apart from exercises in politically correct box ticking — Indigenous training for evacuation centre staff so they are “culturally competent”, wildlife rescue training for firefighters, and signs to promote ABC radio stations — most of the recommendations were practical. Better equipment for firefighters, more water bombers, more communication, public education and most importantly, a range of suggestions on fuel reduction around settled areas and planning controls on building in fire prone areas.

The bottom line has always been obvious: the one fire input we can control is fuel, so where we want to slow blazes or protect properties, we must reduce fuel. Planning is also important to prevent housing in indefensible locations, but one crucial phrase missing from the report was “personal responsibility”.

Houses on wooded hilltops or surrounded by bush cannot be protected and their residents should not expect others to risk their lives trying to do so.

People must be educated to clear extensively around properties, sufficient to withstand not a moderate fire but a firestorm, otherwise they must be prepared to surrender their homes and escape early.

“Hazard reduction is not the complete answer,” said report author Mary O’Kane. “People do need to take responsibility, they need to realise that if they live in certain areas it can be very dangerous, and we try to give a strong message of, if you are in a dangerous area and there is one of these big, bad megafires, the message, is get out.”

O’Kane is right, of course. But it seems a hell of a waste to hold a full inquiry only to be told we should do more fuel reduction, be careful where we build houses, and get the hell out of the way rather than try to fight firestorms. We knew all this.

The push for an inquiry was largely driven by the climate catastrophists. Remember, they wanted to blame the blazes on the axing of the carbon tax, and on Scott Morrison. It was inane and rancid stuff.

They will be at it again, this fire season. They love making political capital out of disasters, although they go as quiet as Tim Flannery when it comes to full dams and widespread snowfalls.

The area of land burned in the Australian summer has now been revised down by 25 per cent, and the claims about wildlife deaths revised downwards too, to factor in the mind-blowing realisation that animals actually escape fire when they can — birds fly, wombats burrow, kangaroos hop and even koalas can climb to the treetops and escape all but a crowning blaze.

Remember we had articles in The Guardian, The New York Times, and on CNN and the BBC, saying the bush might never recover. Take a drive through the Blue Mountains, Kangaroo Island or the Australian Alps and see how their predictions turned out.

The sclerophyll forests of southern Australia are not just adapted to fire, they are reliant on it. Therefore, the wildlife also is reliant on it for the rejuvenation of the vegetation — why does basic ecology escape the climate activists? If it is any comfort, the same madness is now playing out in California. Similar climate, similar history of bushfires, and the same maddening political debate. With fires burning more than a million acres in northern California this month, the state’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, sent a recorded message to his party’s national convention; “If you are in denial about climate change, come to California.” The trouble is that while these are bad wildfires, they are not unusual in the natural and settled history of that environment.

Like the Australian bush, the redwood forests that US journalists suggest are being destroyed by fire, depend on fire for propagation. Just like here, one of the issues has been the suppression of bushfire by human interference, leading to the unnatural build up of fuel that can explode when a wildfire does get away in bad conditions.

Environmentalist and author of Apocalypse Never; Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Michael Shellenberger says the climate is warming but the impact of this on fires is overstated. In an article for Forbes.com he quoted Scott Stevens of the University of California, Berkeley, saying climate change is not a major factor, as well as other experts scoffing of the idea that severe fires are anything new.

“California’s fires should indeed serve as a warning to the public, but not that climate change is causing the apocalypse,” wrote Shellenberger. “Rather, it should serve as a warning that mainstream news reporters and California’s politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth about climate change and fires.”

Ditto for Oz. I have detailed previously how Fran Kelly told ABC audiences in November that “the fire warning had been increased to catastrophic for the first time ever in this country” — but that was wrong, wildly wrong.

Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John accused his political opponents of being “no better than arsonists” and other Greens and Labor MPs said Australia’s climate policies were exacerbating bushfires. Insane as this might be, it was amplified rather than interrogated by most media.

The thick smoke haze in Sydney was portrayed as something “unprecedented” — if it has not been on Twitter before it must never have happened — but a quick search of newspaper files found similar bushfire-induced shrouds in 1951, when airports were closed, and 1936, when a ship couldn’t find the heads.

Fires in rainforest areas of southern Queensland and northern NSW were not “unprecedented” either, with archived reports noting similar fires in the spring of 1951 and even the winter of 1946.

Despite 200,000 media mentions of “unprecedented” tracked by media monitors across December and January, the facts showed none of this was new. Greater areas were burned in 1851 and 1974-75, and human devastation was either as bad or worse on Black Saturday in 2009, Ash Wednesday in 1983, Black Tuesday in 1967, Black Friday in 1939 and Black Thursday 1851.

Bushland was not destroyed forever, koalas were not rendered extinct and Scott Morrison was not to blame. We should have an inquiry into climate alarmism, political posturing and media reporting — we would learn a lot more from that than we have from relearning age-old fire preparedness from yet another bushfire inquiry.

CHRIS KENNY

 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR (NATIONAL AFFAIRS)

Commentator, author and former political adviser, Chris Kenny hosts The Kenny Report Monday-Friday 5pm, and Kenny on Media, 8.30pm Friday, on Sky News. He takes an unashamedly rationalist approach to national a… Read more

=====================

Alarmism in New Zealand


Alarmism in New Zealand  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR.com, 25 July 2020

Fear is a natural survival instinct and arguably more motivating than logic and reason. It can also be used to great effect to shift the mindset of communities and nations.

While such manipulation is, of course, not uncommon, what is surprising is how blind societies are to recognising when fear is being used as a tool for political persuasion.

We recently saw this in the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic when the Prime Minister used alarmist computer modelling to justify her “Captain’s Call” to lock the country down.

Claiming “tens of thousands of New Zealanders” could die, the PM rejected Ministry of Health advice to stay at Level 2 for 30 days, and imposed what we now know to be the most stringent policy response in the world.

Instead of relying on cost benefit analyses and regulatory impact statements from trusted government agencies to inform her decisions, the PM chose inaccurate computer models that grossly exaggerated the number of deaths.

It has now been revealed that the modelling she relied on did not take into account the contact testing and tracing that was central to the health response being implemented by Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director General of Health.

The explosion of predicted deaths that resulted, was then used by the PM to scare the country into accepting her hard-line lockdown.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has used scaremongering to force her policy agenda onto the country. Her whole response to climate change has been based on fear.

Climate change is, of course, a natural process influenced by a wide range of factors including the sun, clouds, and ocean currents. Throughout history, the Earth’s climate has been far hotter than it is today and far colder. Sea levels have been far higher and far lower. Carbon dioxide – the trace gas used by plants to manufacture food – has existed at far higher atmospheric concentrations and far lower.

But the United Nations’ climate models that are being used to redefine economic policy around the world, only focus on the minuscule proportion of carbon emissions produced by humans. In doing so, they disregard not only the 97 percent of carbon dioxide produced from natural sources, but also the overwhelming influence that other crucial factors such as the sun have on the climate.

These alarmist models, which blame climate change on humans, are being used by politicians – including our Prime Minister – to implement the UN’s socialist agenda: state control of all economic activity through the regulation of carbon emissions.

Fortunately, most scams motivated by scaremongering are eventually exposed – often by the very people who pioneered the movements before they were captured by political extremists.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Michael Shellenberger is a leading American climate activist, who, having promoted global warming propaganda for almost three decades, has decided to stop the lies:

“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

“Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’; Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;  Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level; Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change; Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels…

“I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.”

Michael Shellenberger explains how difficult it has been to speak out against the climate scare:

“I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis’.

“But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public…

“But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said ‘The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.’ Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed ‘Climate Change Kills Children…

“As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change. Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened. I thus decided I had to speak out.”

While Michael Shellenberger deserves credit for speaking out and exposing the misrepresentation, those activists who lie should be held to account – particularly by the media. It is therefore regrettable that so many in the media have decided their interests are better served by aligning with the popularists, rather than adhering to the bedrock values of their profession.

Prime amongst New Zealand’s serial alarmists is the Green Party’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw. Not only does he knowingly describe carbon dioxide – the cornerstone of life on earth – as a “pollutant”, but he also continues to claim that as a result of climate change, adverse weather events are getting worse, which is another alarmist fabrication that is simply untrue.

But as the late Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University Professor who had been a lead author for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explained, for advocates of climate alarmism the truth is not a priority: “…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination.  That entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Fearmongering, of course, has been an effective tool to manipulate the public throughout history.

The myth that population growth will deplete food and resources, and ultimately destroy the planet, can be traced back to the writing of the Reverend Thomas Malthus in 1798.

These idea gained unprecedented traction following the 1968 release of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, an entomologist at Stanford University. The book incited such fear of overpopulation that it triggered waves of repression around the world.

The facts, however, tell a different story. Population growth has been slowing for more than three decades. Forty years ago, while the average woman had between five and six children to ensure the survival of the next generation, she now has between two and three. Women are having fewer children because better healthcare means that most babies now live to grow up. As a result, half of the world is already below the long-term replacement level.

Concerns over ‘peak oil’ have also been in and out of vogue over recent decades. Driven by the theory that the world would run out of oil, the reality is that scarcity has been the result of geopolitical disruption rather than resource depletion.

The Club of Rome, an Italian-based think tank established in 1965, investigated resource scarcity in their highly influential book The Limits to Growth. Using computer modelling, they forecast apocalyptic economic and environmental disaster.

Ironically, it has now become clear that, contrary to what they were predicting, the best way to improve humanity and the environment is through more growth, not less. As countries improve their living standards, so too they improve social, economic and environmental wellbeing. It is the resourcefulness of free markets to innovate and maximise the efficient use of resources that results in a progressive improvement in living standards.

What is also bizarre is that while in the 1970s climate computer models predicted that the burning of fossil fuels would trigger another ice age, nowadays they are claiming the exact opposite – that the burning of fossil fuels will cause the planet to dangerously overheat.

This contradiction has not stopped our politicians – with fossil fuels identified as the villain, their policy response of an increasing carbon levy, has effectively imposed socialist state control over all economic activity.

When the Prime Minister and Climate Change Minister introduced their Zero Carbon Act last year, they boasted about imposing the harshest restrictions on carbon emissions of any country in the world. Then last month, they amended the Emissions Trading Scheme to cap carbon emissions, causing the price of carbon to jump from around $25 a tonne to $33.

At $25, New Zealander motorists were paying an ETS levy of around 4c for every litre of petrol they bought. At $33, the levy is now around 7 cents a litre, and at $35, it will be around 9c a litre. Such price hikes will flow right through the economy, increasing the cost of living.

The Climate Change Minister expects carbon prices will go much higher.

Meanwhile the price of carbon has had a major impact on vegetable affordability, especially tomatoes. With hothouses no longer economical in some areas, local growers are being forced to close. As a result, New Zealanders will see an increase in produce imported from countries with no carbon costs.

With the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change specifying that measures introduced to enable countries to meet their carbon targets must not reduce food production, Minister Shaw is clearly breaking the rules.

Governments can only get away with imposing socialist control under the guise of climate change because of their scaremongering. Endlessly claiming that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming, they promote renewable energy as the only sustainable alternative.

In a controversial new filmPlanet of the Humans, which climate activists have tried to ban, filmmaker Michael Moore provides a devastating indictment of the renewable energy scam, explaining it is not clean, green, nor sustainable, but is more destructive than the energy sources it seeks to replace.

The film shows how wind, solar and biofuel projects destroy wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species, and millions of acres of forests, deserts and grasslands.

It exposes bogus claims about the benefits of renewable energy and explains that electricity for a small city of 50,000 households requires 15 square miles of solar panels, along with wind turbines, and a huge array of batteries – or a coal or gas power plant – for nights and cloudy days.

Paul Driessen, a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow has reviewed  the film and describes the turbines:  “Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials. Every step in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and (20 years later) removal process requires fossil fuels. It bears repeating: wind and sun are renewable and sustainable; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not.”

While some of the film’s conclusions are questionable, Michael Moore raises concerns about the merits of alternative energy that alarmists have conveniently ignored: “We’re basically being fed a lie.” Maybe we’d be “better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place,” than doing all of this.

Although dissenting voices are not yet dominating the debate about climate alarmism, there is enough concern for political leaders to stop the headlong rush into policy extremism and exercise some common sense judgement.

With New Zealand already struggling to recover from the harsh lockdown, the last thing this country needs is climate policy based on scaremongering to undermine our fragile economic recovery.

========================

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change  By Michael Shellenberger, The Australian, 1 July 2020

I have been a climate activist for 20 years but on behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created.

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by the US congress to provide ­objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”;

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”;

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;

Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003;

The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska;

The author’s new book.

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California;

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s;

The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level;

We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter;

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change;

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels;

Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.

I know the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those ­conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the Inter­national Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

Green beginnings

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to ­invest $US90bn into them. Over the past few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I ­referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a “crisis”.

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his ­research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “climate change kills children”.

Turning point

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilisations”. Mainstream journalists ­reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world”, and that deforestation was like a ­nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity ­extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence. And so my formal ­apology for our fearmongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.
  • The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.
  • 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent.
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent.
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.
  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions.
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.

Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the ­financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.

The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.

Reality bites

Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to ­believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

A real crisis

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people [Editor’s note 1: There is compelling evidence this figure is grossly inflated due to dubious practices and methods of measuring] and shattered economies around the globe [Editor’s note 2: It is the related governmental regulations that have ‘shattered economies around the world’, not COVID-19].

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.

The invitations from IPCC and congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists and ­environmental scholars. “A