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

 

The current focus of this post relates to the Coronavirus chaos. Note: Many more articles follow the six below.

Sky News Host nails it, Socialism on a Global Scale

Sky News Host nails it, Socialism on a Global Scale  Zerohedge 1 March 2021

“Socialism On A Global Scale”: Sky News Host Demolishes Davos Elites And ‘Great Reset’ Scheme

BY TYLER DURDEN, SUNDAY, FEB 28, 2021 – 14:55

Sky News Australia host Cory Bernardi has just taken a flamethrower to the global elite, telling us we need to be mindful “of any organization with the term “world” in their name” in a monologue which would never see the light of day in most Western nations.

After flaying the World Health Organization (WHO) for ‘giving China a free pass on the Wuhan Flu,‘ while banking $500 million on pandemic bonds, Bernardi demolishes the World Food Program, the World Meteorological Organization, the World Tourism Organization, and the World Trade Organization – for lies, misinformation and climate-related pretzel logic to justify policy.

All these authorities are pushing an agenda – it’s the same agenda, to decarbonize, deindustrialize, and disempower the Western world. They are part of a concerted plan to redesign capitalism in a new image,” Bernardi says, adding: “That image of course is socialism.”

Spearheading this effort is the World Economic Forum (WEF) that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland.

“The WEF is the architect of the Great Reset, and the fourth industrial revolution. They coined the “build back better” hashtag, that is actually proving so popular with big government elites right across the globe,” says Bernardi. “Under the WEF vision, the Davos attendees will own what you’ll be renting. And trust me on this, it’s not gonna be a philanthropic enterprise.”

“By reducing you to a mere user rather than an owner, the world does actually become more equal, because it will concentrate power, authority and money in the hands of a tiny few, while the rest of us become mere economic vassals for these oligarchs.”

Watch:

Full transcript below (emphasis ours):

There are certain warning signs that we all need to be mindful of. You know, it’s like when someone appears in your life and says ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.’ Well, another warning sign is any organization with the term “world” in their name. So let’s start with a couple. Perhaps the World Health Organization to kick it off. That’s the body that gave China a free pass on the Wuhan Flu, while at the same time banking $500 million through issuing pandemic bonds. That’s right, the World Health Organization was scheduled to repay investors around $500 million in early 2020, unless of course, a pandemic was declared. The investors lost all their money that became the World Health Organization’s gain.

Then of course there’s the World Food Program. It too is part of the United Nations and it actually won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020. Now all that sounds pretty impressive, until you remember that Barack Obama won it in 2008 just for having the right skin color. And despite spending $8 billion every year on hunger and strengthening resilience against climate change, there are still 850 million undernourished people in the world, and around 780 million obese people. Clearly we need more food socialism.

Then we also have the World Meteorological Organization. It has a crew of 200 and it publishes an annual status of the world climate report, casting horror scenarios about greenhouse gasses, climate change, sea level rise, and sea ice. The 2019 report is a beauty – it essentially says that the Australian bush fires of that year were due to climate change, and makes no mention of the arsonists, or the greens’ insistent on terrible land management policies. By the way, according to the WMO, climate change is also responsible for drought, floods, storms and weather-related damage. Now that made me wonder, what caused them before the Industrial Revolution, or before mankind for that matter.

But we’re also fortunate enough to have the World Tourism Organization, which has “a one planet vision for responsible tourism.” These include the vital buzzwords “social inclusion” and “climate action.” It even has some pretty cool hashtags; #responsiblerecover and #buildbackbetter. And it boasts that by shutting down the world economy this past year, it reduced carbon dioxide emissions by a whopping eight percent. That means there’s only 92% to go before we’re back to living in caves! But saving the planet while we do it.

And of course we shouldn’t forget the World Trade Organization, with lofty goals espousing free trade. Its real mission seems not to be holding China to the same integrity requirements as the rest of the world when it comes to intellectual property protection, trade tariffs and barriers, etc. Thank goodness it has the goal to reduce inequality, which is socialist speak for “taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive.” Someone needs to tell them about history. It shows it never works.

But, for those that are unable to sustain the rigor of the real world, there is always a refuge in the World Vegetable Center. That’s right, a world vegetable center. This esteemed body devoted 20 years to researching the sweet potato before giving it away because the costs of doing that research were too high. It now focuses on “looking to the wild relatives of domesticated crops to save the human diet from climate change.” Wowee, if only we never cultivated crops the world would be better off, and the climate wouldn’t be changing!

Hey but, what about those hungry people I mentioned earlier? Wouldn’t they be even hungrier?

Well, all these authorities are pushing an agenda – it’s the same agenda, to decarbonize, deindustrialize, and disempower the Western world. They are part of a concerted plan to redesign capitalism in a new image. That image of course is socialism. And it’s spearheaded by the grand daddy organization of them all – the World Economic Forum. The WEF is the architect of the Great Reset, and the fourth industrial revolution. They coined the “build back better” hashtag, that is actually proving so popular with big government elites right across the globe. And they even predict that by 2030, you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy. They call this ‘servitization,’ which is a term and an agenda that looks a lot like servitude to me. The WEF claim that this servitude – I’m sorry, I mean ‘servitization’ will save the planet, and assist the post-COVID-19 recovery.

However, servitization begs the question; if you don’t actually own anything, who will own what you’re renting? Well the answer lies within the WEF premiere forum – that’s at Davos. Davos is the gathering of global elites including big business CEOs, industry chiefs, government leaders, bureaucrats, and multi-billionaires with political agendas. Under the WEF vision, the Davos attendees will own what you’ll be renting. And trust me on this, it’s not gonna be a philanthropic enterprise. They’ll all be looking to make more money than they currently do, and actually to take more control of your life under the guise of equality. By reducing you to a mere user rather than an owner, the world does actually become more equal, because it will concentrate power, authority and money in the hands of a tiny few, while the rest of us become mere economic vassals for these oligarchs.

So make no mistake – servitization is just a new name for economic slavery. It’s socialism on a global scale.

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

MRNA Covid Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

CV19 vaccine article 210227 MRNA Covid Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis


Editor’s note: download the full article at the link above to view all graphics.

Published on February 26, 2021

https://principia-scientific.com/mrna-covid-vaccines-a-risk-benefit-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+psintl+%28Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Latest+News%29

Written by Sadaf Gilani

Amidst the plethora of Covid-related issues, the Covid injections are the most imminent. Two formulations have received interim approval from the FDA, and Health Canada: Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna.

Both these injections are employing the same technology, synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history.

Medications are given to sick people to treat disease. Vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent an infection. Therefore consideration of risk-benefit analysis is paramount.

Covid is the umbrella label for PCR “positive” people regardless of clinical presentation. Most are “asymptomatic,”some have generic cold/flu symptoms, and a few present with moderate or severe respiratory distress. Unfortunately, the PCR assays being used for diagnosis, are not fit for purpose. Most PCR assays are constructed based on the German Drosten et al. protocol.

On November 27th 2020, 22 scientists submitted a request for retraction of this protocol which was published in the journal Eurosurveillance, citing a number of fatal design flaws.

It is also important to note, despite SarsCov2 virus and the syndrome labelled as Covid being used interchangeably, causation has not been proven as per Koch’s postulates.

The first metric which every medical doctor must convey to a person is how deadly Covid actually is. This is context for the legal and ethical practice of informed consent.

Incidentally, all Covid death stats are inflated: under direction of the WHO, deaths ‘from” and incidentally “with” Covid are not distinguished. Death coding has changed compared to Influenza/Pneumonia. According to one published analysis, this has resulted in over 16 times inflation of death stats, as supported by CDC data.

Furthermore, Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) stats based on seroprevalence antibody studies are also inflated since T-cell immunity, is not measured in these studies. This may result in a 3-5X lower IFR for Covid. Regardless, the general IFR is on order of the seasonal influenza, approx. 0.2%.

Covid mortality is a reflection of increased mortality with age, more so than influenza/pneumonia of previous years. The median age of Covid deaths (86) exceeds average life expectancy in Canada. Tragically, 70% of the deaths in the province of Ontario took place in care homes. The mortality rate from Covid in Canada under 59 years of age is 0.0017%.

According to the CDC, the survival from Covid (with inflated stats) is as follows: (under 20) 99.997%, (29-49) 99.98%, (50-69) 99.5% and (over 70), 94.6%.

The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response.

Dr David Martin, emphasized that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine as per the manufacturers’ claims. The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.

Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine.

Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”

In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.

Pfizer has reported:

For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period: Fever; New or increased cough; New or increased shortness of breath; Chills; New or increased muscle pain; New loss of taste or smell; Sore throat; Diarrhea; Vomiting.”

Moderna reported in likeness:

For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was defined as: At least TWO of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (?38ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), OR At least ONE of the following respiratory signs/ symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; and NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.”

To reiterate, in both trials, once one/two symptoms appeared in a participant, it was designated a “case” or “event” when coupled with a positive PCR “test”. Once 170 “cases” occurred in Pfizer/BioNtech trial, and 196 “cases” occurred in Moderna trial, this data was used to calculate efficacy. Shockingly, only under 200 cases for a novel therapy which is being deployed/subjected on millions of people around the world.

Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.

Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:

8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group

8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%

Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.

This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!

Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%

Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)

This means, that someone who takes the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, has less than 1% chance of reducing at least one symptom of non-severe “Covid” for a period of 2 months. This means that someone who takes this injection has over 99% chance that it won’t work, regarding the efficacy. Over 100 people have to be injected for it to “work” in one person.

The actual efficacy of Pfizer/BioNtech Synthetic Gene Therapy

The actual efficacy of Moderna Synthetic Gene Therapy

There are many issues with the trial data, and design. It must be noted that PCR tests are not fit for purpose and without Sanger sequencing we have no idea how many of these people actually had “Covid” vs another respiratory virus or something else. This is a preeminent reason why Dr Yeadon and Dr Wodarg filed a Stay of Action on the vaccine trials.

As Dr Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of BMJ highlighted, access to the raw data is required to further elucidate the areas of concern:

With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.”

Approximately 5-6 symptoms listed as “side effects” are the same as Covid symptoms. Pfizer/BioNtech only started counting “cases” one week after the second dose, and Moderna, 2 weeks after the second dose. Therefore, if these side effects were labelled as “Covid” symptoms instead, even the paltry efficacy of about 1% would be relegated into the negative integers.

In others words, the injected group may have been sicker with “Covid” more than the placebo group.

There have been many critiques of the applicability of the limited data to the general populace, especially the vulnerable elderly. An important analysis of this was done by Dr James Lyons-Weiler who discovered the general population is dying at a rate 6.3 times the rate of participants in the Moderna trial (including placebo and injection groups).

If Moderna’s on-vaccine death rate is so far below the national death rate and also simultaneously more than five times greater than Pfizer’s on-vaccine death rate, then Pfizer’s study sample appears even less representative of the entire population. This, too, requires due consideration.”

An integral question as to whether Pfizer/BioNtech and Moderna recruited supermen and women for their trials, comes to mind. The incidence of “severe” Covid in Placebo groups which scrutinizing the details, wasn’t necessarily severe presentation, is so low that trials of 30,000-40,000 lacked statistical power to determine reductions in hospitalizations and deaths, according to Tal Zaks, CMO Moderna.

Zaks is correct, the incidence of severe “Covid” was only 0.04% in Pfizer/BioNtech and 0.22% in Moderna. Due to this very low attack rate of severe presentation in the population, the absolute risk reduction in severe presentation, even taking data at face value, is nominal.

Therefore, potential SGT recipients must be informed that to reduce “severe” presentation, chances are over 99.5% that these synthetic gene therapies will not work.

The British Medical Journal has reported:

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30?000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.”

To convey informed consent, the side effect profile must also be considered. Up to 80% of injected trial recipients experienced side effects, in a setting for a nebulous syndrome where 80% of people are asymptomatic.

The incidences of immediate side effects in both trials were significant and dwarfed the absolute risk reduction in both the primary efficacy endpoints, as well as for “severe” Covid.

For example, for Moderna 81.9% experienced any systemic reaction. Grade 3 reactions (considered severe) were experienced by 17.4%. This is 79X more likely than the incidence of severe Covid in the Moderna group. (17.4/.22=79X) Based on preliminary reports of adverse events [emphasis added]:

This is an injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. This means that the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people.

The safety data for both companies is approximately only two months before receiving emergency use authorization status. Therefore, there is no data for mid-long term side effects, as the trials are ongoing.

The estimated completion date for Pfizer/BioNtech trials is Jan 31, 2023. The estimate completion date for Moderna trials is October 27, 2022.

According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna) the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”. It is therefore baffling how medical doctors and public health officials are proclaiming these SGTs will promote herd immunity.

The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown. Therefore, the 1% absolute risk reduction in mild/moderate, cold/flu symptoms may not last more than a few months.

Tragically, there is no pervasive data-centred discourse, only excessive fear-mongering. Without addressing the data people cannot make an informed choice about experimental SGTs.

Many are not aware any SGT recipient who participates in this therapy is now a part of an unprecedented experiment. When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available.

To underscore: Health Canada approved this experimental SGT on the populace without even 6 months of trial data.

It is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market. Pfizer/Moderna ran all of their trials simultaneously, including their animal trials, instead of sequentially. As retired Health Canada research scientist Dr Qureshi elaborated, it is during proper animal trials that meaningful toxicology data is obtained.

The anaphylactic reactions observed in some people is also worrisome, worthy of analysis. Children’s Health Defense submitted a request to the FDA to address PEG allergies, as up to 70% of the populace has antibodies to these compounds. PEG has never been a component in a vaccine before.

It must also be noted that according to an internal Health Human Services and Harvard study, less than 1% of vaccine side effects are reported. At this juncture, based on: paltry efficacy, issues with data transparency and trial design, high level of immediate side effects, and low IFR for Covid, there is already enough reason for concern.

Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects.

Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses.

In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses.

This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warned that this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined:

This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”

Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated:

The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”

Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.

In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried:

Where else do these packages go?”

Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.

Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.

Moderna previously tried to use this same technology to treat Crigler-Najjar syndrome and was not able to strike the balance between therapeutic dose and toxic side effects.

It’s encased in nanolipid to prevent it from degrading too rapidly, but what happens if the mRNA degrades too slowly, or not at all? What happens when you turn your body into a “viral protein factory”, thus keeping antibody production activated on a continual basis with no ability to shut down?

So, taking a synthetic messenger RNA and making it thermostable — making it not break down — [is problematic]. We have lots of enzymes (RNAses and DNAses) that degrade free RNA and DNA because, again, those are danger signals to your immune system. They literally drive inflammatory diseases.

Moderna boldly claims that these synthetic mRNAs will not integrate with the host cell DNA. The discovery of epigenetics has revealed that DNA expression is in flux and constantly interacts with environmental signals. Dr Lanka explained that RNA-DNA is also a two-way process, dynamic.

There is the potential for this synthetic RNA to integrate into human DNA via the enzyme, reverse transcriptase. This may lead to mutagenesis, possibly cancer. It may lead to birth defects if it integrates into the germ cells of the injected. Reassurances cannot be made based on such limited safety data.

Therefore, it is important to clearly understand the potential risks of this type of mRNA-based vaccine, which include local and systemic inflammatory responses, the biodistribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression, possible development of autoreactive antibodies and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system component”

It has been discovered that commonly transcribed mRNA sequences can integrate with DNA for form “R loop” patterns. Dysregulation of these sequences is implicated in different pathologies, including “oncogenic stress.”

This finding was referred to as:

unexpected interplay between RNA modifications (the epitranscriptome) and the maintenance of genome integrity.”

Clearly, we are in the nascent stages of understanding the complex field of epigenetics. The S1 SarsCov2 spike protein is highly homologous with HERV (human endogenous retrovirus) protein knowns as Syncytin-1. There is the potential for autoimmunity, as the Spike protein antibodies might attack Syncytin-1.

Whilst natural infections are benign and self-limiting for the vast majority of affected people, autoimmune diseases are mostly irreversible. This is even more terrifying with the mRNA treatment.

If the translation of SarsCov2 S1 spike protein persists there is potential to cause amplification of the expression of autoimmunity. As the SGT recipients’ cells are now producing the viral spike proteins, there is the potential for explosion of auto-immune diseases in coming years.

Syncytin-1’s primary function is in the placenta as well as sperm. Dr Wodarg and Yeadon’s Stay of Action, included concerns that the potential for antibodies against Syncytin-1 proteins (part of the placenta) may result in permanent infertility in women and possibly men as well. The manufacturers give the caveat:

It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility. And women of childbearing age are advised to avoid pregnancy for at least two months after their second dose.”

Pregnant women were not included in either of the trials. Trial recipients were instructed to use birth control.

The PEG-lipid nanoparticle is highly lipophilic, to cross cell membranes. Renowned aluminum and neurotoxicity expert Dr Chris Shaw, stated that these nanoparticles do cross the BBB (blood-brain barrier) and cited evidence from Moderna’s previous animal trials.

On social media, there have been many documented cases of bizarre neurologic symptoms in the SGT recipients. Could one mechanism be dysregulation of Syncytin-1 in the brain?

Except for the normal physiologic function of Syncytin-1 in the development of placenta, the activity and expression of Syncytin-1 increase in several diseases, such as neuropsychiatric disorders, autoimmune diseases, and cancer […] Syncytin-1 participates in human placental morphogenesis and can activate a pro-inflammatory and autoimmune cascade […] A growing number of studies indicate that Syncytin-1 plays an important role in MS.”

Bottom line: elevated levels of Syncytin-1 = brain inflammation.

We now have a therapy that uses the body’s own cells to produce unknown (perhaps continuous) levels of a protein that is almost identical to Syncytin-1. This is potential for disaster, as Dr Mikovits elaborated:

Syncytin is the endogenous gammaretrovirus envelope that’s encoded in the human genome…We know that if syncytin…is expressed aberrantly in the body, for instance in the brain, which these lipid nanoparticles will go into, then you’ve got multiple sclerosis […] The expression of that gene alone enrages microglia, literally inflames and dysregulates the communication between the brain microglia, which are critical for clearing toxins and pathogens in the brain and the communication with astrocytes that dysregulates not only the immune system but the endocannabinoid system…”

In the longer term, she suspects we’ll see a significant uptick in migraines, tics, Parkinson’s disease, microvascular disorders, different cancers, including prostate cancer, severe pain syndromes like fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis, bladder problems, kidney disease, psychosis, neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) and sleep disorders, including narcolepsy. In young children, autism-like symptoms are likely to develop as well, she thinks.

Heart attacks are another documented side effect. Loved ones of the deceased have shared on social media that these deaths are not considered vaccine reactions and are therefore not recorded as such.

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

What They Said About Lockdowns Before 2020

What They Said About Lockdowns Before 2020  By Amelia Janaskie, via The American Institute for Economic Research, 15 Jan 2021

In 2020, beliefs about how to handle a new virus shifted massively.

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, mainstream epidemiology and public health entities doubted – or even rejected – the efficacy of lockdowns and mass quarantines because they were considered ineffective.

This all changed in March 2020, when sentiment flipped in support of lockdown measures.

Still, there is a vast body of evidence explaining their original stance and why these mandates do not work. 

  1. Fauci said that shutting down the country does not work. (January 24, 2020) 

Early into 2020, Fauci spoke to reporters saying, “That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States, I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles, but the judgement on the part of the Chinese health authorities is that given the fact that it’s spreading throughout the provinces… it’s their judgement that this is something that in fact is going to help in containing it. Whether or not it does or does not is really open to question because historically when you shut things down it doesn’t have a major effect.”

  1. World Health Organization Report discusses NPIs and why quarantine is ineffective. (2019)

In a table, WHO lists their recommendations of NPIs depending on severity level. Quarantine of exposed individuals is categorized as “not recommended in any circumstances.” The report explains that “home quarantine of exposed individuals to reduce transmission is not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure, and there would be considerable difficulties in implementing it.”

  1. WHO acknowledges social-distancing did not stop or dramatically reduce transmission during the 1918 influenza pandemic. (2006)

The WHO authors ultimately conclude that NPIs, including quarantining, require better and more focused methods to make them more effective and less “burdensome.” “Ill persons,” the authors assert, “should remain home when they first become symptomatic, but forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.” Summarizing reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic the WHO cites Lomé (British-occupied Togo) and Edmonton (Canada) as places where “isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed.” Yet, despite additional measures (Lomé halted traffic, and Edmonton restricted business hours) in both cases “social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission.” A United States, comprehensive report on the 1918 pandemic also concluded that closures “[were] not demonstrably effective in urban areas but might be effective in smaller towns and rural districts, where group contacts are less numerous.” 

  1. study in the Bulletin of Mathematical Biology regarding the 1918 influenza pandemic in Canada also concluded quarantines do not work. (2003)

The study simulated different levels of travel and found that travel limits could be effective but “that a policy of introducing quarantine at the earliest possible time may not always lead to the greatest reduction in cases of a disease.” The authors conclude that, “quarantine measures limiting intercommunity travel are probably never 100% effective, and simulation results suggest that such a situation may actually make things worse, especially in the absence of strong efforts to keep infectious individuals isolated from the rest of the population.”

  1. Popular author and Tulane adjunct professor John M. Barry, a strong opponent of the Great Barrington Declaration, argued that quarantines do not work in the case of the Spanish Flu. (2009)

Over a decade ago, Barry found that historically quarantines have been unsuccessful: “This author supports most proposed NPIs except for quarantine, which historical evidence strongly suggests is ineffective, and possibly school closing, pending analysis of recent events.” And instead promotes commonly touted measures, such as remaining home when unwell (and isolating from family members while doing so), frequently washing hands, and wearing a mask if you are sick. On the latter point he warns against healthy people wearing masks, noting: “Evidence from the SARS outbreak suggests that most health care workers infected themselves while removing protective equipment.”

  1. Seton Hall’s Center for Global Health Studies Director says travel restrictions did not delay the transmission of SARS. (2009)

Yanzhong Huang acknowledges that “travel restrictions and quarantine measures have limited benefit in stopping the spread of disease […] affecting travel and trade, dissuading the very kind of transparency and openness essential for a global response to disease outbreaks.” These measures ultimately undermine a country’s surveillance capacity because “people who show symptoms might choose to shun public health authorities for fear of quarantine or stigmatization [and squander] limited health resources […] Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations [noted] by July signs of fatigue and resource depletion had already set in most of the world.

  1. A study from Wake Forest University encounters ‘self-protection fatigue’ in simulated epidemic. (2013)

Study uses a multiplayer online game to simulate the spread of an infectious disease through a population composed of the players. The authors find that “people’s willingness to engage in safe behavior waxes or wanes over time, depending on the severity of an epidemic […] as time goes by; when prevalence is low, a ‘self-protection fatigue’ effect sets in whereby individuals are less willing to engage in safe behavior over time.” They say this is “reminiscent of condom fatigue—the declining use of condom as a preventive measure—in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention.”

  1. In Biosecurity and Bioterrorism journal, Johns Hopkins epidemiologists reject quarantines outright. (2006)

In an article titled, “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza,” JHU epidemiologists note problems with lockdowns: “As experience shows, there is no basis for recommending quarantine either of groups or individuals. The problems in implementing such measures are formidable, and secondary effects of absenteeism and community disruption as well as possible adverse consequences, such as loss of public trust in government and stigmatization of quarantined people and groups, are likely to be considerable.” Their concluding remark emphasized, “experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.”

  1. In a top journal, American Journal of Epidemiology, authors explain the conditions when quarantine would be effective, which do not align with the characteristics of Covid-19. (2006)

Specifically, they note that quarantines will only be effective when: (1) isolation is not possible; and (2) asymptomatic spread is significant and timed in a narrow way (none of which is the case for Covid). They conclude that “the number of infections averted through the use of quarantine is expected to be very low provided that isolation is effective.” And if isolation is ineffective? Then it will only be beneficial “when there is significant asymptomatic transmission and if the asymptomatic period is neither very long nor very short.” But, should mass quarantine be used it would “inflict significant social, psychological, and economic costs without resulting in the detection of many infected individuals.”

  1. In the Epidemiology Journal, Harvard and Yale professors Marc Lipsitch and Ted Cohen say delaying infection can leave the elderly worse off. (2008)

They explain how delaying the risk of infection can work counterintuitively when the pathogen is more lethal for older populations. They say, “Reducing the risk that each member of a community will be exposed to a pathogen has the attendant effect of increasing the average age at which infections occur. For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals.” Based on this analysis, Covid-19, which disproportionately harms the older more than the young, is better handled by allowing the community to be exposed, whether through natural infection or vaccination.

  1. A team of Johns Hopkins scholars say quarantines don’t work but are pursued for political reasons. (September 2019)

In the report, they explain how quarantine is more political than related to public health: “During an emergency, it should be expected that implementation of some NPIs, such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence.” Later on, they explain the ineffectiveness of quarantine: “In the context of a high-impact respiratory pathogen, quarantine may be the least likely NPI to be effective in controlling the spread due to high transmissibility.”

In March 2020, Michael Osterholm – now Biden’s Covid-19 advisor – also argued that lockdowns are not a “cure” for the pandemic, listing multiple costs from a lockdown. Yet, Osterholm’s New York Times article in August reveals a contrasting viewpoint, stating that “we gave up on our lockdown efforts to control virus transmission well before the virus was under control” by opening “too quickly.” Osterholm and (Neel) Kashkari promote a mandatory shelter-in-place “for everyone but the truly essential workers.”

Also in March 2020, these findings from the listed works and many others culminated in an open letter to vice-president Mike Pence signed by 800 medical specialists from numerous universities throughout the country which pointed out: “Mandatory quarantine, regional lockdowns, and travel bans[…] are difficult to implement, can undermine public trust, have large societal costs and, importantly, disproportionately affect the most vulnerable segments in our communities.”

While expert consensus regarding the ineffectiveness of mass quarantine of previous years has recently been challenged, significant present-day evidence continuously demonstrates that mass quarantine is both ineffectual at preventing disease spread as well as harmful to individuals. Learning the wrong lesson – assuming that mass quarantines are both good and effective – sets a dangerous precedent for future pandemics.

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

COVID-19 Un-Explained

Editor’s note: This article is the most comprehensive available to date – essential reading…. click on the link below to see all graphics.

COVID-19 Un-Explained  By Larry Romanoff, 17 December 2020

Waves, Ripples and Surges

Let’s examine the normal pattern for an outbreak of a typical infectious disease. According to the US CDC:[1]

“A common-source outbreak is one in which a group of persons are all exposed to an infectious agent or a toxin from the same source. If the number of cases during an epidemic were plotted over time, the resulting graph . . . would typically have a steep upslope and a more gradual downslope (a so-called “log-normal distribution”). A propagated outbreak results from transmission from one person to another [usually] by direct person-to-person contact . . .” Propagated outbreaks typically exhibit several peaks one or two weeks apart, the epidemic normally dying out after several of these generations.

“Some epidemics have features of both common-source epidemics and propagated epidemics. The pattern of a common-source outbreak followed by secondary person-to-person spread is not uncommon.” The CDC states these also can produce several generations or peaks during the following few weeks. But in all of these instances of natural infectious agent outbreaks, the spread and timing follow essentially the same typical pattern, perhaps elongated but still with close timing of the peaks. Here are three graphs from the CDC to illustrate. You can see clearly that we have a rise (rapid if single-source, slow if propagated or mixed), then a peak, a gradual tapering-off, and a cessation.

The Dreaded “Second Wave”

While the literature on this point is confusing from a multiplicity of factors, there is no evidence to support the assertion of a natural “second wave” for infections. An epidemic or pandemic manifests itself by starting slowly, increasing exponentially, peaking, then slowly tapering off and disappearing. There may be isolated infections popping up later, but they don’t start a new epidemic. One of the major unexplained curiosities with COVID-19 is that from early on in the process the US mass media were fervently preparing us for a ‘second wave’. To enhance the plausibility of their tale, they linked it to the natural emergence of influenza that normally occurs when the weather turns cold in the Autumn and Winter, but that was deliberately misleading, a patently dishonest ‘guilt by association’ for the majority who don’t think. Let’s remember this is not a flu virus; this is a SARS virus, a different strain to be sure, but it wasn’t originally called SARS-CoV-2 for nothing, and there was no reason to expect it to behave like, or act in concert with, the common flu. And in fact, all nations experienced their COVID-19 outbreaks in March or April and, long prior to the outbreak of cold weather, the virus had already peaked and tapered in many countries to the point where it had died out or nearly so.

When researching other recent epidemics or pandemics such as the 1968 H3N2 or the 2009 H1N1, we find no evidence of any ‘second waves’. The 2009 H1N1 was typical, though prolonged, lasting from April 2009 to February 2010, but it peaked in May or June and slowly tapered until year-end. Others are similar. Here are a few examples of typical distribution patterns. The virus’ tail in China is truncated due to the strong containment measures implemented; the spike is from a data update since not all infections had yet been collated. You can see that China had reached the end, Saudi Arabia and Bolivia nearly there, India and Argentina tailing off. All graphs are courtesy of Worldometer. (The ‘Spanish flu’ of 1918 was an anomaly. See note (1) in the End Notes.)

Western Europe

Note that there are no ‘normal distribution’ cases for Western Europe, where every nation was hit with a “second wave”. Switzerland, Spain, the UK, and many others went sharply from essentially zero to 20,000 or 30,000 new infections per day, a pattern lacking any historical or epidemiological explanation. It almost seemed that someone hadn’t done their job properly the first time, and returned to try again. Let’s look at some examples.

Turning to Eastern Europe

Little Latvia is typical of many countries. The initial outbreak in March was so small as to be almost invisible, then tapered off and died. There were a few scattered infections, but nothing to cause a resurgence. Then suddenly and inexplicably a huge explosion at the beginning of October . Almost all of Eastern Europe followed this pattern with Russia and Belarus being two notable exceptions. Let’s look at Russia:

I watched Russia very closely from early in 2020. For about two months, infections were stable at only a few hundred per day. Russia had implemented many containment measures and it began to appear that the virus would be a non-event. Then suddenly an explosion in April with new infections quickly rising to more than 10,000 per day, and occurring simultaneously in almost every area of the country. It was painful watching Russia for four months attempting to lower the daily infection rate below 5,000, but finally 4,900, 4,800, and it appeared the tail was nearing, then suddenly another explosive jump to nearly 30,000, again simultaneously in all regions, and still increasing. There is no infection that manifests in this manner without human assistance.

Still with Russia, the country experienced high infections but a comparatively low death rate, to the dismay of many in the West, so much so that Reuters published an astonishingly-stupid article titled “Experts Want to Know Why Coronavirus Hasn’t Killed More Russians”.[2] “Tasteless” and “deplorable” were two of the kinder adjectives used on Reuters in the instant public backlash, so they amended it to “Experts question why coronavirus hasn’t killed more Russians”, but no improvement in public censure so a third incarnation, “Experts Question Russian Data on Covid-19 Death Toll”. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg joined in to support Reuters by stating that Russia was “spreading . . . disinformation . . . trying to change the world order”. “Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova drily observed in a Facebook post that a ‘world order’ in which it’s considered acceptable to lament why a virus didn’t kill more Russian people could probably use a change.” Helen Buyniski covered this in a charming article in RT; I recommend you read it.[3]

Turkey

Then we have the strange case of Turkey. New daily infections had been at around 1,000, followed by a quick increase to around 5,000, then suddenly exploding to 30,000 – in one day – and increasing. As with Russia, there is no known natural pathogen outbreak that manifests itself in such a manner. This is just a thought, but if I wanted to punish someone for buying and activating Russian S-400 missiles, this might be a good method.

The Blessed Triumvirate

It is further worthy of note that while most nations received only a second wave, the US, Japan and South Korea were blessed with a third wave, apparently having been given Most-Favored-Nation status by COVID-19. (I copied this term from an article in Counterpunch by Paul Street.[4])

Another Curious “Two Waves” Manifestation

As I noted above, there is no such thing as a natural ‘second wave’ for an epidemic, much less of this next kind: No one has yet addressed the fact that virtually all countries in the world were hit with COVID-19 virtually at the same time, in two blasts.[5] There were two waves – the first hit 25 countries on all continents, where medical practitioners confirmed their first domestic infection all within three days of each other. In the second wave, almost exactly one month later, 85 countries confirmed their first domestic infection, again almost all within three days of each other, and all in multiple locations. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that no natural epidemic can manifest itself this way without human assistance.

A natural virus simply hasn’t the ability to simultaneously infect 85 different countries on all continents of the world, with outbreaks in multiple locations in each country – and all on the same day. Perhaps even more curious is that these countries were not all infected with the same variety of the virus, and each country experienced so many multiple infections in different provinces that none were able to definitively identify all their several ‘patients zero’. Considering the above information in light of the known basic facts of virus transmission, intuition suggests at least the possibility of there having been many people carrying a pail of live viruses. All of this constitutes prima facie evidence of a bio-weapons attack. I wrote an earlier article titled, “COVID-19 Needs a Criminal Investigation“.[6] And it still does.

Search for the Origin

A high-level Italian virologist, Giuseppe Remuzzi, published papers in the Lancet and elsewhere in which he states that Italian physicians now recall having seen “a very strange and very severe pneumonia, particularly in old people in December and even November [2019].[7] This suggests that the virus was circulating, at least in Lombardy, and before we were aware of this outbreak occurring in China.”

Italy detected traces of the virus in wastewater from the summer of 2019, and France, Spain, the Netherlands and other nations have made the same discoveries. I detailed these in a prior article.[8] In Brazil, researchers found COVID-19 samples in wastewater from late 2019. France showed chest scans indicating COVID-19 from early November of 2019. Blood samples in Italy showed the virus present in September. In Spain, researchers found the virus in wastewater collected in March of 2019. The Irish Mirror reported that “many countries are beginning to use wastewater sampling to track the spread of the disease”, scientists claiming these detections were “consistent with evidence emerging in other countries” that COVID-19 was circulating around the world long before China reported its first cases, all of which would of necessity have had to have originated in the US and transported around the world because only the US had all the different types, meaning the virus had been circulating (and mutating) there for months before contaminating the world.

The Italians have “unequivocally” demonstrated the presence of the virus in many individuals from 2019, in frozen medical samples taken during other examinations and now tested for COVID-19. Many of these have resulted from cancer screening, from chest X-rays, and from blood donations. Non-American media have covered these discoveries in some detail[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], but while the Chinese and Europeans know, Americans and Canadians don’t know because the owners of their major newspapers and TV networks don’t want them to know.

French researchers obtained evidence of Covid-19 from frozen samples, where these are kept at –80°C for years, the same method that allows anti-doping laboratories to keep athlete samples for years when new methods arise for detecting illegal drugs. For the virus, they use two distinct methods: a serological test which searches for antibodies in the blood, and a virological test, RT-PCR, a very sensitive technique that searches for the actual genome of the virus, its specific genetic information.”[17][18]

French virologists have now concluded “The coronavirus outbreak in France was not caused by cases imported from China, but from a locally circulating strain of unknown origin . . .”,[19] and, from other studies, that strain existed only in the US. My information is that Italy, Spain and Portugal have come to the same conclusion. The data also show that Canada’s early COVID-19 cases came from the U.S. not China.[20]

A number of American cities made the same discoveries of the virus in their wastewater samples from 2019. The US mass media didn’t pick up the stories, but the local papers did. It was at that point that Pompeo issued another gag order that hospitals and labs were forbidden from disclosing any virus information directly to the CDC or the media but that all must be passed through the White House. That killed all further reports of COVID-19 in America’s wastewater in the second and third quarters of 2019.

With the accumulated volume of evidence, it now seems a certainty that COVID-19 was circulating in the US since June or July of 2019, far earlier than admitted, and that the CDC’s prevention (and forbidding) of testing was to bury this evidence. One example was headlines in the US media on June 21, 2020, stating, “Over 40 mysterious respiratory deaths in California could dramatically rewrite narrative of COVID-19” in the US.[21] The LA Times reported on “a cluster of mysterious respiratory deaths” beginning in December of 2019. The local news website www.bakersfield.com stated this meant that COVID-19 was circulating in California “way earlier than we knew”. Evidence of COVID-19 was also found in many blood donations collected from residents in nine states across the US as early as mid-December, according to a study published on Nov 30 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. And let’s not forget too quickly that Japanese tourists were infected in Hawaii in September of 2019.

The internet has seen many posts by Americans – including many physicians – claiming infections from September, 2019 onward, all describing similar symptoms consistent with COVID-19. I have many received messages from Americans in Washington, New York, California, Maryland, Virginia, and other states, as well as from Germany and Italy, claiming similar infections as early as late September, claims too numerous, too detailed, and too similar to be ignored.

New York’s Governor Cuomo still claims the “Coronavirus came to New York from Europe, not China“, but this is more a pre-emptive move to deflect the blame which is certain to follow the inescapable conclusion that Europe was seeded from the US. The basis for their claim appears to be solely that the virus strain affecting New York and Italy are identical, the blame attributed to travelers from Italy infecting Americans in New York, ignoring the fact that the airplanes, people – and viruses – travel in both directions with equal ease and all evidence is that the infection occurred in the other direction.[22][23] Since only the US contained all varieties of this virus, the most logical assumption is that the travel path was from the US to Italy.

Others in the US have used the same directional reasoning, still without justification. American researchers tracked the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in LA and found most of the early cases may track back to Europe. They examined around 200 patients with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test results positive for SARS-CoV-2, and found that 82% of the cases shared closest similarity to those originating in Europe while only 15% from Asia. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 genomes in Los Angeles were predominantly related to the viral strain in New York City, and unrelated to Wuhan or China. In July of 2020, the US CDC released a report saying SARS-CoV-2 specimens in NYC resembled those circulating in Europe, suggesting probable introductions of the virus from Europe, other US locations, and local introductions from within New York.[24] Again, they ignore the inescapable fact that travel is a two-way street.

Japan, South Korea, Italy and Iran reported that their domestic outbreaks of COVID-19 were not from China but instead showing connection to the US. Japan and Taiwan have documented proof that several Japanese became infected in Hawaii in late September of 2019. As well, the huge pent-up eruptions in Washington and New York were domestic in origin, having no proven connection with China.[25] Australia’s Prime Minister stated that 80% or more of all infections in his country came from the US,[26] while Iceland confirmed that some of their coronavirus infections have been traced to Denver.[27][28] The mayor of Belleville, New Jersey, Michael Melham said he has tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, adding that he contracted it in November, over two months before the first confirmed case was reported in the U.S.[29] Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, said the coronavirus may have been circulating in the country since November.[30]

There was also independent research by a Cambridge geneticist suggesting the coronavirus may have been circulating much earlier than previously believed, also claiming powerful circumstantial evidence that the virus did not originate in Wuhan.[31] In a paper published in May of 2020 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he reported three main strains of the virus that he labeled A, B and C. His research determined that A was the founding variant because it was the version most similar to the type of SARS-Cov-2 discovered in bats. But the A strain was non-existent in China, with only a handful of samples discovered in the entire country, and those in American nationals. Wuhan was infected with type B, a version two mutations from A, meaning it could not have originated in China because it had no prior source from which to mutate.

Further, a German scientist has recently assembled a volume of evidence that the virus in Europe spread from (but not necessarily originated in) Northern Italy.[32] Germany’s top virologist Alexander Kekule said “[the COVID-19] rampant around the world is not from the central Chinese city of Wuhan, but a mutation from northern Italy.” The Italian strain is called “G” mutant, which has genetic mutations, and is likely to be more contagious than the variant found in Wuhan. He said that over 99% of the COVID-19 cases can be genetically traced back to the Italian variant, and even the current cases in China are re-imported from Europe and the rest of the world. He noted that for at least the European pandemic, “the starting shot was fired in northern Italy.”

There is more. Recent research conducted jointly by British and German experts, testified the variant of novel coronavirus that is closest to that discovered in bats was actually found mainly among cases from the US, rather than in Wuhan. Experts from the University of Cambridge and their peers from Germany analyzed 160 virus genomes that were extracted from human patients around the world and found the coronavirus mutated into three distinct strains. They found that most cases carried type A virus – the ancestral type of virus, which is bat coronavirus, with 96 percent sequence similarity to the human virus – were mostly seen only in patients from the US and Australia. And of the five individuals with type A detected in Wuhan, all were American patients who had resided there.[33] Type C is a variant of type B, seen most commonly in European countries and also evident in Singapore and South Korea as well as China’s Hong Kong and Taiwan. Their other conclusion was that because the virus mutates significantly faster outside China, the European spread likely occurred between September 13, 2019 to December 7, 2019.

Zeng Guang, the chief epidemiologist at China’s CDC said one reason China identified the virus and the dangers of an epidemic was from its experience with SARS, and from that the nation established a reporting system for pneumonia with unknown causes. But he said that also made China easily misunderstood. Other nations including the US experienced respiratory illnesses that were almost certainly COVID-19 but weren’t looking for an external pathogen and thus didn’t find it, as with the US vaping-death epidemic and similar.[34] He also said studies show “a very high possibility” that COVID-19 first emerged outside China.

The evidence is now accepted more or less universally that the Huanan Market in Wuhan was a victim of COVID-19 rather than the origin. And in fact, the first person in China proven to have been infected by the virus, had had no contact whatever with that market, nor did about 30% of the first victims. Further, the virus strains in Italy, Iran, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, are different from the one that contaminated Wuhan. Since only the US has all the various strains, it would seem those infections must have originated there.[35] Chinese scientists are certain the origin and distribution of the virus can be found if all nations cooperate. Unfortunately, the US refuses to do so, blocking all attempts at cooperation on this matter – while demanding that China be investigated.

Prior Knowledge – Who knew What and When?

Todas Philipson, an economist who was acting Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) said his team alerted the White House about the dangers of a looming pandemic outbreak about three months before Covid-19 erupted in the US. In an interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow he said he co-authored and published a CEA report titled “Mitigating the Impact of Pandemic Influenza through Vaccine Innovation” that warned a pandemic disease could kill as many as half a million Americans and cause up to $3.79 trillion in damage to the US economy, stating the report was presented to President Trump or his top officials and that “The White House is fully aware of what CEA puts out.”[36]

A bit more to the point, an ABC News Report stated, “Concerns about [COVID-19] were detailed in a November intelligence report by the military’s National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), according to two officials familiar with the document’s contents. The timeline of the intel side of this may be [even] further back than we’re discussing,” the source said of preliminary reports from Wuhan.” The intelligence source quoted by ABC said further, “Analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event”. And the Washington Post wrote that “. . . reports from US intelligence agencies starting in January that warned of the scale and intensity of the coronavirus outbreak in China, [in Wuhan] could develop into a “full-blown pandemic”.”

CNN had this report: “The US military’s National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) compiled a November intelligence report in which “analysts concluded it could be a cataclysmic event”, one of the sources of the NCMI’s report told ABC News. The source told ABC News that the intelligence report was then briefed “multiple times” to the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s Joint Staff and the White House. The Pentagon, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and White House National Security Council, originally declined to comment.” They later denied knowledge of the report, but ABC was sufficiently secure in the reliability of its four unrelated sources that they repeatedly republished the article for days after the NCMI disavowal.

Perhaps most startling of all, Israeli television and other news media claimed that US intelligence agencies alerted Israel to the coronavirus outbreak in China in November – long before the Chinese had any idea the game was afoot.[37] According to Israel’s Channel 12 news, the US intelligence community became aware of the emerging disease in Wuhan in the second week of that month and drew up a classified document. They claimed Trump “did not deem it of interest”, but the Americans delivered their classified document to both NATO and Israel’s IDF – who informed the government, who then leaked it to the media. They claimed it wasn’t clear if the NMCI report was the same one sent to NATO and the IDF. US authorities disclaimed this, but the Israeli media were firm in their assertion that the information was valid and followed the path they stated. The Times of Israel has a good reputation for factual reporting and cannot be dismissed as easily as can CNN or Fox News. Or the NYT and WSJ, for that matter.

The Wuhan Military Games

An American, George Webb, published some videos where he claimed he had identified “patient zero”, a US soldier who had participated in the Wuhan Games and who had exhibited COVID-19 symptoms and later tested positive for the virus. The woman’s name was Mattje Benassi, who understandably did not benefit from the adverse publicity. She and her husband claim they have received hateful messages and even death threats from this. I genuinely sympathise with the woman and I deplore the fact that she was personally identified. I do not know if she had or did not have the virus infection in Wuhan but, if she did, she was certainly a victim and not a perpetrator. However, I would say that she now knows how China feels at having been lambasted incessantly in the US media, when China was also an innocent victim and not a perpetrator. Benassi should take her problem to Mike Pompeo, which is where it belongs. In any case, Benassi should be left alone because the preponderance of evidence is that the virus was circulating in both the US and Europe long before the Military Games.

Nevertheless, there were indeed a number of Americans who were hospitalised in Wuhan during the Games for a strange and unidentified illness. One hospital spokesman attempted to cover up the story by claiming the Americans were suffering from Malaria, a claim which could not possibly be true. I have no further details, but if the virus were in fact transmitted to China during the Military Games, it would not have been done by first infecting all the American soldiers, then setting them loose onto the Chinese, any military infections likely being accidental. My information is that it was the civilian hangers-on who would have been responsible for the virus distribution – assuming the Americans were behind it, of course.

There was initial speculation that the virus had come to China (and spread around the world) from the US during the Games, but this died from a lack of hard evidence – prematurely, as it turns out . Not only were many US troops infected, but it is now apparent that a great many soldiers from different countries did in fact return home from the Games infected with COVID-19. The respective governments have downplayed the matter and the US media have totally censored it, so almost no one outside Europe has any knowledge of this. I would note here that I am in contact with a group of about 200 scientists, primarily but not exclusively European, who have informally banded together to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and to share information. They have identified many countries whose soldiers returned home infected from Wuhan, France perhaps being the most notable with half the crew of the Charles de Gaulle (the flagship of the French navy) being infected and a large concentration of infections (and the first death) occurring at the airport where the French soldiers made their transit on their return.

The Italian Gazetta Dello Sport wrote that Wuhan “became a hotbed of the pandemic” and that there were emerging testimonies of many Italian athletes who, on those dates or after returning home, were all similarly affected by typical COVID-19 symptoms including coughing, breathing difficulties, weakness and a persistent fever. Athletes from many countries returned home ill from Wuhan, and it wasn’t the food. France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Italy, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the US, and others. There was a great deal of media coverage, but none of that reached the US or Canada; the information was totally censored.

According to Matteo Tagliariol, a star fencing member of the Italian delegation, “When we arrived in Wuhan, almost everyone got sick. I had a heavy cough. (…) Many had a fever, even though their temperature was not very high” adding that one of his teammates had to be bedridden for most of the stay. A week after returning home, Tagliariol became seriously ill. “I have mild asthma, but this was different. I felt like I couldn’t breathe anymore.” His partner and two-year-old son also became ill. “When we started talking about coronavirus, without any medical skills, I thought I’d caught it. I’m 37 years old, I’m a sportsman and I was really bad.”[38]

French pentathlete Élodie Clouvel stated (for herself and her husband Valentin Belaud, also a pentathlete), “we have already had the coronavirus. We were in Wuhan for the World Military Games and then we all got sick. Valentin missed three days of training. I also had stuff I hadn’t had before. We didn’t worry more than that because we weren’t talking about [the virus] yet. There were a lot of athletes at the World Military Games who have been very sick.” Clouvel stated that a military doctor confirmed that they had been infected by the coronavirus, and repeated the physician’s evidence that “many people in [the French] delegation were sick”.[39]

In May of 2020, the French media group RTL published a report which said in part, “In the search for the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, suspicions are growing, as well as testimonies about the World Military Games held in Wuhan, the epicentre of the epidemic, at the end of last October. French pentathlete Élodie Clouvel has already assured that she was most certainly infected, as was her husband Valentin Belaud, when she was there. Italian and Spanish athletes have made similar statements, and now we learn that the luggage of French athletes has passed through the military base of Creil, in the Oise, where the virus circulated very early in France . . . This new element shines a little more spotlight on these military Games, with always so many questions and few answers.”[40]

“Scores of athletes from other nations, including France and Italy, who participated in the games reported symptoms consistent with COVID-19 upon their return to their home countries. In retrospect, some doctors said those athletes suffered from COVID-19 and in some cases infected others, according to news reports.”[41] “French athletes’ concerns that they were infected by COVID-19 while participating in the games have been called “completely plausible” by Eric Caumes, an infectious and tropical disease specialist at the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris.”[42]

It was amusing that the French DGSI, France’s intelligence service, were also affected, the symptoms apparently including massive diarrhea, but as one French news medium reported, “How many are there? What is their state of health? It’s impossible to know. The country’s most secretive institution does not disclose anything, much less when it is hit within it. At the Ministry of the Interior, it is motus and mouth sewn: no confirmation, no information, the secret remains well guarded.”

Still with France, the Oise region in the North was one of the epicenters of COVID-19, with local officials convinced the Creil airbase was “the source of contamination” of the entire area which had several serious infection clusters. This was the airbase used to return soldiers from the Games as well as to repatriate French nationals from Wuhan. Military officials first claimed that all arrivals had been tested, but later during a parliamentary grilling confessed to misunderstanding because of “not being doctors” and not actually having tested anyone.

One portion of France’s Defense Ministry was honest and forthcoming: “The spread of the virus by the military is not to be excluded, more than 9000 participants for 110 states [during the Military Games], which explains the global contamination. On their return, the representatives (in France 415 including 58 gendarmes) infected family, relatives and colleagues. . . . at that time nothing was known, it was “unbeknownst to them . . .”[43] But then, the French Ministry of Armies was less forthcoming: “There were no cases reported within the French delegation to the Influenza Or Hospital Army Health Service during and on the return of the military Games, which could be akin to cases of Covid-19. To date, and to our knowledge, no other country represented in Wuhan has reported such cases.”[44] But then a third military official settled the matter with a typically French finality of phrase: “No, definitely no, the military base in Creil is not the source of a cluster in the Oise . . . I think I can tell you . . . probably not . . .”

It is a bit maddening that in each case in Europe, as with the US, the authorities either disclaim any knowledge of, or deny outright, any COVID-19 infections among their troops. According to Le Parisien, the French delegation’s cargo (and personnel) passed through the Creil airbase, which was one of the major COVID-19 flash-points in France, with infections actually beginning in November of 2019, more than three months before the first “officially-confirmed” case. But the version of the French officials is that the virus was unknown at the time so that no testing was done although general medical attention was delivered. Officials from several European militaries and Defense Ministries made essentially this claim: “We contacted the athletes to ask if any had had any symptoms. None of them came forward, so we assumed that no one had been infected.” Nothing more to see here. The Swiss military believed it was “unlikely” that its 121-member delegation was affected, even though a handful of Swiss athletes had to be hospitalized in Wuhan, while the military health services of several countries say they “cannot recall” any cases of illness on the return from Wuhan. All this while the same troops are giving media interviews describing this same illness.

In the US, after the Games about 300 US military personnel returned home to nearly 250 bases in 25 states, without ever being screened for possible COVID-19 infection. “According to the Pentagon, there was no reason to do so then, or subsequently. A spokesperson issued a terse email response to the question, saying there was no screening because the event—held from October 18 to 27, 2019 – “was prior to the reported outbreak “. Since that email, Pentagon officials have repeatedly declined to speak on or off the record regarding the subject.”[45]

This report in Prospect.org claims that “Contrary to the Pentagon’s insistence, however, an investigation of COVID-19 cases in the military from official and public source materials shows that a strong correlation exists in COVID-19 cases reported at U.S. military facilities that are home bases of members of the U.S. team that went to Wuhan . . . infections occurred at a minimum of 63 military facilities where team members returned after the Wuhan games.” It states that this information was emerging but on March 31, 2020 the Pentagon restricted the release of information about COVID-19 cases at installations “for security reasons”. As of June 5, there were 10,462 COVID-19 cases in the Department of Defense in the military, civilian, dependent, and contractor categories.

“When asked why the athletes and support staff who had been in China were not screened as a precaution once the COVID-19 threat was known in January , Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at an April 14 press conference: “I am not aware of what you are talking about.” The question and response were not included in the Pentagon’s official written transcript of the briefing, as is the normal procedure. The official video of the briefing goes silent when the question is asked and Esper can be seen – but not heard – reacting to the question. The full audio and video exchange remains on the C-SPAN video of the event.”[46]

The Vaccination Twilight Zone

There is something potentially much more sinister here, detailed by two medical specialists: Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former V-P of Pfizer and the head of their respiratory research, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician, pulmonary specialist, and epidemiologist, and former Public Health Department head. Dr. Yeadon states that Pfizer’s vaccine [and possibly others] contains a spike protein called syncytin-1, which is vital for the formation of the placenta in pregnant women. He states that if the vaccine works as intended and forms an immune response against the spike protein, the female body will then also attack syncytin-1, which could cause infertility in women that might (or might not) be permanent. His public statement was basically that Covid-19 vaccines were effectively a female sterilisation program. On December 1, 2020, Drs. Yeadon and Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer variants.

This would seem bizarre at first glance, except for the knowledge that this precise protocol has been executed before. Some years ago, the WHO, in conjunction with Rothschild, Sanofi and Connaught Labs and the US CDC, sterilised about 150 million women in undeveloped countries, without their knowledge or consent. This is not conspiracy theory, but documented fact. The WHO’s own website covers in detail how they spent 20 years and more than $400 million developing a “fertility-regulating” vaccine that was intended to cause permanent sterilisation. They utilised the female hCg hormone – which is vital for the implantation of the placenta in the uterus wall – combined with tetanus toxoid, and launched massive international campaigns ostensibly to vaccinate females against tetanus. But they conducted this campaign only among females of child-bearing age (roughly 14 to 40). The intent, and the result, was that when a woman’s body recognised the hCg hormone, it would attack and destroy it as an invader and thus prevent any pregnancy from coming to term. There were massive lawsuits and recriminations when this was discovered, and today there are many nations that will not permit entry to the WHO, UNICEF, or other UN bodies. When Bill Gates was speaking of the world population increasing to perhaps 9 billion and that, with effective planning, he could reduce this increase by “maybe 1.5 billion births”, this is almost certainly what he had in mind, and Gates is the largest financial supporter of the WHO. I won’t dwell further on this here, but I did research the topic thoroughly and wrote an article which is available on this site.[47] If you haven’t read it, I strongly recommend that you do so. It will give you a powerful insight into the criminality of these international organisations.

With reference to the COVID-19 vaccines being promoted by Pfizer and others, I have received communication from medical scientists in two European countries claiming the vaccinations may indeed be intended primarily for sterilisation, perhaps not meant for Western nations, but for all the others. They are similarly concerned about the sudden campaign by the WHO and US CDC for cervical cancer shots for teenagers.

Media Censorship

We have already read much here from Ron Unz and others about Google suppressing websites, articles and authors which conflict with the official story on any matter, with Twitter and Facebook doing the same, either through an open policy of controlling “fake news” or surreptitiously by other means. But there are many more, and more pointed, censorship attempts occurring well beyond Google, Facebook and Twitter. As one example, I knew my email was being monitored so I obtained an encrypted Proton Mail account. Following this, certain (non-China) acquaintances informed me that all mail from this account was automatically directed to their spam folders, a fault they are helpless to rectify. In addition, they inform me that attempting to send email to this same account (or reply to it) is rejected by their either their ISP or email program as “spam”, and are thus forced to communicate with me only through my public email address – which can be monitored. Another European friend now sends her emails with topic headings like ‘What are you doing this weekend?’ She discovered that any attempts to send a message with either my name or the titles of any of my articles in the subject line, will result in Google’s Gmail categorising the messages as spam, and not only refusing to send the messages but deleting the list of intended recipients.

A Few Ponderables

  1. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreaks, why was the US military advertising for Russian DNA from the fluid of specific body joints, insisting the sources had to be entirely ethnic Russian and not Ukrainian or similar?
  2. Why did the US CDC suddenly shut down Fort Detrick entirely, for about 6 months? Why, immediately following this shutdown were there persistent reports of strange pneumonia infections (and deaths) affecting the elderly, especially in nursing homes, in the area surrounding Fort Detrick?
  3. What was the cause of the severe pneumonias and deaths of the young people that were originally attributed to vaping? All attending physicians claimed the vaping itself was not the prime cause, that there was another pathogen at work but they had no idea what it was at the time, stating now that the combination with COVID-19 could indeed be deadly even to young otherwise-healthy individuals.
  4. Why did Pompeo suddenly mandate that all COVID-19 information be classified and run through the NSC? Why did he further mandate that all hospitals, clinics and labs remit all COVID-19 information to the White House and bypass both the CDC and the media? When reports began surfacing of COVID-19 being found in US wastewater samples from 2019, why were they subject to a gag order?
  5. Why was the US the only significant country that refused to conduct any search for a patient zero?
  6. Why did the CDC specifically forbid testing for the coronavirus, except in severe cases already in the ICU?
  7. Why was Dr. Helen Chu given a formal and legal “cease and desist” order preventing her from testing the thousands of flu samples in Washington State from 2019?
  8. Why were FEMA and Israel’s Mossad hijacking planeloads of face masks, respirators and other vital protective equipment from airports in China, and shipping them to Israel instead of the US where they were badly needed?[48]Why was FEMA confiscating these materials and equipment from suppliers and hospitals all across the US, and refusing information about their disposition?[48]
  9. How was Pompeo able to notify NATO commanders and Israel’s IDF – in November – about a mysterious virus that would be circulating in China two or three months later?
  10. Why did John Bolton eliminate the entire executive group responsible for pandemic response coordination in the US, eviscerating the nation’s infectious disease defense infrastructure, and eliminating 80% of the department that could have helped other nations detect and control the epidemics they later suffered?

A Few Comments on China

China has accumulated much experience in dealing with US bio-pathogens, seven or eight in the last two years alone. When the Chinese authorities learned that the new pathogen was SARS-2, they already knew the source, the intent, and the potential effects. That was why Xi Jinping said “This is a demon, and we cannot let this demon hide.” When they knew what it was, they knew what had to be done.

China has had virtually no domestic infections since Wuhan was unlocked. There have been occasional ones and twos in scattered locations, but all others have been imported by foreign nationals. Many want to say that China handled the virus badly, but look at the results. China’s economy is booming. GDP is well in positive territory, projected at 7.5% for 2021, foreign trade is up around 15% over 2019, with exports rising sharply and domestic consumption doing the same. Unemployment is not an issue in China; I speak to factories that have to offer a 30% premium to obtain sufficient workers. All the kindergartens, schools and universities, and restaurants are open, domestic train and plane travel have recovered to 95% or more of normal in most cases, and life is essentially back to normal. Life in Wuhan is as alive and active today as before the epidemic, with few remaining hints of its early suffering. China is developing vaccines against the virus, but I haven’t met anyone who wants one or who thinks they need it. We have no intrusive measures, no “contact-tracing” software, and no RFID chips implanted in the backs of our necks. We still wear face masks on the subway and our temperature is taken as we enter travel venues like airports and train stations, so vigilance is still there, but without effect on anyone’s daily life.

American politicians and the major US media still claim that China badly understated its numbers and that the country really had 50 million infections and 5 million dead. If this were true, that makes the country’s recovery even more dramatic, doesn’t it?

Epilogue

I would like to end this essay on a note of cheer, but no encouragement exists for such a sentiment. From the earliest days, when it became apparent this virus would spread, I researched daily the progress of infections and deaths for every country and all indications are that we are still very far from the end. There are almost no nations that appear to be tailing off and almost all major countries are still increasing, the US most notably but it isn’t alone. Worse, whenever a nation does taper off, it is hit harder. China was one case, with the release in Beijing’s Xinfadi Market and then in Xinjiang, but most every other nation has received the same treatment. Most economies, certainly the West, are in free-fall with the end not yet in sight. In the contrived financial crisis of 2007 – the one the FED pretended to end in 2009 but that never actually ended – the US saw about a full half of its middle class descend into the lower class. I wrote then that they would never recover because that was only the first step of a deliberate process, and I believe subsequent events have vindicated my position. Before this crisis ends, another full half of the remaining American middle class will disappear, and this will now never be recoverable. Americans need to believe their leaders who tell them life will never return to ‘normal’. It will not.

For COVID-19, I am 100% convinced that some part of the American government, perhaps acting independently on behalf of the Deep State, created and deliberately released the coronavirus upon the world. With everything I know, the alternative of a natural outbreak is almost an impossibility. There is still new information escaping confinement and I am hopeful we will find sufficient evidence to justify an international criminal tribunal to unearth all the facts and perhaps undo some of the damage. Those responsible will escape, as always.

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 28 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English-language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. His full archive can be seen at https://www.moonofshanghai.com/ and http://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com.

End Notes

(1) The 1918 influenza pandemic that we now call the ‘Spanish Flu’ had three waves, but I am ignoring this example because (a) it appears unique, (b) the mass movement of troops during the war contributed to and greatly affected the spread and, (c) there are disturbing reports with credible documentation that this deadly pandemic may not have been a natural disaster but the result of human tinkering, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured by the Rockefeller Institute and tested at Fort Riley which is where the pandemic began. To tell the truth, the mere fact that Reuters did a “fact-check” on this topic and declared the claim false (a), is enough to make anyone damned suspicious since Reuters have the same credibility in these matters as do the NYT and WSJ. I don’t want to dwell on this here, but suffice to say it doesn’t qualify as a template for multiple waves of an infection. You can read more here, if you’re interested. (b) (c) (d)

(a) False claim: the 1918 influenza pandemic was caused by a vaccine; https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-vaccines-caused-1918-influe-idUSKBN21J6X2

(b) https://freepress.org/article/did-vaccine-experiment-us-soldiers-cause-%E2%80%9Cspanish-flu%E2%80%9D

(c) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/03/no_author/did-a-vaccine-experiment-on-u-s-soldiers-cause-the-spanish-flu/

(d) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126288/pdf/449.pdf

(2) China had its own ‘second wave’ in the outbreak at the Xinfadi Market in Beijing. I wrote an article on this, (e) providing much of the background detail, but let me cover a few points here. Xinfadi is the largest fruit and vegetable market in Asia, covering millions of square feet and with thousands of shops. The authorities discovered that the entire market “from head to foot” had been infected with what I am calling “COVID-20” to differentiate it from the initial outbreak in Wuhan. The reason is that this was an entirely new version of the virus (Type A) that had not been in China before, a much more virulent strain (at least to ethnic Chinese) and one which, had it escaped confinement, would have created a humanitarian disaster of enormous proportion. Fortunately, the authorities had not at all relaxed their vigilance and discovered the infections almost immediately, shutting down the market, locking down the neighborhood, tracing all the contacts, and killing it dead within two weeks and with only a handful of infections. Pompeo must have been livid.

(e) https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/china-reseeded-with-covid-20/

China also had a ‘third wave’, a spike of COVID-19 cases in Xinjiang that were similar or the same variety introduced into Beijing. (f) But once again, the Chinese government was unquestionably expecting further attempts to infect the nation, Xinjiang almost certainly being a favored location. Thus, the medical authorities never relaxed their vigilance so the cases were caught quickly and the new virus stamped out within two or three weeks after only a few dozen cases. Pompeo must have been livid.

(f) https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1195811.shtml

References

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section11.html

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/experts-want-to-know-why-coronavirus-hasnt-killed-more-russians/ar-BB142pz3

[3] https://www.rt.com/usa/488690-western-media-russia-coronavirus-numbers/

[4] https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/27/why-covid-19-granted-the-u-s-most-favored-nation-status/

[5] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/covid-19-two-major-waves-of-global-infection-towards-global-contamination/

[6] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/part-2-a-paradigm-shift-covid-19-needs-a-criminal-investigation/

[7] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/covid-19-targeting-italy-and-south-korea-the-chain-of-transmission-of-infection/

[8] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/china-reseeded-with-covid-20/

[9] https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/italy-sewage-study-suggests-covid19-was-there-in-december-2019/news-story/2fd865f7b12a33698f3e9ab2f15a35e3

[10] https://sputniknews.com/europe/202006191079667103-scientists-find-traces-of-sars-cov-2-in-italian-wastewater-predating-2019-wuhan-outbreak/

[11] https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/152038#Italy-traces-virus-back-to-December-2019-study-finds

[12] http://en.people.cn/n3/2020/1211/c90000-9798189.html

[13] https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-italy-timing/coronavirus-emerged-in-italy-earlier-than-thought-italian-study-shows-idINKBN27V0KH

[14] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/coronavirus-italy-anitbodies-covid-study-b1723243.html

[15] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ

[16] https://www.rt.com/news/506796-coronavirus-italy-blood-september/

[17] https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/covid-19-comment-des-chercheurs-ont-retrouve-des-traces-de-la-maladie-quatre-mois-apres-04-05-2020-8310726.php

[18] https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/patient-infecte-par-le-coronavirus-en-decembre-comme-des-coups-de-couteau-en-plein-thorax-05-05-2020-8311272.php

[19] https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world/coronavirus-outbreak-in-france-did-not-come-directly-from-china-gene-tracing-scientists-say/ar-BB13kun3

[20] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-01/Data-shows-Canada-s-early-COVID-19-cases-came-from-the-U-S-not-China-Q8jSdpazo4/index.html

[21] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1192389.shtml

[22] https://newsaf.cgtn.com/news/2020-04-25/Coronavirus-came-to-New-York-from-Europe-not-China-Governor-PXHsqNUTHG/index.html

[23] http://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-nyt-new-york-coronavirus-europe-genomes-20200409-iti55bz5crbatn2xo5a56sdzda-story.html

[24] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/11/c_139431301.htm

[25] https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202004/30/WS5eaa39a6a310a8b241152e71.html

[26] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-03-22/PM-Morrison-80-percent-Australia-cases-are-imported-mostly-from-U-S–P41uG3CfWU/index.html

[27] https://www.denverpost.com/2020/03/13/iceland-coronavirus-traced-denver/

[28] https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2020/03/13/three_covid_19_cases_in_iceland_traced_to_denver/

[29] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-05/U-S-Belleville-mayor-claims-that-he-had-coronavirus-in-November-2019-Qfq40LrHlC/index.html

[30] https://www.ft.com/content/aba67162-9129-41b9-b82b-d61a890e6589

[31] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-05-13/scientist-suggests-coronavirus-originated-outside-of-wuhan

[32] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-28/Novel-coronavirus-not-from-Wuhan-says-top-German-virologist-VMzm7Cj6ZW/index.html

[33] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1185291.shtml

[34] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-10/Expert-Spotting-COVID-19-first-doesn-t-make-China-origin-of-virus-VjaqEE3Mre/index.html

[35] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/part-2-a-paradigm-shift-covid-19-needs-a-criminal-investigation/

[36] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/17/business/pandemic-warning-tomas-philipson/index.html

[37] https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-alerted-israel-nato-to-disease-outbreak-in-china-in-november-report/

[38] https://www.gazzetta.it/Sport-Vari/06-05-2020/coronavirus-mondiali-militari-wuhan-ottobre-tagliariol-370755837301.shtml

[39] https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2020/05/19/covid19-laffaire-des-jeux-mondiaux-militaires-de-wuhan/

[40] https://www.rtl.fr/actu/bien-etre/coronavirus-les-bagages-des-athletes-des-jeux-militaires-wuhan-ont-transite-a-creil-7800496768

[41] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8291755/Did-European-athletes-catch-coronavirus-competing-World-Military-Games-Wuhan-OCTOBER.html

[42] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/french-army-returned-wuhan-military-21988912

[43] https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actu-terre/jeux-mondiaux-militaire-d-ete-de-wuhan

[44] https://www.lematin.ch/story/des-athletes-infectes-a-wuhan-en-octobre-deja-990586772177

[45] https://prospect.org/coronavirus/did-the-military-world-games-spread-covid-19/

[46] https://www.c-span.org/video/?471201-1/defense-secretary-esper-general-milley-coronavirus-news-conference

[47] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/a-cautionary-tale-about-the-who/

[48] https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/covid-19-fema-and-mossad-stealing-from-peter-to-pay-paul/

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

Coronavirus Litigation

 

German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation  By Joseph Mercola, Mercola.com, 13 December 2020

 

Reiner Fuellmich,1 who has been a consumer protection trial lawyer in California and Germany2 for 26 years, is a founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,3 or ACU),4,5 launched July 10, 2020.

Fuellmich is leading the committee’s corona crisis tort case — an international class-action lawsuit that will be filed against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world.

He estimates more than 50 other countries will be following suit. In the video above, Patrick Bet-David interviews Fuellmich about how and why the group was formed and the status of this work.

The Backstory

Early on, as Fuellmich started hearing concerns from family and friends in Germany about a new respiratory virus, one particular name kept popping up: professor Christian Drosten, Ph.D., a German virologist.

As head of the Institute of Virology at the University of Bonn Medical Centre, Drosten is best known for developing the first diagnostic test for SARS in 2003. He also developed a diagnostic test for the swine flu,6 and in 2009 helped drum up panic with doomsday prophesies about H1N1.

When COVID-19 initially emerged in early 2020, Drosten kept saying there was no cause for concern. Then, seemingly overnight, he changed his tune, “as though someone had given him a signal.” All of a sudden, Drosten was saying that this virus was extremely dangerous and that drastic measures to contain it had to be implemented.

Based on whistleblower testimony, the German government relied on the opinion of Drosten alone when deciding on their pandemic response, which included the lockdown of healthy citizens and the suspension of constitutional rights for an indefinite period of time.

Interestingly, Fuellmich’s team recently discovered that Drosten’s Ph.D. dissertation is a fraud. It was only created this year when people began investigating his background.

Aside from Drosten, other individuals who have prominent roles include Lothar H. Wieler, the head of the German equivalent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the World Health Organization and Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College of London.

Unsure of what was going on, Fuellmich contacted an old friend, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German Congress and the Council of Europe. Wodarg urged him to investigate and suggested some names of experts to look into, such as professor John Ioannidis at Stanford University and professor and Nobel Prize winner Michael Levitt.

The more he investigated the facts available, the more Fuellmich realized COVID-19 was being grossly oversold. Eventually, he started making inquiries to see if there were any other lawyers out there raising questions about the legality of the pandemic and the global response to it.

He discovered that Beate Bahner, an attorney specializing in medical law, had in fact spoken out, arguing that Germany’s quarantine measures were unconstitutional. She was arrested and held in a psychiatric ward for a number of days. Needless to say, that wasn’t an encouraging start.

Separation of Power Has Been Breached

Disturbingly, while the governments of many nations have the same separation of power as the U.S., where you have separate legislative, judiciary and executive branches, we are now finding that this separation has been breached and nearly destroyed in most places.

Rather than being run by the legislators that we voted into power (and who have the legal power to make law), we’re being ruled by the executive branch, such as our local governors, who are creating rules and regulations without having the legal and constitutional power to do so.

They may issue emergency orders for a few days, but really that’s the extent of their legal power. After that, the legislature must be brought in. Yet here we are, several months into the pandemic, and local governors and mayors all over the world are still issuing long-term mandatory mask and social distancing orders, many of which call for the arrest of those who don’t follow the rules.

We now have plenty of data showing its lethality is on par with the common flu and that the absolute risk of death is equivalent to the risk of dying in a car accident.

As noted by Fuellmich, the judiciary branch must step in, and now, finally, they are starting to do so. In Austria, the constitutional court issued an order November 12, 2020, not only clarifying the separation of powers and stressing that the legislative branch must be involved, but also that there must be a comprehensive discussion where both sides are heard. There are other scientists besides those anointed by the government, and their opinions must be considered as well.

Suing the World Over Faux Pandemic

As noted by Bet-David, there are several important questions that must be answered:

  • What caused the pandemic?
  • Who started it?
  • Who needs to be held accountable?
  • In what way must they be held accountable?

Fuellmich agrees, saying that answering these questions is the reason for why ACU was formed. Governments appear unwilling to investigate the answers to these questions, and that’s why he and three other attorneys decided to take on the task of preparing class-action lawsuits. The primary questions the ACU seeks to answer are:

  1. How dangerous is the virus, really?
  2. How trustworthy is the PCR test; what does a positive test really mean?
  3. How much damage do the anti-COVID measures inflict to the economy and the health and well-being of the population?

What Do We Now Know?

The last question is easily answered, Fuellmich says. Evidence shows pandemic measures have caused tremendous harm, killing more people than the virus itself by restricting routine medical care to people with acute and chronic health conditions that have nothing to do with COVID-19.

As for the danger of SARS-CoV-2, we now have plenty of data showing its lethality is on par with the common flu7,8,9,10,11 and that the absolute risk of death is equivalent to the risk of dying in a car accident.12,13 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same.

According to Fuellmich, even the WHO has now admitted that the mortality of COVID-19 is on par with seasonal influenza. In October 2020, the WHO also reversed its stance on lockdowns, stating they no longer recommend using lockdowns as a primary control method.14

Several experts have also stressed that there is no excess mortality,15,16 meaning we’ve had an average number of deaths during the pandemic as would normally die anyway. And, if there’s no excess mortality, how can there be a lethal pandemic? It doesn’t add up.

Fraudulent Testing Is Driving Pandemic Narrative

Of the three questions, the second one is perhaps the most important, as mass testing is driving the narrative that we’re in a lethal pandemic. As explained by Fuellmich, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several weaknesses that appear to be taken advantage of to create needless fear.

The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.17 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.

Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.” The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly.

In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, they must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold.

When you go above 30 cycles, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

According to Fuellmich, the consensus is that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible. Yet Drosten’s test and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.18,19,20

When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise. At present, and going back a number of months now, what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic,”21,22 meaning an epidemic of false positives.

Remember, in medical terminology, when used accurately, a “case” refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. By erroneously reporting positive tests as “cases,” the pandemic appears magnitudes worse than it actually is. For this reason, Fuellmich and his team are primarily focused on the PCR test issue.

They’ve taken testimony from a number of well-respected immunologists from around the world, all of whom agree that the PCR test is incapable of telling us anything about the transmission of COVID-19.

The Panic Paper

According to Fuellmich, the sole reason the PCR test is used, and used in an incorrect way, is to create enough fear that no one will question the pandemic measures being put into place and simply do as they’re told. He goes on to review the so-called “Panic Paper,”23,24 written by the German Department of the Interior.

This classified paper, which was leaked to the press, reveals there was an intentional plan at the level of the German government to drive people into a panic.

One of the strategies laid out in the paper was to guilt children into compliance, to make them feel responsible “for the tortured death of their parents and grandparents if they do not follow the anti-corona regulations.” According to Fuellmich, what we have is a staged PCR test pandemic. It’s not a lethal virus pandemic, “and I can prove this in court,” he says.

What’s the End Game?

As noted by Fuellmich, more and more people around the world are now starting to wake up to the fact that the restrictions put into place under the guise of protecting public health are not going away anytime soon. They’re part of a much larger, long-term plan, and the end goal is to usher in a new way of life, devoid of our previous freedoms.

The judicial branch is “the last anchor of democracy,” Fuellmich says. He brings up an important point. The WHO, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations are all private corporations, yet they wield tremendous power over the governments of the world.

The World Economic Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab, is incredibly influential and lobbies politicians around the globe. Together, private corporations and politicians have in some instances usurped power from the government and are acting above the law of the land.

Big Tech plays an important part in this usurpation of power. The most important human right around the world is the right to free speech. It’s foundational for any democracy. Yet the tech giants have all banded together to censor certain segments of the global population.

“We have to take back the power from them and put it back where it belongs, with the government, and we have to take a really close look at who is in government and who became too close to these corporations,” Fuellmich says.

Key Players

While the full picture is still being put together, Fuellmich and his team have some ideas of who the key players are, at least in Germany. They include the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) of Germany, Drosten, Wieler (the head of the German equivalent of the CDC), Ghebreyesus (head of the WHO), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.

These individuals have repeatedly met over the years, including in May 2019, at which time they discussed plans for a coming pandemic. During this meeting, Drosten explained how his PCR test would be used to identify infections — “A blatant lie, as we now know it,” Fuellmich says.

These were the same individuals who in 2020 rolled out the narrative for the COVID-19 pandemic and pushed for the global implementation of PCR testing, mask wearing, social distancing and the shut-down of economies around the world.

According to Fuellmich, Germany is at the center of this global fraud, and three of the key criminals in this case appear to be Drosten, Wieler and Ghebreyesus — and the organizations behind them.

That said, he also admits there must be others behind these public marionettes that are pulling the strings. Fuellmich believes that through pretrial discovery, these shadowy figures will eventually come to light.

Battle Plan

As mentioned earlier, we must now push the judicial branch of our government to step in. Fuellmich explains:

“We have the power [to ask] courts of law to step in, but we have to show in a court of law that this is not a corona pandemic but rather a staged PCR pandemic, which was made up — invented — for completely different purposes, for these corporations.

We do not know exactly who is responsible, but we see that some of the corporations that are now censoring us are in part responsible; we know some people — such as Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab or Blackrock — were investing their money into pharmaceutical and technical companies. Also, the mainstream media, they [have been] brought into line and are not going to report on the other side of the story.

In order to bring out this story, we have to have a court of law that will take a look at the evidence that is there … And that’s what we’re doing right now. We’re doing this both in Germany and in the United States … The U.S. and Canada are so important in this because they are the two countries that have class-actions.”

At present, class-action lawsuits are being prepared in the U.S. and Canada. Lawsuits are also being prepared in Germany. Germany does not permit class-actions so, there, the process is being done a bit differently. ACU is also working on the creation of legal guidelines and data caches that attorneys around the world will be able to use to file their own lawsuits.

As for the average person, Fuellmich urges everyone to, first of all, don’t give up, and secondly, ask lots of questions. Continue asking questions because the more questions are asked, the more answers will come to light. Continue to counter the censorship by asking questions. Once court hearings begin, the information will start to spread more quickly.

To learn more, all ACU meetings are live-streamed and available on the Committee’s YouTube channel25 (at least for now). Fuellmich can be contacted via www.fuellmich.com, and the Corona Inquiry Committee via corona-ausschuss.de. Information in multiple languages should also be available on www.ACU2020.org.

Sources and References

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

The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetuated on an Unsuspecting Public

 

The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetuated on an Unsuspecting Public  By Joseph Mercola, 11 December 2020

 

According to Dr. Roger Hodkinson, one of Canada’s top pathologists and an expert in virology, the COVID-19 pandemic is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.” Hodkinson made these blunt statements during a zoom conference with an Alberta Community and Public Services Committee (see video above).

Hodkinson is the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, a biotech company that manufactures COVID-19 PCR tests, so “I might know a little bit about all this,” he said, adding that the entire situation represents “politics playing medicine,” which is “a very dangerous game.”1

He stressed that PCR tests simply cannot diagnose infection and mass testing should therefore cease immediately. He also pointed out that social distancing is useless as the virus “is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so.” As for face masks, Hodkinson stated that:

“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time.

It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — seeing these people walking around like lemmings obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face … Nothing could be done to stop the spread of the virus besides protecting older more vulnerable people.”

Former Pfizer Science Officer Claims COVID-19 Is a Scam

Hodkinson is far from alone in his assertions. For example, Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, has spoken out about how fraudulent PCR testing is being used to manufacture the appearance of a pandemic that doesn’t really exist.

As I explained in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” by using PCR testing, which cannot diagnose active infection, a false narrative has been created.

I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false. ~ Michael Yeadon, Ph.D.

Currently, rising “cases,” meaning positive tests, are being used yet again as the justification to impose more severe restrictions, including lockdowns and mandatory mask wearing, when in fact positive tests have nothing to do with the actual spread of illness, and nothing to do with the risk of death.

Like several other scientists, doctors and researchers, Yeadon has pointed out that there are no excess deaths due to COVID-19.2,3,4 According to Yeadon, who has analyzed the statistics, about 1,700 people die each day in the U.K. in any given year. Many of these deaths are now falsely attributed to COVID-19.

“I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false,” he said in a recent interview with British journalist Anna Brees (see video above). He challenges anyone who doesn’t believe him to seek out any database on total mortality. If you do that, you will find that the daily death count is “absolutely bang-on normal,” Yeadon said.

Like Hodkinson, Yeadon is concerned about the fact that the laws of immunology are being completely ignored — apparently in order to fit some hidden agenda.

While Yeadon is unwilling to guess at what might be behind the creation of these false narratives, or why scientific truth is being censored, others have linked together evidence pointing to the pandemic being used as an excuse for the redistribution of wealth and the technocratic takeover of the whole world under the banner of a “Great Reset.”

It’s being used to usher in social and economic changes that simply could never be introduced without some sort of calamity, be it war or a biological threat, because they involve a radical limitation of personal freedoms, including medical and financial freedom, and the elimination of privacy and private ownership. In short, no one in their right mind would agree to the changes that are coming, which is why fear is being used as a tool to coerce compliance.

As noted in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences paper5 “COVID-19 Emergency Measures and the Impending Authoritarian Pandemic,” written by Stephen Thompson and Eric C. Ip, both from the University of Hong Kong:

“This Article demonstrates — with diverse examples drawn from across the world — there are unmistakable regressions into authoritarianism in governmental efforts to contain the virus.

Despite the unprecedented nature of this challenge, there is no sound justification for systemic erosion of rights-protective democratic ideals and institutions beyond that which is strictly demanded by the exigencies of the pandemic …

With a gratuitous toll being inflicted on democracy, civil liberties, fundamental freedoms, healthcare ethics, and human dignity, this has the potential to unleash humanitarian crises no less devastating than COVID-19 in the long run.”

German Lawyers Gear Up to Expose the Hoax

Others who have identified the COVID-19 pandemic as a global hoax of unprecedented proportions include a group of German lawyers who founded the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee.6,7 They are now preparing the biggest class-action lawsuit in history,8,9,10,11 in which they seek to prove that fraudulent PCR tests are being misused to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic.

“This corona crisis, according to all we know today, must be renamed a corona scandal; and those responsible for it must be criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages,” Reiner Fuellmich said during a video announcement of the committee’s tort case (see video above).

Key questions the committee seeks to answer through judicial means include:

  1. Is there a COVID-19 pandemic or is there only a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test pandemic? — Specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the individual is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and has COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the COVID-19 infection?
  2. Do pandemic response measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from COVID-19, or do these measures serve only to make people panic and therefore comply with liberty-eroding edicts?

Fuellmich’s team also stress that SARS-CoV-2 — which is touted as one of the most serious threats to life in modern history — “has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world.” Pandemic measures, on the other hand, have “caused the loss of innumerable human lives, and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals worldwide,” Fuellmich noted in his announcement.

As I discussed in yesterday’s article, “Emergency COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Massive Side Effects,” modern history is filled with pandemic scares, none of which has panned out and lived up to projected death tolls. The technocrats in charge have had plenty of practice, and COVID-19 appears to be the crown jewel of their pandemic war arsenal.

Everything was in place this time. The mainstream media, Big Tech, key government leaders, nongovernmental organizations and their chosen health “experts” — all have worked in tandem to manufacture unreasonable and illogical fear. Together, they’ve effectively promoted falsehoods while simultaneously censoring truth. The end result is devastating to democracy, freedom and public health.

Others Speaking Out About COVID Hoax

One medical professional who is now speaking openly about the COVID-19 pandemic being a brazen power-grab by the technocratic elite is Dr. Lee Merritt, an orthopedic spinal surgeon with a medical practice in Logan, Iowa.12

August 16, 2020, she delivered a speech at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness13 convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, featured in “How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible,” in which she dissected the many fear-inducing lies we’ve been told about this pandemic.

When you look at the actual data and statistics available, and compare them to what we’re being told by government officials and the media, it becomes evident that there’s a gulf between the two. The data tell us SARS-CoV-2 is not the existential threat it’s been made out to be so, clearly, they want us to be fearful for some other reason.

Merritt suggests it’s because a fearful public will not put up a fight when their human rights are stripped away. Indeed, many who are fearful will gladly relinquish any and all freedoms. As noted by British Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption in a March 30, 2020, interview with The Post:14

“The real problem is that when human societies lose their freedom, it’s not usually because tyrants have taken it away. It’s usually because people willingly surrender their freedom in return for protection against some external threat. And the threat is usually a real threat but usually exaggerated.

That’s what I fear we are seeing now. The pressure on politicians has come from the public. They want action. They don’t pause to ask whether the action will work. They don’t ask themselves whether the cost will be worth paying …

Anyone who has studied history will recognize here the classic symptoms of collective hysteria. Hysteria is infectious. We are working ourselves up into a lather in which we exaggerate the threat and stop asking ourselves whether the cure may be worse than the disease.”

The End Goal Is Total Control

Vladimir Kvachkov, a former colonel of Russian military intelligence, would probably agree with the assessment that the fearmongering has a purpose other than keeping us safe from a respiratory virus. In the video above, Kvachkov refers to COVID-19 as a false pandemic, planned and implemented with the goal of gaining totalitarian control over the world population.

“It’s all a lie and needs to be considered as a global, strategic special operation,” Kvachkov says. “These are command and staff exercises of the world’s behind-the-scenes powers on controlling humanity.”

Comparing it to a military exercise, Kvachkov says the ultimate aim is to reduce the world’s population to 1 billion “ordinary” people and just 100 million of those in control — with the ordinary people being there to serve the 100 million.

In short, he says, the “artificially created” and “purposely spread” coronavirus has four dimensions. The first is religion and population reduction; the second is to establish political control over humanity; the third is to deflate the world economy; and the fourth is to eliminate geo-economic competition.

It’s important to remember that the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations are all private corporations, yet they wield tremendous power over the governments of the world and act above the law of any given nation.

Big Tech also plays an enormous role in this usurpation of power. The power grab probably couldn’t succeed without them, because the greatest threat to would-be totalitarian rulers is an informed and educated public. By banding together to censor certain information and segments of the global population, Big Tech is instrumental in undermining the foundation for democracy around the world.

What Can You Do?

More and more people around the world are now starting to wake up to the fact that the restrictions put into place under the guise of protecting public health are here to stay. They’re part of a much larger, long-term plan, and the end goal is to usher in a new way of life, devoid of our previous freedoms. This means that, eventually, everyone must decide which is more important: Personal liberty or false security?

To derail the technocrats plan, we have to make full use of the judicial system, which is why Fuellmich and his team are suing to expose the fraud, put an end to pandemic restrictions and restore our human rights. Class-action lawsuits are currently being prepared in the U.S. and Canada.

Lawsuits are also being prepared in Germany, and the Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee is working on the creation of legal guidelines and data caches that attorneys around the world will be able to use to file their own legal challenges. Fuellmich can be contacted via www.fuellmich.com, and the Corona Inquiry Committee via corona-ausschuss.de.

In closing, here’s a summary list of suggestions compiled from Fuellmich, Yeadon and others as to how you can resist and be part of the solution:

  • Turn off mainstream media news and turn to independent experts — Do the research. Read through the science. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s The Defendernewsletter is one reliable source for “banned” news. Other sources include America’s Frontline Doctorsand Doctors for the Truth (Medicos por la verdad — a group of more than 600 doctors in Spain).
  • Continue to counter the censorship by asking questions — The more questions are asked, the more answers will come to light. Arm yourself with mortality statistics and the facts on PCR testing, so you can explain how and why this pandemic simply isn’t a pandemic anymore.
  • If you are a medical professional, especially if you’re a member of a professional society, write an open letter to your government, urging them to speak to and heed recommendations from independent experts.
  • Sign The Great Barrington Declaration,15which calls for an end to lockdowns.
  • Join a group so that you can have support. Examples of groups formed to fight against government overreach include:

?Us for Them, a group campaigning for reopening schools and protecting children’s rights in the U.K.

?The COVID Recovery Group (CRG), founded by 50 conservative British MPs to fight lockdown restrictions16

?The Freedom to Breathe Agency, a U.S. team of attorneys, doctors, business owners and parents who are fighting to protect freedom and liberty

Sources and References

The Best of Joseph Mercola

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

Previous articles

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

    •  A sea of frothing, sweary, often pompous, intolerance  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 29 August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

    •  

January 2015

 

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’? Many more articles follow the seven below.

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.

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

Globalist Technocrats Poised to Press the Great Reset Button

Globalist Technocrats Poised to Press the Great Reset Button  By Dr Joseph Mercola, ChildrensHealthDefense.org 23 December 2020

Editor’s note: Click on link above to view all graphics.

ot one area of life will be left untouched by The Great Reset plan, which aims to reform everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing — even how we interact with our fellow human beings.

 Story at-a-glance:

  • The globalist technocracy is using the COVID-19pandemic to bypass democratic accountability, override opposition, accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the public against our will.
  • The Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance. You’ll be tied to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.
  • The Great Reset is about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with technocracy, publicly referred to as “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism”.
  • There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.
  • Privacy protections are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy. In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing.

What is this “Great Reset” we’re now hearing about? In a nutshell, the Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance.

As explained by journalist James Corbett in his Oct. 16, Corbett Report above, the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.

It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, anti-humanity intentions. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:

“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”

The grand plan 

In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:

“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’

“Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful ‘privilege’).

“The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet. I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you. Just ants and numbers, your assets. Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

“One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).

“And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’

“The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”

Global asset reallocations will not benefit “the people”

These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand new financial instruments that can then be traded. An example of this was given by Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., in my interview with her.

In it, she explained how India is headed toward Zero-Budget Natural Farming — a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.

There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.

Privacy protections, of course, are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy. In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing.

“To sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory.

It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account — perhaps without any human intervention at all,” Lena writes.

Stakeholder capitalism

An Oct. 5, Winter Oak article addressed the “technocratic fascist vision” of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF who wrote the book, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.

In addition to being a staunch technocrat, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and he has spoken of a near future in which humans merge with machines and in which law enforcement will be able to read our mind.

Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — points out that Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.”

“Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: The technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything.”

This is no conspiracy theory. The plan is out in the open. As noted by Time magazine, “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want.” The same statement has been delivered by a number of politicians and organizations around the world in recent months.

Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset” also urges industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic” and “not letting the crisis go to waste.” Incidentally, the owner of Time magazine and founder of Salesforce, Marc Benioff, is also a board member of the WEF, so he’s clearly familiar with the reset plan.

The problem is that while the plan is being sold as a way to, finally, make life fair and equitable for all people, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system. Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything.

While technocracy is not a political system but an economic one, in practical terms it does resemble fascism. None of it is being sold under the banner of fascism, of course. Instead, they use financial terms like “stakeholder capitalism,” described by Forbes 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.”

In that same article, Forbes points out that this strategy has already been tried and failed. It failed because balancing conflicting stakeholder claims was near-impossible and only led to mass confusion and poor returns. The failure of this strategy is what led big businesses to focus on maximizing shareholder value instead.

Now, at a time when big business finds itself under attack for “single-mindedly shoveling money to its shareholders and its executives at the expense of customers, employees, the environment and society as a whole,” the answer, they say, is to return to stakeholder capitalism. But if it didn’t work before, what makes us think it will work now?

Great reset plan for big food 

A Nov. 9, article in The Defender, a new media platform by the Children’s Health Defense, also points out the problems with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan for the food industry:

“The architects of the plan claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change. But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.”

Aside from the food industry, partners include data mining giants, telecommunications, weapons manufacturers, finance, drug companies and the biotechnology industry.

Looking at that list, it should come as no surprise that the WEF insists the future of food and public health hinges on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laboratory-grown protein, drugs and industrial chemicals.

The EAT Forum and the rise of food imperialism

To further the fake food takeover, the WEF has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT currently collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods, which was co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.

As noted by The Defender, the ultimate aim is to “replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations.” To this end, EAT is working with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to establish global dietary guidelines and sustainable development initiatives.

The “Planetary Health Diet” developed by EAT is a diet that is supposed to replace all others. Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels told The Defender:

“The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil.”

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., has raised harsh critique against the proposed diet saying it “is not about nutrition at all. It’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.” The Defender adds:

“According to EAT’s own reports, the big adjustments the organization and its corporate partners want to make to the food system are ‘unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual,’ and the changes they wish to impose on societal eating habits and food ‘require reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.’

But Shiva said this is the wrong approach, because ‘all of the science’ shows that diets should be centered around regional and geographical biodiversity. She explained that ‘EAT’s uniform global diet will be produced with western technology and agricultural chemicals. Forcing this onto sovereign nations by multinational lobbying is what I refer to as food imperialism.’”

The future of food and health care

You can get a feel for where the future of food is headed by analyzing the WEF’s strategic intelligence map. As you can see, this top-down approach ties food production to a wide range of sectors, including biotech, the chemical industry, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and the digital economy.

For more details on Schwab and the WEF’s strategic intelligence plan, see Covert Geopolitics’s article, “Breaking Down the Global Elite’s Great Reset Master Plan.”

If any of this raises your concern, you’re probably not going to like what the World Health Economic Forum has in store for health care reform either. As detailed on their website:

“Our current capital intensive, hospital-centric model is unsustainable and ineffective. The Platform for Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare leverages a data-enabled delivery system and virtual care, integrated across the continuum of care from precision prevention to personalized care delivery …”

Aiding the WEF in this health care transformation are the biggest corporate criminals in the history of the modern world, including Bill GatesAstraZenecaBayerJohnson & JohnsonMerckPfizer, Novartis and a host of others.

These companies have at various times been found guilty of all sorts of crimes that they have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines for. They are also loaded with conflicts of interest in nearly every venture they are involved with. Yet we’re now supposed to believe these companies are going to put aside their profit incentives and fix the whole system?

Build back better 

As noted in a July 21, 2020, WEF article, the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer is to come up with stimulus measures, such as infrastructure development, that can allow countries to move forward.

But while at it, countries are urged to make sure the economic system is “built back better.” Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. As reported by Fox News:

“A radical movement called the Great Reset embraced by some Democrats poses a grave threat to liberty and free markets in the United States and around the world … The Great Reset is perhaps the biggest danger to capitalism and individual rights since the collapse of the Soviet Union …

“It would destroy the current capitalist system and replace it with progressive and modern socialist systems, with a special emphasis placed on eco-socialist policies … Policy ideas offered by ‘Great Reset’ advocates include government-provided basic income programs, universal health care, massive tax increases and the Green New Deal …

“For example, at a campaign event on July 9, Biden said we need to end the ‘era of shareholder capitalism,’ a major part of the Great Reset proposal that would alter how companies are evaluated, elevating social justice causes and climate change concerns over property rights …

“The Build Back Better plan comes straight from the Great Reset’s playbook … As recently as July 13, the WEF promoted ‘building back better’ through ‘green’ infrastructure programs as part of the Great Reset …”

Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital currency system, which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones.

An Aug. 13 article on the Federal Reserve website discusses the supposed benefits of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years.

Many uninformed people believe that these new CBDCs will be very similar to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they would be mistaken. Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to opt out of the existing central bank controlled system, while these CBDCs will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks and will have smart contracts that allow the banks to surveil and control your life.

The Great Reset psyops guide

It goes without saying that to achieve that kind of radical transformation of every part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool there is.

As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, there’s an entire school of public health research that focuses on identifying the most effective ways to frighten people into accepting desired public health measures.

By adding confusion and uncertainty to the mix, you can bring an individual from fear to anxiety — a state of confusion in which you can no longer think logically — and in this state, you are more easily manipulated. The following graphic illustrates the central role of fear mongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.

Social engineering is central to technocratic rule

In closing, keep in mind that technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”

The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this first hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the World Health Organization, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.

If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. We simply must keep pushing for transparency and truth. We must insist on medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy.

One fight in particular that I don’t see us being able to evade is the fight against mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. If we don’t take a firm stand against that and fight for the right to make our own choice, there will be no end to the medical tyranny that will follow. As noted in the Covert Geopolitics article.

“As you might have guessed, ‘the most important anchor of recovery is for a COVID-19 vaccination … The implication is that without a vaccine the world will be unable to return to any sense of normality, particularly in terms of open interaction with your fellow man …

You can actually participate in the global efforts to cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal’s ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for good.”

Published with permission from Mercola.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the…

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

Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?

 

Who Pressed the Great Reset Button  By Dr Joseph Mercola, 17 November 2020

Editor’s note: the extensive graphics can be seen at the link above.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The globalist technocracy is using the COVID-19 pandemic to bypass democratic accountability, override opposition, accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the public against our will
  • The Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance. You’ll be tied to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life
  • The Great Reset is about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with technocracy, publicly referred to as “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism”
  • There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general
  • Privacy protections are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy. In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing

What is this “Great Reset” we’re now hearing about? In a nutshell, the Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance.

As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report above,1 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.

It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, anti-humanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:2

“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”

The Grand Plan

In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:3

“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’

Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful ‘privilege’).

The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet. I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you. Just ants and numbers, your assets. Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).

And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’

The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”

Global Asset Reallocations Will Not Benefit ‘the People’

These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand new financial instruments that can then be traded. An example of this was given by Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., in my interview with her.

In it, she explained how India is headed toward Zero-Budget Natural Farming — a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.

There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.

Privacy protections, of course, are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to loosen their views on the right for privacy. In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing.

“To sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory.

It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account — perhaps without any human intervention at all,” Lena writes.4

Stakeholder Capitalism

An October 5, 2020, Winter Oak article5 addressed the “technocratic fascist vision” of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets.

In addition to being a staunch technocrat, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bend, and he has spoken of a near future in which humans merge with machines and in which law enforcement will be able to read our mind.6

Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — points out that Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 pandemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will.”

Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: The technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything.

This is no conspiracy theory. The plan is out in the open. As noted by Time magazine,7 “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want.” The same statement has been delivered by a number of politicians and organizations around the world in recent months.

Schwab’s book,8,9 “COVID-19: The Great Reset” also urges industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic” and “not letting the crisis go to waste.” Incidentally, the owner of Time magazine and founder of Salesforce, Mark Benioff, is also a board member of the World Economic Forum,10 so he’s clearly familiar with the reset plan.

The problem is that while the plan is being sold as a way to, finally, make life fair and equitable for all people, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system. Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers or people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything.

While technocracy is not a political system but an economic one, in practical terms it does resemble fascism. None of it is being sold under the banner of fascism, of course. Instead, they use financial terms like “stakeholder capitalism,” described by Forbes magazine11 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.”

In that same article, Forbes points out that this strategy has already been tried and failed. It failed because balancing conflicting stakeholder claims was near-impossible and only led to mass confusion and poor returns. The failure of this strategy is what led big businesses to focus on maximizing shareholder value instead.

Now, at a time when big business finds itself under attack for “single-mindedly shoveling money to its shareholders and its executives at the expense of customers, employees, the environment and society as a whole,” the answer, they say, is to return to stakeholder capitalism. But if it didn’t work before, what makes us think it will work now?

Great Reset Plan for Big Food

A November 9, 2020, article12 in The Defender, a new media platform by the Children’s Health Defense, also points out the problems with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan for the food industry:

“The architects of the plan claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change. But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.”

Aside from the food industry, partners13 include data mining giants, telecommunications, weapons manufacturers, finance, drug companies and the biotechnology industry.

Looking at that list, it should come as no surprise that the World Economic Forum insists the future of food and public health hinges on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laboratory-grown protein, drugs and industrial chemicals.

The EAT Forum and the Rise of Food Imperialism

To further the fake food takeover, the World Economic Forum has partnered with the EAT Forum, which will set the political agenda for global food production. The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline.

EAT currently collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods, which was cofounded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.14

As noted by The Defender, the ultimate aim is to “replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations.” To this end, EAT is working with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to establish global dietary guidelines and sustainable development initiatives.

The “Planetary Health Diet”15 developed by EAT is a diet that is supposed to replace all others. Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels told The Defender:16

“The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil.”

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., has raised harsh critique against the proposed diet saying it “is not about nutrition at all. It’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.”17 The Defender adds:18

“According to EAT’s own reports, the big adjustments the organization and its corporate partners want to make to the food system are ‘unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual,’ and the changes they wish to impose on societal eating habits and food ‘require reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.’

But Shiva said this is the wrong approach, because ‘all of the science’ shows that diets should be centered around regional and geographical biodiversity. She explained that ‘EAT’s uniform global diet will be produced with western technology and agricultural chemicals. Forcing this onto sovereign nations by multinational lobbying is what I refer to as food imperialism.’”

The Future of Food and Health Care

You can get a feel for where the future of food is headed by analyzing the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence map.19 As you can see, this top-down approach ties food production to a wide range of sectors, including biotech, the chemical industry, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and the digital economy.

For more details on Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence plan, see Covert Geopolitic’s article,20 “Breaking Down the Global Elite’s Great Reset Master Plan.”

If any of this raises your concern, you’re probably not going to like what the World Health Economic Forum has in store for health care reform either. As detailed on their website:21

“Our current capital intensive, hospital-centric model is unsustainable and ineffective. The Platform for Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare leverages a data-enabled delivery system and virtual care, integrated across the continuum of care from precision prevention to personalized care delivery …”

Aiding the World Economic Forum in this health care transformation are the biggest corporate criminals in the history of the modern world, including Bill Gates, AstraZeneca,22 Bayer,23 Johnson & Johnson,24 Merck,25 Pfizer,26 Novartis27 and a host of others.28

These companies have at various times been found guilty of all sorts of crimes that they have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines for. They are also loaded with conflicts of interest in nearly every venture they are involved with. Yet we’re now supposed to believe these companies are going to put aside their profit incentives and fix the whole system?

Build Back Better

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article,29 the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity for generations to come.” The answer is to come up with stimulus measures, such as infrastructure development, that can allow countries to move forward.

But while at it, countries are urged to make sure the economic system is “built back better.” Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. As reported by Fox News:30

“A radical movement called the Great Reset embraced by some Democrats poses a grave threat to liberty and free markets in the United States and around the world … The Great Reset is perhaps the biggest danger to capitalism and individual rights since the collapse of the Soviet Union …

It would destroy the current capitalist system and replace it with progressive and modern socialist systems, with a special emphasis placed on eco-socialist policies … Policy ideas offered by ‘Great Reset’ advocates include government-provided basic income programs, universal health care, massive tax increases and the Green New Deal …

For example, at a campaign event on July 9, Biden said we need to end the ‘era of shareholder capitalism,’ a major part of the Great Reset proposal that would alter how companies are evaluated, elevating social justice causes and climate change concerns over property rights …

The Build Back Better plan comes straight from the Great Reset’s playbook … As recently as July 13, the World Economic Forum promoted ‘building back better’ through ‘green’ infrastructure programs as part of the Great Reset …”

Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital currency system, which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones.

An August 13, 2020, article31 on the Federal Reserve website discusses the supposed benefits of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years.

Many uninformed people believe that these new CBDCs will be very similar to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they would be mistaken. Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to opt out of the existing central bank controlled system, while these CBDCs will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks and will have smart contracts that allow the banks to surveil and control your life.

The Great Reset Psyops Guide

It goes without saying that to achieve the kind of radical transformation of every part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool there is.

As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, there’s an entire school of public health research that focuses on identifying the most effective ways to frighten people into accepting desired public health measures.

By adding confusion and uncertainty to the mix, you can bring an individual from fear to anxiety — a state of confusion in which you can no longer think logically — and in this state, you are more easily manipulated. The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.

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

A Global Conspiracy Against God

A Global Conspiracy Against God  From Zerohedge, 3 November 2020

“A Global Conspiracy Against God” – Archbishop Says Trump Is Only One To Save Humanity From ‘The Great Reset’

The Italian archbishop best known for confronting Pope Francis over the Vatican’s willful blindness to priests who abuse boys has written a letter in which he lashes out at the “global elite”, prompting some to accuse him of sympathizing with the “QAnon” movement of conspiracy theorists.

The letter, penned by Archibishop Carlo Maria Vigano, formerly the Vatican’s ambassador to the US, attacks a shadowy “global elite”, that is plotting a “Great Reset” intended to undermine “God and humanity”.

This same group, the archbishop argued, is also responsible for the lockdowns that have restricted movement and freedom around the globe, eliciting protests in many European capitals.

“The fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity,” Viganò wrote in the letter, which comes just days before the US election, which the archbishop wrote was of “epochal importance.”

“No one, up until last February,” Viganò writes, “would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages.” Viganò adds: “And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, travelling, working, and praying.”

Working to protect the world from this group of elites seeking to recast society in a secular, totalitarian model, Viganò portrays President Trump as “the final garrison against the world dictatorship”. Viganò cast Trump’s opponent, Vice President Joe Biden, as “a person who is manipulated by the deep state.”

Analysts who monitor “QAnon” conspiracy theories and their spread online warned the mainstream press that the letter had been widely discussed on various QAnon message boards, and had been disseminated in languages including Portuguese, Spanish, French, German and Italian, according to Yahoo News.

Over the summer, Trump tweeted an earlier letter penned by the archbishop, and encouraged his supporters to read it.

So honored by Archbishop Viganò’s incredible letter to me. I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it! https://t.co/fVhkCz89g5

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020

In the past, Viagnò has accused Pope Francis of sweeping the child abuse crisis under the rug, and moving to protect homosexual priests, part of a “homosexual current” flowing through the Vatican.

Read the full letter below:

* * *

DONALD J. TRUMP

Sunday, October 25, 2020

Solemnity of Christ the King

Mr. President,

Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity. I write to you as an Archbishop, as a Successor of the Apostles, as the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America. I am writing to you in the midst of the silence of both civil and religious authorities. May you accept these words of mine as the “voice of one crying out in the desert” (Jn 1:23).

As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good; forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders.

Daily we sense the attacks multiplying of those who want to destroy the very basis of society: the natural family, respect for human life, love of country, freedom of education and business. We see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny.

A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

Mr. President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. You are well aware of the means that have been deployed to sow panic and legitimize draconian limitations on individual liberties, artfully provoking a world-wide economic crisis. In the intentions of its architects, this crisis will serve to make the recourse of nations to the Great Reset irreversible, thereby giving the final blow to a world whose existence and very memory they want to completely cancel. But this world, Mr. President, includes people, affections, institutions, faith, culture, traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his “non serviam.”

Many people – as we well know – are annoyed by this reference to the clash between Good and Evil and the use of “apocalyptic” overtones, which according to them exasperates spirits and sharpens divisions. It is not surprising that the enemy is angered at being discovered just when he believes he has reached the citadel he seeks to conquer undisturbed. What is surprising, however, is that there is no one to sound the alarm. The reaction of the deep state to those who denounce its plan is broken and incoherent, but understandable. Just when the complicity of the mainstream media had succeeded in making the transition to the New World Order almost painless and unnoticed, all sorts of deceptions, scandals and crimes are coming to light.

Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as “conspiracy theorists” those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages. And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and praying. The disastrous psychological consequences of this operation are already being seen, beginning with the suicides of desperate entrepreneurs and of our children, segregated from friends and classmates, told to follow their classes while sitting at home alone in front of a computer.

In Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul speaks to us of “the one who opposes” the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, the kathèkon (2 Thess 2:6-7). In the religious sphere, this obstacle to evil is the Church, and in particular the papacy; in the political sphere, it is those who impede the establishment of the New World Order.

As is now clear, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology, supporting the agenda of the deep church, who chose him from its ranks.

Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation – One Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought against today. It is you, dear President, who are “the one who opposes” the deep state, the final assault of the children of darkness.

For this reason, it is necessary that all people of good will be persuaded of the epochal importance of the imminent election: not so much for the sake of this or that political program, but because of the general inspiration of your action that best embodies – in this particular historical context – that world, our world, which they want to cancel by means of the lockdown. Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human race, He who is “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).

Around you are gathered with faith and courage those who consider you the final garrison against the world dictatorship. The alternative is to vote for a person who is manipulated by the deep state, gravely compromised by scandals and corruption, who will do to the United States what Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing to the Church, Prime Minister Conte to Italy, President Macron to France, Prime Minster Sanchez to Spain, and so on. The blackmailable nature of Joe Biden – just like that of the prelates of the Vatican’s “magic circle” – will expose him to be used unscrupulously, allowing illegitimate powers to interfere in both domestic politics as well as international balances. It is obvious that those who manipulate him already have someone worse than him ready, with whom they will replace him as soon as the opportunity arises.

And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the “Invisible Enemy,” an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle. This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people. This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights, to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their children and grandchildren. The leveling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the firm and courageous opposition of the children of Light. The enemy has Satan on its side, He who only knows how to hate. But on our side, we have the Lord Almighty, the God of armies arrayed for battle, and the Most Holy Virgin, who will crush the head of the ancient Serpent. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31).

Mr. President, you are well aware that, in this crucial hour, the United States of America is considered the defending wall against which the war declared by the advocates of globalism has been unleashed. Place your trust in the Lord, strengthened by the words of the Apostle Paul: “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). To be an instrument of Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many people who support you with their prayers.

With this heavenly hope and the assurance of my prayer for you, for the First Lady, and for your collaborators, with all my heart I send you my blessing.

God bless the United States of America!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò

Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana

Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

 

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

Previous articles 

The Great Global Warming Hoax

By John Rofe, Fraud Investigator, Auckland, New Zealand.

Editor’s note: this post comprises a series of emails, submissions and documents send to NZ Ministers, Government Departments, shadow Ministers and major NZ media describing the current global warming hoax, including compelling supporting evidence. 

As background, this PowerPoint presentation explains the reasons why Russia and most countries didn’t get into the emission reduction programme, and the history and background for the climate fraud: THE KYOTO PROTOCOL CO2 – Russian presentation to Vladimir Putin 2004.

The following summary of the current situation complements the emails and article below:

There is No Climate Emergency – A Direct Public Repudiation of the Great Global Warming Fraud


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”) was born to commit fraud because it was set up to find evidence of human influence on climate. The warming of the last century is neither unprecedented, nor is there evidence to substantiate the allegations made. Instead, and to attempt to substantiate man-made warming, there have been unscrupulous attempts to “fiddle the figures”. When called out on that, the fraudsters resorted to the time-honoured tricks of misdirection, disinformation, sophistry (to cloud the debate with excessive complexity), ad hominem attacks on critics and straight-out lies. The fraudsters rely on various databases of surface temperatures to combine exaggerated figures. But their problem is that these don’t represent the global position – only fragments of it. Many of the figures used in UN IPCC compilations come from biased computer models and not thermometer readings. The only reliable global database we can use is provided by the NASA satellite network and monitored under contract by two separate organisations (RSS and UAH). This provides timely monthly reports that are automated and tamper-proof. This shows the average temperature for the Lower Troposphere, which is the environment we live in. It covers the period since satellites were sent up in 1979. It shows that if there is no change to the modern rate of warming (which we are falsely told is suicidal), the increase over the next century will be about 1.4oC. but not the 4oC. to 5.5oC. estimated by the cabal of fraudsters and their local agents. Whether they are wrong by design or simple mistake makes no difference. The Climate Emergency is a fraud, as is the Zero Carbon legislation and the Paris Accords.

See full article and diagram at 210205 – The Biggest Fraud in Human History

The UN IPCC’s problem is that human carbon emissions cannot possibly exert a significant influence on the climate.
There has never been any empirical scientific evidence to corroborate that extravagant claim. The causes are solar variability and the way heat transfer is handled by the air, oceans and the water cycle on a diurnal, seasonal and multiyear cycle. The total of the three human-affected greenhouse gases (CHGs) (CO2, CH4 and N2O) in the atmosphere is less than 420 parts per million of air. In contrast, water vapour (which varies from place to place and time to time) is on average 10,000 parts per million. Of the 420 parts per million CHGs that we influence, humans cause only 4% to be emitted. The rest is due to nature. But even worse for the fraudsters, atomic absorption spectroscopy proves that each water vapour molecule has five times the efficacy of each molecule of the human influenced CHGs for incoming solar radiation. For outgoing infrared heat radiation, a water vapour molecule has 12 times the CHG efficacy of the human affected CHGs CO2, CH4 and N2O. A law of physics (Beer-Lambert) even proves the impotence of CO2as a CHG.
The power of water vapour on its own is easily able to be confirmed from diurnal weather data by any Year 12/13 school student.

Analysis of NIWA’s daily weather data in New Zealand shows the combined effects of the water cycle have a major or dominant effect on the distinctly different climates of New Zealand cities and towns. QED.


Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and is essential for all life on earth. More CO2 is preferable to less CO2.


Whether we spend $34 billion or $34 trillion, New Zealand Zero Emissions strategies cannot change earth’s climate.


Thus the New Zealand Climate Change Commission has a major problem gnawing at its collective conscience.


John Rofe, Experienced Fraud Investigator, email:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz Auckland, NZ, 5 February 2021

 The Most Complex Fraud in History, 16 December 2020

Note: This email and attachments were sent to all 120 new New Zealand MPs and others as below.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2020 11:54 a.m.
‘Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz’;  ‘David Seymour’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’   +++++++++

Subject: The most complex fraud in history – some holiday reading

Editors’s note: As below, See all attachments as PDF document: The most complex fraud in history, 16 December 2020

There can be no doubt that the current Climate Emergency declared by PM Jacinda Ardern is ill advised, wrong in science and simply a fraudulent enterprise.

But to be fair it was possibly born before she was.  Since its inception as a result of debate over the book “Limits to Growth” in 1972;  then followed by the establishment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (”UN IPCC”) in 1988, the sheer improbability that humans could dominate two of the strongest forces known to humankind (the sun’s variable electromagnetic power and earth’s water cycle) has led to a rapidly increasing sophistication being employed by them and their spreading circle of colleagues within the scientific community.  Sophistry is the mark of all complex frauds, and my indictment will stand until addressed.

Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a political fraud, and everyone from Prince Charles to Atonio Guterres has mortgaged their future credibility with insanely dire warnings of coming Armageddon…which have been imminently threatened since 1989 and yet fail to materialise on an almost yearly basis…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftmkgsrfDNs&feature=youtu.be

What the UN IPCC- aligned “scientists” have produced is not science but confirmation bias, and this fraud is in some instances a repeat of what happened in Russia with Trofim Lysenko (many, and perhaps up to six million deaths as a result).  The US public was warned about the danger of scientists doing what politicians wanted in 1960 by retiring President Dwight D. Eisenhower, but that was 60 years ago and few now remember.  Now any scientist who does not act to benefit the fraud is either sacked or marginalised.

The UN IPCC demands allegiance of world governments whose taxpayers provide an almost open chequebook for scientists who spread the word… but have never shown any scientific evidence to support their contention ab initio that human “carbon emissions” cause “global warming”, or their default positions “climate change” and “Climate Emergency”.  The weather data in no way supports any of their claims.

New Zealanders – of all people – should be able to recognise the fraud, because we live in a mixed maritime/continental climate where a differentiating factor is the power of both water vapour (96% of all greenhouse gases) and the full water cycle..

The attachments to this email provide six short essays on the subject…included within these is the fact that because the level of atmospheric water vapour massively affects the climate from time to time and from place to place, it totally dominates the tiny residual impact of slowly rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, on weather and climate.  It gives the lie to the fraud.

I won’t go into the role of the elites or their purpose in driving this global fraud.  But I will comment that if the elites did not monopolise the mainstream media narrative and the UN IPCC did not monopolise the scientific narrative on the fraud, the general public would have seen through it years ago.

  1. A general summary of the science – headed “Global Ambition” and “Greenwashing”.  The heading only represents the supposed purposes for using this fraud to dominate New Zealand  politics.   Although these political leaders were not the first, they are now certainly the drivers and hope to profit from the fraud – both now and in the future.
  2. Which natural cycles provide the dominant cause for climate change and how did the scientific community create the false notion that human carbon dioxide emissions drive all natural effects? 
  3. What do I mean, when I mention the use of misdirection to fool the public?
  4. A view for the public which shows how each and every one of us can spot the fraud. (Loss of Innocence Part I)
  5. Probable cause of climate change…from time immemorial. (Loss of Innocence Part II)
  6. Spelling out why no-one will see justice. (Loss of Innocence Part III)

See all attachments as PDF document: The most complex fraud in history, 16 December 2020

New Zealand politicians are now divided into two camps.  One camp that is hoping for advantage from the fraud (led by PM Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Climate Change James Shaw)  and another camp who either have not addressed their minds to the matter or who dare not confront this issue because those foreign forces driving it are too powerful.

So all the politicians in the new 2020 parliament form two camps…frauds and wimps.

But why would you not be a wimp?  The NZ Serious Fraud Office has walked away from my complaint on this.  The Ministry of Justice and NZ Police ignore it hoping it will go away.  My latest complaint addressed to NZ Police is attached above.  No response ever received.   (all documentary evidence is available on request).

But the truth never does go away.  Does it?

Enjoy your holidays.  The fraud will still be here when you get back.  It will scare your children until enough of you wimps cry, “Enough!”

Yours Sincerely & Merry Christmas

John Rofe

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

Date: 26 October 2020

Email to: New Zealand senior politicians and news media,

We 7.8 billion humans in the digital age are lucky that the truth is normally very simple and straightforward, the facts are so easily accessible.  But where lies and fraud are both officially promulgated and government-sanctioned, the truth is normally regarded as subversive.  Because we have so little time to question accepted ideas, it is extremely serious for us to find you are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent of spreading both lies and facilitating large scale corruption.  So I hope my complaints will be acted upon by the proper authorities.  (after a year of procrastination, a fairly forlorn hope – regrettably)

So if you are of a frail disposition and cannot handle the truth, please stop at this point.  If you wonder what I am saying about you, read on.

For reasons I won’t go into, I watched the entire Trump Congressional impeachment hearings on YouTube.  I had always believed that the US voters must have hit rock-bottom electing someone as “alternative” as Donald J. Trump as President, so I thought he would get his “come-uppance” during the hearings.  On the contrary, there were no allegations of impropriety made against Mr Trump because everyone delivered evidence under oath and clearly there was no evidence available for them to give.  Their clear wish was to dish the dirt, but none was offered.

The annoyance at improper US vice presidential involvement in Ukraine’s affairs, expressed by the state department officials during impeachment hearings came to the fore.  But nothing improper by Trump was presented, yet a cascade of allegations against Joseph Biden came flooding out regarding his part in the Ukraine Burisma scandal involving his family and himself.  It convinced me that Joe Biden was a corrupt Vice President to Obama and there is now plenty of evidence to show the Obama administration was well aware of his corrupt practices.  To be fair, the people of the USA have become desensitised to the systemic graft which permeates US politics called “Pay for Play” for which no impeachment is ever considered.  So they need to get their act together and tidy things up.  What Mr Biden got up to was disgusting.  You cannot elevate a crook to become the leader of the “free world”.

Recently, we find stories and even compelling evidence emerging from the US Department of Justice that the Russia-Gate impeachment process was a simple fraud with active FBI and CIA complicity.

Every day, evidence of Biden’s complicity in fraud in a Democrat-controlled US Congressional hearing is never mentioned in the mainstream media, yet 10,000 miles away I could hear and see the testimony on the live video feeds.  Today, half of the USA is getting the Biden scandal news, but it is barred from every mainstream media outlet other than Fox.  Our own TVNZ and the NZ Herald have been taking the news feeds from the US media which continues to attack Trump and actively support Biden and his frauds, and our media has repeated the feeds verbatim.  Let me name the media organisations involved…

  • CNN and MSNBC
  • Washington Post
  • New York Times
  • The Guardian

How did the so-called “free world” find itself exposed to such criminality of intent and execution?

These listed are the same news organisations promoting the United Nations sponsored climate fraud (for which a short 2-page summary of the simple and not so simple truth about Earth’s climate is attached above).

Every day Mr Trump’s alleged involvement in serious malfeasance, warranting an impeachment circus, appeared in our mainstream New Zealand media.  The massive and prominent stories of his wickedness often seemed just a total fabrication, whereas I knew the facts.  Mr Trump is so guileless and unscripted that I wondered how he got into such a position of power, but in many key issues of the day, his position is principled and steadfast.  (Is he genius, buffoon or both?) The US voters certainly got the guy they elected.  So how can we ever believe our own press in future?  They are guilty of suppression of the truth in the same way that they routinely suppress the evidence of climate fraud.  For instance:

  1. Every warming event is magnified.
  2. Every cooling event is not mentioned at all, unless it occurs locally – i.e. within New Zealand.
  3. Historical charts that have been falsified under the auspices of the UN IPCC, NOAA, NASA, CSIRO and NIWA use scale and choice of periodicity to create the illusion that human carbon emissions cause climate change, when there is not only no empirical scientific evidence that they do, but masses of easily verifiable empirical scientific evidence that they do not.  The fakery of the UN IPCC’s junk science can never even be questioned in the New Zealand media without a bucket of ink from foreign journalistic scum (or local stooges) being thrown over it.

The real changes to average temperatures always seem to get noticed first by those living in the large land masses of the Northern hemisphere because of the otherwise moderating influence of the world’s oceans.  That was the case between 1980 to 2000 when I became convinced that rapid heating was occurring in Europe, Asia and North America (because I was regularly travelling there in international consulting roles during that time).  There was almost no noticeable warming in New Zealand during that time.   The end of the “little ice age” also came late for us in the 1860’s after the massive blizzards of 1863.  (I found this time lag well understood in Russian Academy of Sciences climate reports.)

We are now more than 50 years into the space age and more than 40 years into having access to empirical global temperature data with 2-3 days of the end of each month.  Yet what do we get?  Just spin.  Sure, according to empirical satellite data, the Earth shows no signs yet of atmospheric cooling, but it has shown no signs of average  warming for the last three years either.  So who are these fraudsters pushing the fake climate crisis?  The UN claims it is science but no, they just use the same sort of sophistry when they gather and summarise the scientists’ reports, that commercial fraudsters use to make 2+2= 5.  This isn’t just the biggest ever fraud, it is so widely decentralised every player appears on the face of it to be potentially innocent of bad intent.  The climate is elegant and the sophistry of the fraudsters is equally so.  And thereby we are all deceived…well not all of us.

Now from the space weather and in accordance with existing predictions from the Russian Academy of Sciences, we are entering what is probably going to be a 200 year event called a Grand Solar Minimum.  When the cold comes, then we will have a genuine crisis because there has not been such an event since the world population was less than 1.5 billion people.  For the last three years a series of major anomalous climate cooling events has begun in those same Northern land masses, while for us the warming continues because we are still warmed by the surrounding seas.

So, you can watch the news flow in the few days ahead of today and decide from the following…. 

  1. On climate …my “version of the truth” is that solar cycles and the terrestrial water cycle determine major climate fluctuations.  See this video which contains a forecast for the coming week for North America showing the kind of information which will be suppressed in NZ media by week’s end:

https://youtu.be/qtbkhYSy7R0

I can now prove absolutely that the UN IPCC narrative is just a fraud…but it isn’t rocket science because analysis of our automated and official  met. data will show anyone that.  All you need is six hours over a two day period and a computer and any year12/13 student can do the maths.

Does anyone really think the result of anomalous cooling will get media mention this week?   This video also contains  the realisation by the US President (at 2 minutes 27 seconds in), that it is the space weather dominated by the sun that causes climate change.  At last the Trump Administration is realising the Russians and Chinese scientists are right (see the final link on my 2-page article below).  Now that the science is agreed between the major powers with their massive scientific establishments, surely it is time for the NZ SFO to deal with my climate fraud complaints against NIWA, PM Ardern and Minister Shaw?

You may wish to avail yourselves of the full and complete details of this week’s new US legislation.  It is called  the “Promoting Research and Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow Act” or the “PROSWIFT Act”.  Ref S.881 and covered by the official POTUS Statement dated 21 October 2020.

As an aside…for those who have read the POTUS’ statement…

Obviously, with ever greater reliance on electricity as our energy source, the impact of a Coronal Mass Ejection (a CME from solar storms) will not just potentially take our affected regions back to the “Stone Age”, but because electricity generators will increasingly monopolise our energy supply mix, our resilience to a CME event will also be diminished.  So while we must diversify away from finite supplies of fossil fuels, the process will come with escalating risk.  A CME (such as the Carrington Event of 1-2 September 1859)  has only happened once or twice throughout recorded history, but when it did there were few implications due to our low tech production and communication systems.  Unlikely as the possibility of a direct hit may be, the events are not uncommon and the cost of a CME could prove a near extinction level event.  So the security implications of the PROSWIFT Act are obvious…and not just for the protection of assets in space, but also our civilisation.  By reference to my summary of Earth’s climate you will see reference to the web site www.spaceweather.com run by the brilliant NASA scientist Dr Tony Philips and this contains the data that does have a causal effect upon Earth’s climate – even though some aspects require more investigation.

  1. Is it wise for you to continually channel the ultra-corrupt Joe Biden and his media backers?   There are several key questions that Biden does not give any straight answers to, and he has not even held more than a couple of genuine rallies during this electoral cycle.  Our media gives him a “free ride” and I have to wonder why we are so heavily subjected to another country’s political spin.  The climate fraud is as much as a Democrat led fraud as anything else, and like any experienced fraud investigator, I don’t like coincidences that benefit the same actors.  Because this malfeasance appears to be “a genie that is out of its bottle” these items below summarise some of the allegations :  (this stuff is backed by much more as the internet is overflowing with material as two of Hunter Biden’s former partners come out of the woodwork.)

https://youtu.be/aiiSq7toqlQ

and

https://youtu.be/lDdxavJoLrM

and China…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPm0EduPhgY&feature=youtu.be

But affecting China’s CCP involvement too – really?  https://www.newsletter.zerohedge.com/click.html?x=a62e&lc=kfc&mc=c&s=Fdi&u=v&z=YaKiOBr&

Many of those I have seen ratting out the Biden family are Democrats who claim they want to stay Democrats because they believe the Democrat party of old, but like some Americans we have personally met, they couldn’t vote for Hillary and now they cannot vote for Biden because if nothing else, Mr Trump isn’t gaming the American people.  He is dealing to the “Deep State” actors who on the face of it seem to be selling out the USA.  Yet our mainstream media completely ignores what is the biggest tale of fraud in US history.

Meantime the biased articles about Mr Trump continue to flow.  Will the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” mean he does get voted out, to be replaced by Mr Biden or not?  That remains to be seen, but I don’t really care about the US election outcome.  

What I do care about is the use of the public media to convey state-directed Orwellian conspiracies to the people of New Zealand.  How many times does it take to repeat lies in order to ensure they become accepted as facts?  I guess you could ask Greta Thunberg or one of Minister Shaw’s “groupies”.  Our children should not be so deliberately subjected to political manipulation or taught fake science in our schools.

As they used to say in the USSR just before its collapse in 1989,  “The only way we know for sure that a rumour is true, is when it is officially denied.”

Is that what we Kiwis have now come to?

Despite regular warnings, successive New Zealand’s governments and even our education system have become wedded to the climate fraud.  The problem for the bad actors is that there is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be revealed for what they are.  The present POTUS has signalled the time for those in the USA will come if/when he is re-elected.  This makes this election significant to the political scientists.  But whether that happens  during 2020 or not the truth will out, because truth, like science is apolitical.

PM Ardern and Minister Shaw may have “jumped the shark” at their own October elections, but that does not make wrong right.  Nor does it excuse institutional complicity in the UN IPCC-centred climate fraud, and in this respect, the complicity of NIWA, the Ministry for the Environment and the universities (particularly Auckland and VUW) need to be singled out for review.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Fraud would not have been possible were it not for the active involvement of the “media barons” among whose ranks, the activities of George Soros and his “Open Society” needs close official examination.  In NZ it is TVNZ and the Herald who need official investigation.  They have let us all down.

As for you, are you part of the solution, or part of the problem?  You probably know which….

If you say that, “climate change is causing bad weather, storms or forest fires”, you are already one of the bad guys.  So get an education.

Please clean up your act because the NZ public deserves better.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

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

THE EARTH’S CLIMATE IS A TRULY WONDERFUL THING

After 15 years of trying to figure out whether the “Warming Alarmists” or the “Climate Change Deniers” are right, I have concluded that the causes of climate change are almost totally natural…solar variability on the one hand (because the sun provides 99.9% of Earth’s energy) and the water cycle on the other (because 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water and its evaporation, condensation and precipitation can be seen to affect the climate everywhere, from place to place and from time to time).  Just elegant natural homeostasis.

1.15 trillion tonnes of surface water is converted into water vapour every day and being lighter than air, it rises to the skies, cooling as it ascends (because the air cools by 6.5oC with every 1,000 metres of altitude). Then it forms clouds and they mask 60-70% of Earth’s surface. When condensation has completed the cycle, and minute water vapour droplets coalesce into rain drops, hail or snow, precipitation of an approximate 1.15 trillion tonnes descends, leaving between 15-20 trillion tonnes in the atmosphere at any point in time.

So the sun heats the Earth and the water cycle moderates both the day-time heating and discharge of night-time heat into space.  This is easily provable from official published meteorological data, yet no-one is interested in fact checking, because it would end the gravy train for so many over-paid pseudo-scientists.

Over geological time, the Earth’s attitude to, and the distance from the sun has been the cause of the massive variability in the global temperatures between ice ages and intervening inter-glacial periods.  These “long period” changes are referred to as Milankovich cycles, but they are of no immediate relevance.

For the “Alarmists” to blatantly ignore the 10,000 years history of the current interglacial period (known as the Holocene) and impute a dominant role for humanity’s effects in the changed levels of certain trace gases is at best a gross exaggeration.  There is no evidence that any change in atmospheric carbon dioxide has caused climate change although the reverse has been indicated as possible from Antarctic ice core analysis.

For our leaders to be conned by the protestations of parties benefitting from the deception that it is “settled science” (i.e. UN IPCC) is at best incompetent or at worst malfeasance.  We rightly expected NIWA, the Ministry for the Environment and cabinet ministers have exercised rigorous oversight of public expenditure. 

For our Minister for Climate Change to write a letter in response to my provision of evidence (in 2018) to inform me that good science is never settled, but in this case he is sure it is, defied all logic.  There is no empirical scientific justification for his actions so this showed that no independent New Zealand due diligence was ever performed before the Zero Carbon legislation was enacted by our Parliament. 

It is often argued that the motive for the deception has been the desire of people beyond our shores to tax an element of the periodic table that is the very essence of all life on Earth – carbon.  That was why finding human involvement in climate change was central to the role of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.   With an open chequebook from many governments, the OECD’s scientific community was set to work to employ “confirmation bias” and sophistry in order to achieve the required result.

Around the world and in most countries (from the outset) the bogus nature of this hoax has been resisted by scientists. They are in part the heroes of this sorry business even though blatant systemic media bias in favour of the hoax has left them impotent and ignored (even ridiculed) despite no evidence supporting the supposed orthodoxy.  But every serious scientist works in a silo.  In critic’s silos their expertise is contested, but the overwhelming impossibility of the UN theory disappears into the mist of deliberate sophistry.  In 30 years of deliberate malfeasance, science and the scientific method has been corrupted.  Censorship follows.

2.

How did climate science get corrupted when the corrupting process occurred in the plain sight?

  1. The Vostok ice core experiments were alternately ignored or misinterpreted.
  2. The historical impacts of solar variability were actively suppressed – whether they came from the 11- year regular solar cycles, or the longer term Grand Solar Maximums and Minimums.
  3. The volume of human influenced “greenhouse gases” was overstated and their efficacy magnified.
  4. The measurement by atomic absorption spectroscopy of the impacts of various gases was ignored and the impact of the Beer-Lambert law of physics which down-rated the efficacy of additional concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane was also minimised by either intent or modelling emphasis.
  5. The true natural power of the water cycle was de-rated by deliberately splitting up the three thermally active phases of (i) evaporation – yielding water vapour, (ii) condensation – yielding clouds, and (iii) precipitation-yielding rain hail or snow (by which high altitude H2O is transferred to earth’s surface with cooling effect). It is the water cycle that always provides the climate with moderation.
  6. The automatic cleansing effect of the water cycle is deliberately ignored and in particular the way in which rain brings carbon dioxide (which is also heavier than air) and all pollutants – including residue of the worst catastrophic events earth can sustain – back down to where we live, farm and fish.
  7. The impact of the variable heating from sub-sea volcanism is little understood as is the impact of changes to the magnetosphere from changes in the variability of solar electromagnetic energy.
  8. There is a large area of study still into the role and impact of the changed cyclic influx of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation and the huge variability in the changes in the thickness and temperature of Earth’s Thermosphere.

With new missions now on their way to Mars, “Climate Science”, the one-dimensional perspective of Earth’s climate being enclosed in a greenhouse is akin to the now rejected flat earth theories of the 17th Century.

Climatologists now keep a weather eye on the “space weather” (key variables are published each day on www.spaceweather.com ). There is growing evidence that it is the space weather (where the role of the sun dominates) that drives our terrestrial climate.  Certainly, that has been the interpretation of the folk running the Russian experiments on the International Space Station.  Their views are shared by many NASA astronauts.  So what is delivered to us as “settled science” is really just a set of theories for which there is no empirical scientific proof at all!”  Human carbon emissions don’t have a significant role to play.

While we are told that many countries do not support the actions of the UN (such as with the Paris Accords), the fact is that there are good and proper reasons to object – and from objectors there is considerable  empirical scientific evidence, in addition to the factors that were accepted by the Russian Academy of Sciences in this 2014 presentation:  (please forgive and forget the audio: concentrate on the screen shots)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdNw8-Cq8h8&feature=emb_logo

The use of “misdirection” techniques is too obvious to ignore and this suggests there is an undercurrent of intent to deceive in much of the material I have reviewed.  So the proper authorities have been informed.

John Rofe            Auckland, New Zealand                                                                                                       20 October 2020

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

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2020 4:31 p.m.
To: ‘terry Dunleavy’
Cc: ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Paul Hunt’; ‘Gerry Brownlee’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Peter Goodfellow’; ‘geoffduffy@lycos.com’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Deborah Alexander’; ‘John Ansell’
Subject: I think this may be the most important three pages Judith Collins will read today/this week
Importance: High

Hi Terry,

Attached as “The Loss of Innocence for Jacinda’s Team of Five million” ( The Loss of Innocence for Jacinda Ardern’s Team of Five Million – Part I ).  It will be the kiss of death for Jacinda’s nuclear moment if anyone in National bothers to read it.  Please feel free to circulate it as widely as you wish.  It contains proof regarding real [as opposed to political/official ‘science’ and how that matches the observed weather.

To support this for the non-believers, a document for the Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy shows the relative efficacy of water vapour, methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide [not attached but available by request].  This needs to be factored by volume, where water vapour totally dominates.

To also support this for the non-believers are the three schedules [not attached but available by request] showing the observations of how temperatures and humidity are matched and the dominant role of water vapour in reducing the diurnal temperature range.  Those started as casual observations because I simply couldn’t believe that hundreds of over-paid climate scientists around the world wouldn’t already have done such comparisons.  It seems they haven’t.  I even selected days with no Foehn North-Westerlies to reduce the differentials between East and West. 

The three key variables of climate between say Napier and New Plymouth (and elsewhere) are Latitude, Altitude and Humidity.  At high school in the 1960’s we just learned that continental climates varied from maritime climates.  How “maritime” a climate is, is indicated by its humidity…and the other features of the water cycle, clouds and rain.

Clouds aren’t just a factor in the calculation of Earth’s energy balance, they are also an important climate variable from place to place and from time to time.

As the second requirement for its establishment as a UN agency, was to show the human influence on climate change, the UN IPCC scientists were not stupid when they separated out the various components of the water cycle and then minimised the impact of each.  If they couldn’t show humans could influence the climate, what role did they have?  That was their motivation for the fraud that the Club of Rome saw as creating a vehicle for One-World government and to get their global enterprises far fewer separate tax codes and thereby reduce business complexity.

Prof. Duffy saw through it as did the Russians.  But in general, it enabled the UN IPCC-centric scientists to call clouds as one dimensional and do the same with water vapour.  Then divide and conquer with fairy stories about CO2, CH4 and N2O.

I have two further parts to write and publish…

Part 2. What do I believe causes climate change (summarising the evidence I have sighted for the role of the solar cycles)

Part 3.  A dissertation on the use of miss-direction and sophistry to mask the biggest fraud in history … as perpetrated by a cast of thousands.

I am extremely grateful for the guys at NZCSC who persevered in helping me.

Hopefully, someone will take the time and replicate my calculations.  It just takes 2 hours in the afternoon and 3 hours the next morning.

Best regards

John Rofe

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

AN EGREGIOUS FAILURE OF THEIR DUTY OF CARE!

THE GREAT UN IPCC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD AND ITS NEW ZEALAND AGENCY

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.”

Please take the time to think this through for yourself:

Is it logical 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, solely because a corrupt 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 scientists at all influential New Zealand institutions have not performed proper due diligence.

[NZ Green Party leader] James Shaw & [NZ Prime Minister] Jacinda Ardern, with the help of NIWA and complicit scientists, promote the following lies:

  1. That the changes in human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide cause climate change, their increases cause warming and our use of fossil fuels is the “culprit” driving the Modern Warm Period.
  2. That carbon dioxide is the dominant so-called “greenhouse gas” and it is a pollutant.
  3. That humans can restore climate equilibrium by reducing our so-called “carbon emissions”.

The principal causes of climate change are well known because the 100,000-year cycles of glaciations with short interglacial intervals are caused by cyclical changes to earth’s orbit of the sun (known as Milankovich cycles).  The shorter significant variations that have caused periods of relative warmth and cold have been due to the changed activity that varies during 11-year cycles, as the solar poles switch places.  The visible effect is marked by variations in the number of sun spots that appear on the face of the sun.  Groups of active solar cycles (as with three during the 20th century) cause climate warming and groups of markedly inactive solar cycles which are referred to as Grand Solar Minimums, cause atmospheric cooling and the perturbation of the magnetosphere.  Short-term anomalous weather is just a mixture of pattern and chaos. 

If you thought the science supporting the UN IPCC’s fraudulent hypothesis is settled, think again.  (http://www.petitionproject.org/) The UN IPCC report number AR5 fails to even ascribe any role to the dominant greenhouse gas water vapour and clouds that have always acted to moderate earth’s climate through volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes causing mass extinctions.  Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth and is not a pollutant.  Like all of the others, the global warming fraud is common malfeasance.

At best, our leaders are derelict in their duty of care to the general public, but to have ignored all of my warnings since 2018, they must have had a mindset of denial and/or vested interest.  At worst they are deliberate and manipulative fraudsters, relying on those who influence or control the UN IPCC,  ensuring the media foster the deliberate lie that anyone who points out the obvious fraud is just a conspiracy theorist.  For this reason I have laid complaints with the NZ Serious Fraud Office, the NZ Police and the Secretary for Justice.  The alleged fraudsters are aware of my allegations.  So irrespective of their political affiliations:

I am convinced that no-one implicated in this fraud is a fit or proper person to stand for public office.

John Rofe, Experienced Fraud Investigator                                           Auckland New Zealand, August 2020             

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

FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICER COMMANDING NZ POLICE – HENDERSON  AREA                                                                                TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

By Hand

Dear Superintendant,

Following many years of investigation and supported by both empirical scientific evidence and having diligently and independently pursued the empirical observations to back up my allegations, I wish to register three complaints of fraud.  They are as follows:

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SERIOUS FRAUD BY THE CHIEF SCIENTIST, CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERE, OF NIWA.

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SERIOUS FRAUD BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND, THE RT. HONOURABLE JACINDA ARDERN.

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SERIOUS FRAUD BY THE MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, THE HONOURABLE JAMES SHAW.

I allege they are promoting for personal gain, the quasi-scientific theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, with no empirical scientific evidential support for the de-bunked theory they promote.

Internationally, this has become the biggest fraud in world history and it involves three main limbs:

  1. Falsely representing that human emissions of carbon dioxide gas, methane and nitrous oxide are key drivers of climate change, partially by minimising the role of the solar influence, clouds and water vapour. No empirical scientific evidence exists to support their claims.
  2. Falsely representing that carbon dioxide gas is a pollutant, when it is a gas essential for all life on earth.
  3. Falsely representing that the New Zealand Government is capable of changing the climate by altering the New Zealand emissions of the three gases mentioned in point 1. above.

Herewith is a copy of my email of 4 July 2018 and a letter received in late 2018 containing the Government’s misguided and disproven claims.  Also a copy of my warning to Minister James Shaw that is dated 15 May 2019 that outlines the basis of the above allegations of fraud.

My research has been transparently provided to a wide range of politicians from all parties.  The allegations have been pursued at regular intervals over the last three years.  The Government has relied on a news blackout in the matter and as a result, while they acknowledge receipt of my emails they haven’t made any other response.  I have tried to minimise the impact of my allegations on the people involved and failed to achieve any traction.  This is a blatant abuse of their statutory powers.

I am an active conservationist and the actions of Government, while damaging to the New Zealand economy bring disrepute to both the scientific community and the conservation movement.   

My personal resources have been sufficient to now prove beyond reasonable doubt that an ongoing, systemic and costly fraud has occurred and is planned for the future.  I have been able to independently validate the evidence provided by the international and domestic scientific experts.

My personal resources are not sufficient to prove the parties intended to commit the fraud.  Only you have those resources and are entrusted with the job of protecting the New Zealand public.

There is a massive amount of information available to support this allegation and yet absolutely no empirical scientific evidence to refute my claims.  Herewith are the following documents:

  1. Scope of facts, headed “A TALE OF FRAUD, COMPLICITY AND ARRANT STUPIDITY”
  2. A summary of the evidence against the core fraud, headed “GOOD NEWS- NO CRISIS – AND CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN’T EVEN CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”.
  3. A note on how physical evidence supports the expert empirical scientific evidence provided by the scientists, headed “ARRANT STUPIDITY – or – RESTATING THE OBVIOUS”.
  4. A short paper describing the business, political and media influences ensuring the truth never leaks into the mainstream media, headed “Many Whistleblowers – Yet nothing to be heard”.

This matter is the most serious set of allegations ever provided to a New Zealand Police station because the implications of derivative frauds includes all schemes for Carbon Tax, The Zero Carbon Act, all carbon trading and schemes for selling carbon credits are all frauds and many of the actions of Government departments focused on “Climate Change”  are all parts of the core fraud.

Please therefore provide this letter and attachments to the Commissioner of Police, for discussion with the Secretary for Justice.  The Secretary has been separately appraised.

I believe that neither Minister James Shaw nor PM Jacinda Ardern is a fit and proper person to be elected as part of the next Government.  I stand ready to cooperate with your investigations.

Yours faithfully

John Rofe, Experienced Private Fraud Investigator

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

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 18 July 2020 12:58 p.m.
To: ‘Enquiries’
Cc: ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘gerry.brownlee@national.org.nz’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Peter Goodfellow’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘david.seymour@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘alfred.ngaro@national.org.nz’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘newstalkzb’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘newsdesk herald’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘Richard Treadgold’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘leighton smith’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Geoff Duffy’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Graham Kearns’
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to NIWA – NIWA’s role in the biggest ever fraud in human history

Attention Caroline:  This is not a normal email because I am hereby notifying NIWA and its directors that they are implicated in a serious and extensive criminal enterprise.  This email exchange is being broadcast and it is being copied to the NZ Serious Fraud Office.

 It attaches a lot of information not relevant to an allegation of fraud because I believe NIWA must work out its own position to advise the Minister in charge and to do that, NIWA must be in a position to match my allegations with NIWA’s own records and research.

Nevertheless, NIWA now faces the allegation of fraud.  The evidence for which I have satisfied myself is compelling, with no room for dispute.

 I urge all readers to begin this email string, by reading my first short email below and then NIWA’s short response.  Then please read on…

“Dear NIWA PR, Management and Directors,

The empirical scientific evidence behind the summary of facts as included in the above one-page attachment marked “A Tale of Fraud, Complicity and Arrant Stupidity”, is all attached herewith in the form of two papers by Professor Duffy, one paper from Dr Jock Allison and my own attempt to establish whether CO2 had any role at all in changing the climate and, if not, whether the role of “greenhouse gas” is totally monopolised by water vapour and clouds.  The undeniable conclusions from my studies are that water vapour is the only significant greenhouse gas and in effect, changes to the climate are due almost entirely to natural causes as  Professor Duffy has claimed in his evidence.

Thank you for your response on behalf of Dr David Wratt (retired).  I note that because you have referred me to the UN IPCC, you are effectively deferring to its leadership role at the centre of the Great Global Warming Fraud.  During the 16 years since I first contacted Dr Wratt, NIWA has seemingly learned nothing about the cause of changes to the climate (which is very sad, given NIWA is paid to do so) and has likely become integrated within the UN IPCC’s fraudulent enterprise, either as a compliant accessory or as a full “Partner-in-Crime”.

Anyway, thank you for the courtesy of a reply to my first email in this string.  Unbeknown to you, I now hold all the evidential “cards”, so I already know the proper responses to the four questions in my email should have been as follows:

Q1.  There is none,

Q2. There is none,

Q3. There is none, and,

Q4. NIWA has no plans to provide certainty to anyone, nor can it do so.”

 (Memo.  The first two documents I have attached above were also attached to the original email.)

 NIWA and most readers may be unfamiliar with the history between this Government and the writer.  So for the avoidance of confusion…

During 2018 I sent a number of emails to Government ministers advising they were in danger of becoming accessories to fraud as no science supported their climate change rhetoric.

 In September 2018 the Minister for Climate Change wrote to me (as attached) claiming that he had no idea on the science but his fledgling coalition government accepted that the UN IPCC position reflected the “overwhelming consensus”, which it never did.  I then spent a further fruitless six months revisiting the science with the UN IPCC’s so-called “international experts.”   I wanted to find reasons to discontinue, so finding further evidence of malfeasance was certainly not what I had hoped for.  Meantime, the media contained sporadic news of defections from the more highly credentialed ranks of UN IPCC scientific advisers who all claimed that paid UN IPCC bureaucrats and politicians altered their scientific evidence in order to reflect UN IPCC policy, yet had fraudulently maintained their names as authors or even lead authors to the reports.

I then concluded that The New Zealand Government must be exercising some sort of agency from the UN IPCC to import its fraud into New Zealand.  On 15 May 2019 I wrote to the Minister for Climate Change, copying the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister, advising them as to the specific areas where they could be complicit in fraud – not the least of which was that the suggestion of an “overwhelming consensus” was at variance with the facts.   If the Minister misrepresented NIWA’s advice, will NIWA be saying that the Minister for Climate Change misled the people of New Zealand that the science was settled, when neither NIWA, nor he, nor the UN IPCC had any empirical scientific evidence that could possibly withstand public scrutiny?  If so please explain?

The seriousness of NIWA’s answers (by comparison with my own version at Q1-Q4 that I have spelled out above) will become apparent.

We have a Government trying to persuade us to reduce CO2 emissions when there is no empirical scientific evidence that increased atmospheric emissions have any impact at all on the climate.    If you think that this cannot possibly be true, I wish to refer you to the interchange between the NZ Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Juliet Gerrard and Mr Peter Morgan, the CEO of Environomics (NZ) Trust Inc., as attached above and marked “191207…”.   She was unable to provide any empirical scientific evidence although Mr Morgan could, so she disengaged, and there are records of plenty of other prevarications in addition to those of NIWA.  In late 2004 I had the same experience with NIWA’s Dr Wratt but did not document it at the time.  The “Augie Auer Memorial Prize” of $10,000 offered in New Zealand remains uncollected as does at least one similar prize overseas. As someone whose first official roles in investigating fraudsters within organisations such as Equiticorp and Goldcorp from as early as 1989, and after 15 years of dogged pursuit of the truth of this case, I believe I am entitled to presume this is just a fraud like any other – even if the sum involved now ranks in the trillions of dollars and is a semi-global fraud (one third of the world population are affected, two-thirds are not – so the fraud and the corruption of science at the hands of the UN IPCC is not quite global – yet).

We have a Government trying to persuade us that CO2 is a pollutant and there is too much “atmospheric carbon” while in fact CO2 is a gas that is essential to all life on earth and the world’s vegetation not only wants three times as much as that which remains in the atmosphere today, but NASA has studies and satellite photos which show a greening of planet earth, due to the increase that has taken place over the last 30 years.  It is colourless, odourless and non-toxic at current atmospheric levels.

As for spending money to solve a non-existent problem when there is absolutely no chance of altering either the atmospheric levels of CO2, or effecting any change to the future climate by human action or restraint, the futility of the Minister for Climate Change’s actions and future published plans show that he is unfit to hold political office.  NIWA should review the Minister’s outrageous claims in 2018 as extracted from attachment 001. above.

  1. “the Government believes that  climate change is a serious global issue that requires international cooperation and domestic action.”
  2. “It is clear that the overwhelming consensus is that human induced climate change is occurring.”
  3. and on the Zero Carbon bill, “ The Zero Carbon Bill will set a target in law, which will be a long term commitment for New Zealand’s transition to a net zero emissions economy. It will provide certainty for businesses, households and for local government so they can make confident decisions about the investments they need to make over the coming decades.”

But anyway, my thanks to NIWA for the confirmation provided through your response that…

  1. NIWA apparently cannot differentiate between the sophistry required to support fraud and what constitutes “empirical scientific evidence”.  (You surely must be aware that there is no empirical scientific evidence of anything relevant contained  in those sections of the UN IPCC’s AR5 report that you just referred me to?)
  2. NIWA is complicit in the UN IPCC fraud by using the UN IPCC’s standard evasive response.
  3. NIWA has scientists as well as administrators who have been corrupted by association with the UN IPCC, or they would realise that 18 years of using the phrase “consensus” instead of making proper enquiry (as you are paid to do) places you at the centre of this fraud.
  4. NIWA has supplied “Lead Authors” for UN IPCC studies and yet there has never been any evidence (let alone empirical scientific evidence) to confirm the effect of changed atmospheric levels of CO2 on the climate.
  5. While frauds are committed by people and not by faceless organisations, NIWA’s involvement shows a failure of governance as well as management.

Whether NIWA’s complicity has occurred to you or not, I am confident that your response makes NIWA at the very least an accessory to the biggest fraud in New Zealand history as agents for the biggest fraud in world history, now being perpetrated by the UN IPCC and its Secretary General Sr. Antonio Guterres.

It seems to me that this Ardern-led government has made a number of multi-billion-dollar decisions justified solely by the illusion that there may be some foreign scientific justification.   I therefore doesn’t seem to me sufficient for NIWA to pass the buck to the UN IPCC, the way NIWA has done in your email to me, dated 15 July 2020 as shown below.  This has all the hallmarks of modern-day “Lysenkoism”.    NIWA is now at least in considerable part, responsible for the contagious effects of this fraud in spawning Ponzi and other commercial frauds, including those of the NZ Government in levying a carbon tax using deceptive and misleading information to justify it, planting huge forests that will have no material effect on the climate, for carbon trading schemes which serve only to enrich bankers and promoting the purchase of carbon credits (by firms such as Air New Zealand) – which are all fraudulent as they lack the substance of genuine purpose.  NIWA’s role is not to participate in projects designed to fleece New Zealanders, whether coerced by corrupt politicians or not.

The farming sector and the Oil and Gas industry and all those who rely on NIWA for weather and climate advice deserve to know what NIWA’s evidence for this mythological but human-instigated faux climate crisis is.  This is a fraud that has depended to date on everyone who is either driving it, or complicit, trying to hide behind faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats somewhere else.   NIWA’s devious response to my email now seems a part of the sort of dance that all fraudsters go though when discovery is close. 

NIWA regularly publishes data about the weather on the public internet.  So anyone with access to the internet can witness the huge role that water vapour, humidity and clouds play in the temperature, the weather and the climate; CO2, CH4 and N2O have absolutely no identifiable impact on daily, weekly and yearly weather and I have empirical scientific evidence that the radiative impact of those three trace gases is negligible by comparison with the radiative effect of water vapour alone – yet water vapour has many other drivers including (inter alia) the impact of variability of cloud cover and the more than 400 trillion tonnes per year of evaporation and precipitation. 

NIWA must surely be aware that during geological time, from 540 million years ago, the atmospheric level of CO2 reached 7,000ppm (compared with only 415ppm today) and  since then there has been no correlation between the movements in the level of CO2 and the movements in the global temperature.  During the last 600,000 years of the Pleistocene era that has been covered in detail by the ice core analysis performed by teams of French and Russian scientists at Vostok in Antarctica, the evidence was absolutely clear that changes in atmospheric temperature pre-dated the change in atmospheric CO2 by 400-800 years, thereby demonstrating that CO2 is a trailing indicator but certainly not a possible driver of changes to the climate.  The ice core analysis performed in Central Greenland that provided temperature data  going back 11,000 years showed that the Holocene climate temperature maximum occurred during the Minoan Warm period some 3,300 years ago at about 6 degrees C. higher than today.  Moreover, it showed that the current global average temperature that NIWA believes shows “unprecedented warming” is in fact considerably lower than 75% of the last 10,000 years of the Holocene.

Please pause at this point to review the expert submission of Dr Jock Allison ONZM, FNZIPIM, to the Zero Carbon public hearing.  It shows in Fig 3 that there is no correlation between the level of atmospheric CO2 and temperature over 540 million years of geological time – that is, according to the consensus of all geologists.  In Fig 4. The Greenland ice core temperatures provides an insight into the temperature of the Holocene interglacial period and show that there is no “Climate Crisis”.  These two schematics are on Page 5 of Dr. Allison’s submission. 

This would lead any prudent person who is appraised of the facts to conclude that changes in atmospheric CO2 have never even appeared to have any influence over the climate.  NIWA’s support for the widely published fraud brings all of science and environmental policy into disrepute.

For there to be evidence of CO2, CH4 and N2O effecting warming, the gases actually need to be capable of doing so, which as it emerges, they are not.  (This is the biggest likely indictment of UN IPCC’s fraud and it is also the biggest likely indictment of NIWA’s seeming negligence.)

The Hon. James Shaw’s letter to me of September 2018 offered me and all New Zealanders the certainty of solving a non-existent problem for the nation.  Not only is there no climate crisis, but CO2, CH4 and N2O have almost no influence in changing the climate.  NIWA is either complicit in Minister Shaw’s misleading statements or has influenced him to issue them.

Which is it?

My role as a fraud investigator requires me (among other things) to examine the evidence and opinions of everyone involved in an issue.  Over 15 years I have had correspondence with many scientists from many countries but now that I am totally convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming has nothing to do with science and is politically inspired only (and have presented evidence to prove it), I need to address the consequences of this discovery.  My intention is to spend the balance of 2020 fund-raising for private litigation in 2021.  But that is only if the NZ Serious Fraud Office does not pick this up and run with it.  If one political party were to pick this up as an election issue then the way will be open for a week or so for you to get your act together.  First to check the science and  second to work out a strategy for regaining public trust.  Let me make this plain, the NZ SFO has turned down the opportunity to investigate it once; and if they do so again their leadership needs to be promptly changed.

In order to fast track NIWA’s rehabilitation, you should speak with the scientists whose work is included in this document.  They are the experts, not me.

NIWA’s Chief Scientist should review the atomic absorption spectroscopic tests for water vapour, CO2, CH4 and N2O and the way in which the Beer-Lambert Law of Physics drastically reduces the impact of changes in the atmospheric level of CO2 on temperature.  NIWA should also review the attached two papers prepared and presented as evidence by Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland, Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, D.Eng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRSNZ, FI Chem E. 

Supporting the two papers provided by Professor Duffy attached, I have separately tested the conclusions reached in them and as a result I agree that only water vapour and clouds have true relevance as greenhouse gases.  This is supported by empirical observations as noted in the two attachments marked as “Casual observations…” as above.  These were drawn from web-based meteorological data. 

The UN IPCC has a reason for its fraud which should have been apparent to scientific observers.   Article 2. requires the UN IPCC to show what human influences affect changes to the climate, or if they cannot do so, the organisations that were instrumental in the establishment and the UN IPCC’s conduct will no longer have the incentive to do so and the UN IPCC will be redundant.  But NIWA scientists have a different duty of care and have become so focused on compliance with the fraud, that NIWA has seemingly neglected to point out what the Egyptians and Chinese knew thousands of years ago, that it is the sun which dominates earth’s climate – at least in between the less frequent but much larger perturbations of the Milankovich cycles. 

While the Russians, Indians and Chinese are properly advised and are taking steps to deal with an approaching Grand Solar Minimum at the commencement of solar cycle 25, NIWA appears to cling to the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory that was disproven 20 years ago.  Of course those countries face the same challenges we do of resource depletion, the demands of exponential population growth and pollution, but they waste no time or resources on foolish fads.

In fact, the modern temperature records since 1934 do not even show any correlation at all between global temperature and Global CO2 emissions.  May I jog NIWA’s thought processes and provide a short video of the sort of information that is provided to President Vladimir Putin….(I suggest you should freeze each screen-shot because the presenter’s English is poor and he has a cold)…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdNw8-Cq8h8&feature=emb_logo

(Dr Habibulo Abdussamatov the presenter, is the eminent  scientist who runs the prestigious Pulkovo Observatory and was responsible for supervising the Russian experiments on the International Space Station.  If you examine his presentation closely you will find that his predictions for the last six years have been borne out by the changes to the solar magnetosphere and his forecast of extreme impending cold this century is now being taken up by many others.)

Readers of this email may be unaware that of all the many computer modellers’ climate forecasts used by the UN IPCC, only the Russian one has been accurate to date, so must be taken seriously.  The others escalate projections of temperature increases that have been at least three times those of NASA satellite recordings showing the temperature graphs for the Lower Troposphere since 1979.  The only purpose they appear to fulfil is to continue to extract ever more funds from governments by meeting the UN IPCC’s agenda.

Yet the average of inaccurate models is still the source of UN IPCC alarmist temperature projections for the future.

Despite the surface temperature measurements being projected by the UN IPCC to accelerate – or as the UN IPCC inspired claims, “Faster than previously thought”, the temperature is only increasing or decreasing within the range of natural variability as shown below…

The biggest upward spikes of the graph above denote el Nino years and their size denotes the fact that 70+%  of the earth’s surface is ocean so the huge heat sinks called simply “the world’s oceans” act as something of an intermediary between the sun’s intensity and the weather we enjoy on planet Earth.  The graph you see above is published monthly, from the NASA satellites, which are monitored by two independent science based organisations (UAH and RSS).

Meanwhile, the earth’s outer defence against the un-survivable frigidity  of outer space, which is called “the Thermosphere” is thinning and cooling according to the recorded physical evidence, at a great rate – right at this point in time.  That is what exercises the minds of leaders such as Putin, Trump, Modi and Xi Jinping, yet clearly does not suit the machinations of Secretary General Guterres, Prime Minister Ardern or Minister Shaw. 

What happens as the activity of solar cycle 25 once again naturally builds over the next 4-5 years remains to be seen.  However unlike the UN IPCC and NIWA, the Russians and Chinese are using real science and are taking note of the lessons of history.   President Trump is trying to follow, but with active Democratic Party leaders’ connivance in the UN IPCC fraud, his options are limited.

My summary of findings based on examining NIWA humidity and temperature data is, as attached above called “Physical Evidence of the Impact….”.  It consists of five pages and with it is enclosed two graphs of recent movements in the level of atmospheric CO2 which is a separate attachment above marked as “CO2 at Keeling …”.  The two papers attached above which are marked “Casual observations…” complete the record of my humble experiment which seeks the truth.

But what was NIWA thinking?  NIWA has all the source data and yet was somehow lured into a fraud that is so obviously deceitful.  Now NIWA’s fraud can be seen by anyone who observes the weather in New Zealand.  Please consider the following “self-evident observations” to support the empirical scientific evidence of Professor Duffy and also Dr Allison.

NIWA scientists and everyday observers know that most deserts with 0.2-0.5% humidity are usually hot during the afternoon due to the low level of water vapour, and similarly, get very cold at night for the same reason.  Massive temperature ranges of hundreds of degrees Celsius are the hallmark of solar system planets lacking “greenhouse gases”.  So the massive diurnal temperature ranges like those in Siberia (up to 107 degrees Celsius in one day!) are a hallmark of low humidity denoting water vapour as the sole dominant greenhouse gas.  NIWA scientists must know that many farmers often check to see whether they can see cloud cover or the stars before going to bed at night, as a precautionary check against the possibility of massive overnight heat loss that can lead to frost.  

The difference in maximum and minimum diurnal temperatures between Auckland and Christchurch, even during hot, still days, is often due to the difference in real humidity; and the overnight heat loss (NIWA’s favourite indicator of a “greenhouse gas”) should have reinforced its true role in NIWA’s Chief Scientist’s mind.  While it is not the only driver of climate, why has NIWA never considered the candidacy of humidity in the difference between the climates of Napier and New Plymouth (same latitude and altitude), between Wellington and Masterton and between Greymouth and Christchurch? 

Then consider what happens when the non-radiative impacts of water vapour and clouds come into play?  Water vapour and clouds vary by the hour and by the day and yet CO2 varies only slightly by the year and decade.  Somehow the dominant natural greenhouse gas (water vapour) finds itself either excluded, or deliberately minimised in many UN IPCC peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

That is the UN IPCC’s game, but what is NIWA’s objective in promoting the interests of the UN IPCC…and why?

In my own insight into the motivation behind the fraud ( marked “Many Whistleblowers…) I named NOAA, NASA, CSIRO and NIWA among those organisations which have altered temperature records at about the same time in an apparently orchestrated move.  Now I want to know why NIWA did that.  Last time I asked this, I was threatened with punitive action by one of your PR team.  Will I get an honest response this time, now that Dr David Wratt is no longer on NIWA’s staff?

To protect myself, this email is going on the public record.   The longer this goes on, the worse the damage to the reputations of science, scientists and the conservation movement will be when the public realises that they and their children have been lied to for the last two decades.

Many sensible people are already suspicious because of all the repeated threats of apocalyptic events that have been held over people’s heads since the UN IPCC was first established and issued its first of several “ten years to Armageddon” warnings in 1989.

Why frighten the children?  Why teach them fake science?  NIWA can change this perception, but only if the empirical scientific evidence provided by Drs Allison and Duffy is accepted.

Your call.  But remember I am happy to litigate if necessary.

Kind regards

John Rofe, Private Fraud Investigator

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

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 ChangeBureau 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.

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

 

 

John’s newsletter

This post provides John’s latest newsletter which covers a range of topical political, technical and environmental issues.

John’s newsletter, 13 December 2020

Hi Guys,

Investments…

 The Reserve Bank of NZ and all other central banks expect a continuation into lower and even negative interest rates during the next several months.  This means investment yields will fall;  and inflation will sooner or later become hyper-inflation.  Even with no news to report the share markets headed higher this week and dividend yields in percentage terms fell further.  Unless invested in companies mauled by the impact of Covid, the actual dividends being paid have held steady in dollar terms. But the rush to shares has had a huge impact.

In New Zealand, the attempted hostile takeover of the Infratil group by “Australian Super”  has also had an impact share prices on energy stocks as well as for Infratil, and not just for Trustpower.

Real estate prices continue higher as bank interest rates for funds on deposit fall through the floorboards.  This affects yields on rentals for both commercial and industrial real estate.  House prices rose on average by $24,000 in November alone.  Incompetent government now driving incompetent central bank policies.

Politics

 By the end of this week, if Boris Johnson holds his nerve, the British will have a “no deal Brexit”.  This will be a lose/lose for both Britain and the EU…

https://youtu.be/iUAzwJBtemI

How could Britain have won in 1945 yet lost to both France and Germany’s bullying in 2020?    The wealthy UK “remainers” have simply persuaded the EU leaders that Boris will cave to their pressure.  Nigel Farage is also continuing his political opposition to Britain either remaining in the EU or the EU continuing to make UK laws…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBQjmjixIl0

In the USA a form of civil war has begun as 19 states sue the states that changes their rules for this specific election. This has nothing to do with Trump versus Biden but the equality of the treatment of a vote from state to state…yet the US Supreme Court is reluctant to get involved.

The Russia-gate effort to impeach Trump was an attempted “soft coup”.  Going after General Flynn was also just a hyped-up attack on Trump’s White House arrangements…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pERAU2e332Q

The votes stats look very iffy…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijtaV5Twf6o&feature=youtu.be

But by the end of next week Trump will either have scored some major surprise victories or will likely have conceded.  As they say, “He is running out of runway”.  The Electoral College votes for the POTUS on Monday and at this point I cannot see that being delayed.  The problems with the Bidens’ obvious criminality are more likely now to see the active communist, Kamala Harris as POTUS than Trump at this stage.  While the Hunter Biden issues have been public knowledge for 70% of US citizens, the news media has protected the Bidens by enforcing an embargo on publication.  Now, instead of the long-running FBI investigation into the conduct of the Biden family being blamed for the attack on “Sleepy Joe”, the mainstream media finger the FBI and IRS actions as being a “loser’s” complaint by Trump.  The Democrats threw the Bidens under the bus during the Congressional impeachment hearings in early 2020 yet the mainstream media completely suppressed the news.  You may recall I was commenting about this at the time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/joe-biden-deeply-proud-son-hunter-who-just-admitted-facing-federal-tax-fraud?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

and according to Wall Street Journal, US AG Bill Barr intercepted information implicating Hunter Biden and concealed it during the presidential election campaign to Trumps disadvantage.  Now the matter is all over the news despite CNN also having been involved in the cover up.

https://cms.zerohedge.com/political/chinese-money-launderer-called-james-biden-after-fbi-arrest-who-said-he-was-trying-reach?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

Our own media reflects that mainstream globalist media agenda and simply treats the allegations against the Bidens that originated from the US State Department as Trumps sour grapes.  So it seems to me the dystopian Orwellian world of “1984” is here in New Zealand.  Now there is a fourth investigation into Biden…

https://youtu.be/Go7TkInP0mQ

Onto the Great Reset, planned by the global Uber-elites.   Just as the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi, many of the Nazi opinions have now re-surfaced under the guise of the drift towards socialism and the need for practical eugenics to depress global population.  The globalist billionaires are all for it and the leading proponents are now Soros, Schwab and Prince Charles.  But who is Klaus Schwab?

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/youll-own-nothing-and-youll-be-happy?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

The Economy

 Thanks to Covid, the big get bigger and the small get gobbled up…

https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/survival-of-the-biggest

No-one seems interested as China sustains more flooding.  What they have had this year is flooding of biblical proportions and the 3-Gorges Dam is still at risk.  No wonder they have famine…

https://youtu.be/LokuLywuXxk

Would China be a better banker to the world than the USA is?

Energy

This looks pretty significant for China but they are still a long way off from viable nuclear fusion power generation…

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Will-China-Win-The-Nuclear-Fusion-Race.html

Trouble in paradise for Bahrain…

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Tiny-Oil-Nation-At-The-Center-Of-A-Middle-East-Power-Struggle.html

It looks like US oil producers are struggling following Covid-19…

https://peakoil.com/production/update-on-us-oil-production

Covid-19 and implications

 The inevitable result of the decimation of the ocean cruise industry and the halt in globalisation – however temporary…

https://youtu.be/qo-2gDg-37w

So Melinda Gates reckon they miscalculated?  Of course they are being blamed in some quarters…

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/melinda-gates-admits-we-hadnt-really-thought-through-economic-impacts?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

The Climate and Space Weather

 While the space weather drives climate change, major anomalous solar events can cause mayhem on Earth…as solar cycle 25 gets into gear there are signs of possible CMEs in our near future…

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/digital-economy-disruption-possible-terminator-event-suggests-strongest-sunspot-cycle?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

This will be my last email before Christmas unless something  really surprising happens.  In the New Year I fear we will awaken to a Kamala Harris presidency in the USA and to the reality of Brexit.  A brave new world – 1984 2.0 accelerates.  As Mel Brooks said ‘Be afraid, be very afraid’.

 Merry Christmas to everyone…

 Best regards

John

‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’, modern ‘democracy’ and modern ‘capitalism’

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control. The following articles provide evidence.

Links to more articles follow the five below

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism  By Robert Bridge, The Strategic Culture Foundation, via Zerohedge 2 Dec 2020

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism Sporting A Smiley Shirt And Armed With A Syringe

The globalists responsible for engineering a medical tyranny across much of the Western world have something valuable to teach right-wing nationalists and would-be fascists, and that is you don’t sell your damaged product out of the barrel of a machine gun, but rather dripping from the end of a syringe that promises to end all pain and misery.

 

Patrick Henry, one of America’s more outspoken Founding Fathers, famously remarked “give me liberty or give me death” when the life of his nation was on the line.

Today, America’s famous battle cry has been replaced by a masked and muffled gasp that advises, without hope of a second opinion, “give me lockdowns and keep me safe.”

So terrified is the American public of catching a virus that comes with a 99 percent survival rate that they are willing to forego Thanksgiving, the great national holiday commemorating – with no loss of irony – their Pilgrim ancestors’ collective courage to overcome the wild, hostile conditions of their new land.

It must be said that no fascist party has ever been so adept when it came to sealing the collective fate of their people to a common enemy. That’s because the threat facing mankind today, or so we are told, is not some nefarious ideology, like communism, or even a terrorist organization that the masses can be rallied to fight. Rather, the threat is a microscopic contagion that is capable of invading every nook and cranny of our lives. Already the age of manly handshakes is over, replaced by an emasculated majority, while an entire generation of youth now looks at their fellow human beings as infernal germ factories.

And unlike a traditional enemy that can be seen, attacked and eventually defeated, the coronavirus – we have been oddly forewarned – will make landfall again and again, while regularly morphing with comic book abilities into an increasingly deadlier villain. In this landless battle, only the medical authorities are decorated as heroes, while the people, lacking the professional credentials, are forced to be passive and helpless onlookers, their freedom of movement severely constrained. More importantly, the forces of nationalism have become irrelevant; only a globalist, one-world-order response can defeat this pandemic.

There is very good reason to suspect, however, that either the science on all of this is half-baked, or we the people are being intentionally duped on a grand scale. In fact, it’s probably a little bit of both. First, relying on nothing more than empirical evidence, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that there is no existential emergency confronting mankind. If there were, we would expect to see decomposing bodies piling up in the streets, like in the medieval times during the Black Plague. This would be especially the case among the homeless population, which is certainly not practicing social distancing etiquette as they pass around open containers on street corners.

Nor does there seem to be any massive queuing up at hospitals for emergency treatment. In fact, as early as April, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told President Trump that the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort deployed to New York City by the federal government to help fight the coronavirus outbreak was “no longer needed”. Cuomo said the need for the support vessel “didn’t reach the levels that had been projected.” And I am certainly not the only one who has noticed that Covid cases seem to fluctuate curiously with the political climate.

Let’s not forget that the overwhelming majority of Covid ‘victims’ recover nicely at home, according to no less of an authority than Anthony Fauci. At the same time, many people who acquire the disease are asymptomatic and never even knew they were infected. Children, meanwhile, seem amazingly impervious to the virus. That is not to say that there has been no sign of a virus this winter season. Of course there has been, just like every year. But while Covid cases may be on the rise in some places, and invisible in others, the death rate from this illness remains low and tumbling, predominantly hitting elderly people already suffering from comorbidities.

There are other reasons to be suspicious that what we are dealing with is not a first-class medical emergency, but rather something much more sinister. Like maybe an excuse for rolling out a Western-made vaccine that carries a microchip implant with tracking technology? Such a claim will sound less fantastic when it is realized that it has already been developed.

It is no secret that just one month before Covid-19 made its dramatic landfall in the United States, purportedly from Wuhan, China, MIT researchers announced a new method for recording a patient’s vaccination history: storing the smartphone-readable data under the skin at the same time a vaccine is administered.

“By selectively loading microparticles into microneedles, the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed,” MIT News reported.

“The patch can be customized to imprint different patterns that correspond to the type of vaccine delivered.”

Would it surprise anyone to know that the research was funded largely by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the same family venture that now provides the bulk of funding to the World Health Organization?

Then, in September 2019, ID2020, a San Francisco-based biometric company that counts Microsoft as one of its founding members, announced a new project that involves the “exploration of multiple biometric identification technologies for infants” that is based on “infant immunization.”

We could continue here with a long list of other disturbing technologies that would effectively turn people into walking antennae for the rest of their lives, but the point is hopefully clear: although many people might be willing to accept a vaccine against Covid-19, they probably do not want the extra technological add-ons that people like Bill Gates, a man with zero medical qualifications, seem extremely anxious to include.

Bottom of Form

So what can Americans expect next? How about ‘Freedom Passes’ that Britons may need before they are able to return to some semblance of normalcy?

According to the Daily Mail, “Britons are set to be given Covid ‘freedom passes’ as long as they test negative for the virus twice in a week, it has been suggested…To earn the freedom pass, people will need to be tested regularly and, provided the results come back negative, they will then be given a letter, card or document they can show to people as they move around.”

And this is what they call a “return to normalcy.”

Personally, I call those plans the approach of fascism. And for those who doubt that it could not happen in America should heed the words of the late sagacious comedian George Carlin, who once quipped that “when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts.” Had Carlin been alive today to see the tremendous mess we’ve inherited, he would most likely have included a syringe in the neo-fascist’s toolkit.

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

A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom

A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 7 November 2020

A victory for Joe Biden would embolden the regressive woke elites across the Western world.

Make America Boring Again. Remarkably, this has become the rallying cry of many in the Joe Biden camp. ‘Vote Biden and make the presidency boring again’, instructs the New York Daily News. ‘The delightful boringness of Joe Biden’, as Vox puts it. ‘Joe Biden is a boring candidate. That’s why he is doing well’, says a writer for the Guardian. After the fire and the fury and the lies and the bluster of the first Trump term, what America needs right now is a big ol’ ‘dose of monotony’, says one observer.

This all captures what is motoring the extraordinarily uniform pro-Biden outlook across the old political establishment, the media class and the celebrity set. Every now and then these people will use words like ‘renewal’ to describe a Biden presidency. They even occasionally claim he is riding on a similar wave of ‘HOPE’ to the one that swept Obama to power in 2008.

But in truth, at root, what the cultural elites love about Biden is that he would render politics dull again. He would help to restore calm and normalcy and, most importantly, order. More specifically, he will restore the order, the old order, the pre-Trump order in which politics was a fundamentally boring, technical, managerial affair, the business of educated elites rather than of loudmouth populists and the swarms of excitable people who come to hear them and cheer them. Make no mistake: the celebration of Biden’s tedium speaks to an elitist longing to drain the popular democratic spark from political life and return politics to the aloof, bureaucratic clerisy who had been running things before Trump came along.

The most important thing about Joe Biden is not the man himself – it is what has been invested in him by the establishment. This is why those who go on about Biden’s age and his bouts of mental confusion and the stark possibility that he wouldn’t survive a four-year presidency are kind of missing the point. Biden, for the purposes of this election, this election that the elites tell us is the most important of everyone’s lifetime, is not a politician; he’s a mascot. He’s a flag. He’s a largely symbolic figure, primarily symbolising Not Trump and Not Populism, whose presence in the White House will, the old establishment hopes, help to embolden their efforts to rebalance politics away from the frankness and populism of the last four years and return it to what a writer for the Los Angeles Times refers to as the ‘expertise’ of the pre-Trump era, which is apparently preferable to ‘the authenticity’ of a political figure like Trump.

So what will happen today is not really a normal election. Rather, it is an attempted restoration. A restoration not of monarchy but of technocracy; not of a king but of the status quo ante and its conduct of politics in a removed, disconnected way. Not only in the US but across Europe and elsewhere in the world, the political and moral clerisy see the restoration of their preferred order in the US as an essential first step in their longed-for rollback of the populist rebellions of the past few years. This is why spiked thinks a victory for Joe Biden will be a disaster for the world – because it would further embolden the most regressive, anti-democratic, woke strains in Western political life. If Biden wins, we all lose.

One of the most revealing justifications for voting for Biden is that he would relieve people of the burden of thinking about politics. As one writer says, the main horror of the Trump era is that it made ‘politics and government’ into ‘the omnipresent centre of gravity in our daily lives’. With a monster like Trump in the White House, many people, apparently, could think about little else other than politics and what a shitshow it had become courtesy of the ‘deplorables’ who elevated Trump to power. And the great thing about Biden’s rule is that it ‘promises to return the outsized stature of politics to its rightfully diminutive place’ (my italics). Diminutive: extremely or unusually small. That is the presence politics should have in most people’s lives, apparently: an infinitesimally small one. Don’t think about politics – just let other people get on with it. And that is what Biden promises – ‘a government you simply don’t have to think about all that often’.

This has become a common cry in the vast pro-Biden lobby. It is a central component of the Make Politics Boring Again worldview. They want a world where most people – ordinary people – don’t have to worry themselves about issues of governance. They can just leave that stuff, the business of the national destiny, to the competent classes (‘competence’, alongside ‘boring’, is another buzzword of the Biden lobby). As the Los Angeles Times says, this election is really a reckoning between ‘experts’ and the ‘authentics’. The experts are the likes of Hillary Clinton and, latterly, Joe Biden (eight years in the Obama administration ‘boosted his expert credentials’, says the LA Times), and the ‘authentics’ are people like Trump. And what we need to restore is ‘the expertise’ and ‘reliance on science’ of that pre-Trump class, against ‘the feral frankness’ of the Trump era, the LA Times says.

So the wave of pro-Biden sentiment among vast swathes of the establishment is not merely about changing policy in the White House, as most elections are. (Indeed, it is striking how much of the pro-Biden commentary says Biden’s policies don’t actually matter. ‘It’s not the policies that count’, as the Guardian says.) Rather, it is about negating the ‘feral’ populism of recent years and restoring the rightful rule of the smart set, of those who can be trusted to govern while the rest of us just get on with our lives and never think about politics. A Biden presidency is a ‘protest against protest’, in the words of the Guardian. That is, it would be a protest against the protest votes cast by vast numbers of ordinary people in 2016 for a different, more democratic way of doing politics. There’s a word for ‘protest against protest’, of course: counter-protest, or counterrevolution. That is what the elite Biden wave represents: a counterrevolution against the populist cries and democratic demands of the 2016 era.

‘Feral’ means having escaped from domestication and become wild. That is how much of the cultural and media elites view the masses in the post-2016 era: we disobediently broke free of the domesticating force of managerial politics and became beast-like, ignorantly voting for Trump or Brexit. The Biden reaction, the Biden counterrevolution, is fundamentally a project of redomestication, of returning the masses to the tamed state in which they do not concern themselves with politics and instead leave it to ‘America’s system of checks and balances’, as The Economist says in its pro-Biden leader.

If successful, this ‘protest against protest’, this elitist reaction against the feral demands of the people for change, would be bad not only for America but for other parts of the world, too. It would be particularly bad for the Brexit spirit. We know that Biden is hostile to Brexit, viewing it as a Trump-like phenomenon. We know that he is keen to reward the European Union for its steadfastness in the face of the Brexit revolt and of the various challenges to its authority from the East, especially from Poland and Hungary. The masses’ democratic impulse would suffer both in the US and in Europe if the self-consciously domesticating force of technocracy is restored to power in Washington, DC.

The desire to make politics diminutive again, to return decision-making to ‘the experts’, speaks to the overarching aim of the technocratic impulse – to insulate political life from the pressure of the masses. The elite meltdown of the past four years, in both the US and the UK, has been motored by a great fear that the votes for Trump and Brexit tore away the insulation of politics from popular pressure. This project of insulation had been taking shape for decades, in the form of the European Union, of the increased juridification of political decision-making, of quangos and checks and balances. In questioning the authority of the EU and the expertise of the Clinton-style establishment, British and American voters started to pull apart this insulation and make the case for more direct forms of democracy and decision-making. The ‘delightful boringness’ of Biden, his promise to make politics ‘diminutive’ again, his implicit invitation to ‘the experts’ to take authority back from ‘the authentics’, is fundamentally a project of restoring the insulation between politics and the masses. This will be a deeply concerning backward step for democracy.

The restoration of the pre-2016 order would not only insulate public life from people’s feral political demands but also from our cultural and moral values. It would redomesticate the masses morally as well as politically. A Biden victory would embolden the woke mobs of the new elite and their tyranny of cancel culture. Under the imperfect instrument of Trump’s often crude, narcissistic presidency, ordinary people have had a mechanism through which they could express their disdain for the eccentric, divisive, identitarian crusades of the new elites, on everything from transgenderism to the nonsense of ‘white privilege’. The defeat of Trump, the removal of one of the few anti-woke leaders in the West, would green-light the intensification of those crusades. We should expect to see an even keener assault on the apparently outdated family values and community concerns of the ‘deplorable’ sections of society by a newly emboldened elite.

Trump’s victory fundamentally represented a rude intrusion by ordinary people into the democratic life of America. It was an assertion of their democratic, moral concerns against an establishment that wasn’t only not listening to them but which was treating them with open contempt and hostility. The elite Biden wave is about reversing this rude intrusion and returning the people to their apparently natural state: one in which their role is merely to be governed, not to think about government. You might not want Trump to win, and that’s fine. But you should want Biden to lose. A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

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

“Capitalism” Is No Longer Attractive To Capitalists

 

Capitalism Is No Longer Attractive To Capitalists  By Charles Hugh Smith, vai OfTwoMinds blog, Zerohedge, 31 October 2020

This “capitalism” is only attractive to parasites, predators, kleptocrats, legalized looters, embezzlers, fraudsters and all those insiders whose palms get greased along the way.

Back of the envelope definition of classical capitalism:

  1. Transparency in markets, including pricing, information on quality and reliability of products, sellers and buyers, and of rules of conduct and rights governing all participants;
  2. Risk is tightly bound to reward, i.e. everyone has skin in the game, those who lose are forced to absorb the entire loss.
  3. Open competition, i.e. no monopolies or cartels limiting supply or setting prices;
  4. Free flow of capital and labor;
  5. Everyone pays the same rates of taxes, duties and fees on every transaction.

Needless to say, what is presented as “capitalism” in America today is not actually capitalism; it is monopoly-state-socialism for the wealthy, a kleptocracy incompetently cloaked by a rigged simulacrum market in which risk and losses are transferred to the debt-serfs and tax donkeys and the “socialism for the rich and powerful” is enforced by a pay-to-play simulacrum democracy and kleptocratic, totalitarian central bank, the Federal Reserve.

In this winner take most, anything goes if you’re rich casino, the weaker players are ruthlessly stripmined and exploited and those enterprises without political protection are cannibalized by rapacious, predatory monopolies and cartels.

Parasitic elites take a skim from every table: student loans over here, state junk fees over there; everyone gets clipped by self-serving insiders and entrenched interests.

Transparency is an illusion. Complexity thickets protect monopolies and cartels, and the fine print… try getting a set price for healthcare services. (You must be joking.) Sign the form for the $30 oil change and come back to an $800 bill for “work you authorized.” (You didn’t read the fine print? Too bad.)

Quality has gone downhill across the board but there’s no recourse or competition. All the items regardless of brand come from the same factory in China. So what if your new oven turns on by itself randomly (true story, happened to me); the once-proud American brand’s warranty is only one year, so tough luck, bucko, the repair bill for the defective $5 sensor will cost you as much as a new range.

In American “capitalism,” the name of the game is scale up with cheap debt supplied by the Federal Reserve, use the “Fed free money” to buy up any potential competitors and then start buying back your own shares, jacking your share price even as sales and profits stagnate. (Charts of Apple below).

Once you’re too big to fail or jail, then you can gamble to your heart’s content because all the winnings will be yours to keep and if you lose big, the Fed or the Treasury will step in and transfer the losses to the debt-serfs and tax donkeys.

In America, as Warren Buffett jacks up the price of Sees candy, etc. to maximize his profits and add more billions to his net worth, and Amazon uses its quasi-monopoly power to relentlessly jack up the price of Prime membership, nobody asks Warren or Jeff “don’t you have enough already?”

The answer is “no”. It’s never enough, because as long as the Fed and federal government enforce, enable or allow your monopoly, quasi-monopoly or cartel to kill transparency and competition, and offer you limitless “Fed free money” while students pay 8% on their loans, then why not add another $10 billion to your personal wealth?

Go ahead and lie, cheat, embezzle, rig markets, commit fraud, collude–everything is allowed if you’re a powerful corporation because all your execs have get out of jail free cards from the Department of Justice. Nobody in Corporate America ever goes to prison no matter how egregious the fraud or theft. And you get to keep all the loot, other than a wrist-slap fine if you’re caught. But that’s just a modest cost of doing business in American “capitalism.”

If this “capitalism” was actually attractive to capitalists, why would everyone pile into the same six Big Tech monopolies? Is that really the only opportunity left to “create shareholder value,” to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in “Fed free money” into a handful of Big Tech monopolies?

Paraphrasing the late Immanuel Wallerstein, “Capitalism” is no longer attractive to capitalists. This “capitalism” is only attractive to parasites, predators, kleptocrats, legalized looters, embezzlers, fraudsters and all those insiders whose palms get greased along the way.

If you think this “capitalism” is sustainable, the future holds a big surprise.

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

Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-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

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.

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

The great ‘reset’. Fiat currencies and economies collapse? Then what? And what role will gold play?

Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals.   The outlook is dire.  Note: The article by Professor Hall, AHT, provides one of the most comprehensive accounts of financial affairs, both recent and back to Biblical times.

Scroll to end to view previous articles

The Fed Has Never Been Right

The Fed Has Never Been Right  By Peter Schiff, Zerohedge, 30 October 2020

Peter Schiff delivered a key-note speech at the Virtual Investor Day Conference. He walked through the history of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy over the last several decades and explained the inevitable outcome. Peter’s recap of Fed history leads you to an undeniable conclusion: the Federal Reserve has never been right. And it has set us up for an even bigger crisis.

 

Peter opened his talk saying that he thinks we are entering the final chapter of the book Alan Greenspan started to write.

And I have a feeling he had an understanding of how badly it was going to end. But unfortunately, a lot of people who have been adding pages or chapters to that book since Greenspan resigned really don’t have any idea what’s coming.”

Greenspan started the book by unleashing the loose money policy that blew up the dot-com bubble.

When that bubble popped, instead of admitting his mistakes, Greenspan ignored them and tried to revive the economy by inflating a bigger bubble in the real estate market than the bubble that had just popped in the stock market. And the Fed succeeded in inflating that bubble. But that was not a success. It was a failure.”

Peter reminds us that he warned that the Fed policy was distorting the economy. He knew that it was creating a bubble economy. People were using the inflated value of their homes as ATMs and that drove consumer spending. People were living beyond their means. Nobody was saving.

So, the whole economy was distorted by the malinvestments and bad decisions that were being made as a result of artificially low interest rates.”

When the Fed tried to normalize, the bubble popped, the mortgage market blew up, and that gave us the Great Recession.

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve repeated the process, dropping interest rates to zero and launching quantitative easing. Ben Bernanke promised QE was just temporary – that the Fed was not monetizing the debt. He promised the Fed would shrink its balance sheet once the crisis passed. At the time, Peter said it was impossible. He said even if the Fed tried to normalize rates and shrink its balance sheet, it would fail.

Everything the Fed said about their ability to normalize rates and shrink the balance sheet was wrong. I said they were wrong as they were saying it. They never were able to normalize interest rates. They never came close to returning the balance sheet to pre-crisis levels.”

In Q4 2018, the Fed abandoned rate hikes at about 2.5% – not even close to normal. They called off quantitative tightening. By 2019, the Fed was back to rate cuts and the launched QE, all the while claiming it wasn’t QE. The Fed told us the pivot back to loose monetary policy was only temporary, calling it a “midcourse correction.”  But Peter said we were going back to zero and that’s exactly what happened.

And here we are today with the central bank running QE infinity and saying rates will stay at zero for years.

We are now the banana republic that Ben Bernanke assured us we would never become.”

Peter said he went through the history of Fed failures to make a point that should be pretty obvious.

The Federal Reserve has never been right. Everything they have said about the efficacy of their policies, what their policies would create, and their ability to reverse them or unwind them, has been wrong. And it’s amazing how consistently wrong they have been.”

And now they are pushing toward the logical conclusion.

We are headed for a US dollar crisis and a sovereign debt crisis. The magnitude of this crisis will be unlike anything we’ve ever experienced. Because this is not just mortgages blowing up. This is the credit of the United States government. This is the risk-free asset becoming the most toxic asset on the planet. And it’s not just US Treasuries that are going to collapse, but it’s the entire US-denominated bond market which is built on top the foundation of US Treasuries. So, Treasuries go — it all goes — corporate bonds, muni bonds, mortgages. Any debt instrument that is denominated in US dollars is going to collapse.”

So where will people run?

Gold.

The world is going to return to gold-backed paper money.”

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

Debunking The Establishment’s Desperate Plans To Discredit Gold  By James Richards, via DailyReckoning.com. from Zerohedge, 27 August 2020

Central Banks Are Driving Gold

Gold as an asset class is confusing to most investors. Even sophisticated investors are accustomed to hearing gold ridiculed as a “shiny rock” and hearing serious gold analysts mocked as “gold bugs,” “gold nuts” or worse.

As a gold analyst, I grew used to this a long time ago. But, it’s still disconcerting when one realizes the extent to which gold is simply not taken seriously or is treated as a mere commodity no different than soybeans or wheat.

 

The reasons for this disparaging approach to gold are not difficult to discern. Economic elites and academic economists control the central banks. The central banks control what we now consider “money” (dollars, euros, yen and other major currencies).

Those who control the money supply can indirectly control economies and the destiny of nations simply by deciding when and how much to ease or tighten credit conditions, and when to favor (or disfavor) certain types of lending.

When you ease credit conditions in a difficult environment, you help favored institutions (mainly banks) to survive. If you tighten credit conditions in a difficult environment, you can more or less guarantee that certain companies, banks or even nations will fail.

This power is based on money and the money is controlled by central banks, primarily the Federal Reserve System. However, the money-based power depends on a monopoly on money creation.

As long as investors and institutions are forced into a dollar-based system, then control of the dollar equates to control of those institutions. The minute another form of money competes with the dollar (or euro, etc.) as a store of value and medium of exchange, then the control of the power elites is broken.

This is why the elites disparage and marginalize gold. It’s easy to show why gold is a better form of money, why it’s more reliable than central bank money for preserving wealth, and why it’s a threat to the money-monopoly that the elites depend upon to maintain power.

Not only is gold a superior form of money, it’s also not under the control of any central bank or group of individuals. Yes, miners control new output, but annual output is only about 1.8% of all the above-ground gold in the world.

The value of gold is determined not by new output, but by the above-ground supply, which is 190,000 metric tonnes. Most of that above-ground supply is either owned by central banks and finance ministries (about 34,000 metric tonnes) or is held privately either as jewelry (“wearable wealth”) or bullion (coins and bars).

The floating supply available for day-to-day trading and investment is only a small fraction of the total supply. Gold is valuable and is a powerful form of money, but it’s not under the control of any single institution or group of institutions.

Clearly gold is a threat to the central bank money monopoly. Gold cannot be made to disappear (it’s too valuable), and it would be almost impossible to confiscate (despite persistent rumors to that effect).

If gold is a threat to central bank money and cannot be made to disappear, then it must be discreditedSo it becomes important for central bankers and academic economists to construct a narrative that’s easily absorbed by everyday investors that says gold is not money.

The narrative goes like this:

There’s not enough gold in the world to support trade and commerce. (That’s false: there’s always enough gold, it’s just a question of price. The same amount of gold supports a larger amount of transactions when the price is raised).

Gold supply cannot expand fast enough to keep up with economic growth. (That’s false: It confuses the official supply with the total supply. Central banks can always expand the official supply by printing money and buying gold from private hands. That expands the money supply and supports economic expansion).

Gold causes financial panics and crashes. (That’s false: There were panics and crashes during the gold standard and panics and crashes since the gold standard ended. Panics and crashes are not caused or cured by gold. They are caused by a loss of confidence in banks, paper money or the economy. There is no correlation between gold and financial panic).

Gold caused and prolonged the Great Depression. (That’s false: Even Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke have written that the Great Depression was caused by the Fed. During the Great Depression, base money supply could be 250% of the market value of official gold. Actual money supply never exceeded 100% of the gold value. In other words, the Fed could have more than doubled the money supply even with a gold standard. It failed to do so. That’s a Fed failure not a gold failure).

You get the point. There’s a clever narrative about why gold is not money. But, the narrative is false. It’s simply the case that everyday citizens believe what the economists say (usually a bad idea) or don’t know enough economic history to refute the economists (and how could you know the history if they stopped teaching it fifty years ago).

The bottom line is that economists know that gold could be a perfectly usable form of money. The reason they don’t want it is because it dilutes their monopoly power over printed money and therefore reduces their political power over people and nations.

To marginalize gold, they created a phony narrative about why gold doesn’t work as money. Most people were too easily impressed by the narrative or simply didn’t know enough to challenge it. Therefore the narrative wins even if it is false.

In fact, central banks went from being net sellers to net buyers of gold in 2010, and that net buying position has persisted ever since. The largest buyers are Russia and China, but significant purchases have also been made by Iran, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Mexico and Vietnam.

Here’s the bottom line:

Central banks have a monopoly on central bank money. Gold is the competitor to central bank money and most central banks would prefer to ignore gold. Yet, central banks in the aggregate are net buyers of gold.

In effect, central banks are signaling through their actions that they are losing confidence in their own money and their money monopoly. They’re getting ready for the day when confidence in central bank money will collapse across the board. In that world, gold will be the only form of money anyone wants.

As confidence in the dollar is eroded due to Fed money printing and congressional super-deficits, investors will gradually look for alternative stores of wealth, including gold.aily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

These trends begin slowly and then gather momentum. As the dollar price of gold really begins to soar, investors will take notice. Even more people will invest in gold, driving the price still higher.

Investors like to say that the price of gold is going up. But what is really happening is that the value of the dollar is going down (it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of gold).

This is the real inflation and the real dollar collapse most investors miss at the early stages.

Eventually, confidence in the dollar will be lost completely, central bankers will need to restore confidence, and they’ll turn to some type of gold standard to do so.

We’re a long way from that point right now.

But if central banks are voting with their printing presses in favour of gold, if the super-rich and their advisers are all jumping on the gold bandwagon, what are you waiting for?

Here’s a once in a lifetime opportunity to front run central banks and acquire your own gold at attractive prices before the curtain drops on paper money.

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

Lockdowns, Coronavirus, and Banks: Following the Money

 

Lockdowns, Coronavirus, and Banks. Following the Money  By Prof Anthony Hall, American Herald Tribute 16 August 2020

It usually makes sense to follow the money when seeking understanding of almost any major change. The strategy of following the money in our current convergence of crises in late summer of 2020 leads us directly to the lockdowns. The lockdowns were first imposed on people in the Wuhan area of China. Then other populations throughout the world were told to “shelter in place,” all in the name of combating the COVID-19 virus.

Understanding of the enormous impact of the lockdowns is still developing. The lockdowns are proving to pack a far more devastating punch than any other aspect of the strange sequence of events that is making 2020 a year like no other. Even when the issues are narrowed to those of human health, the lockdowns have had, and will continue to have, far more wide-ranging and devastating impacts than the celebrity virus.

The lockdowns have, for starters, been directly responsible for explosive rates of suicide, domestic violence, overdoses, and depression. In the long run, these maladies from the lockdowns will probably kill and harm many more people than COVID-19.

But this comparison does not tell the full story. The nature and length of the lockdowns are causing millions of people to lose their jobs, businesses and financial viability. It seems that the economic descent is still gathering force. The assault of the lockdowns on our economic wellbeing still has much farther to go.

The lockdowns have proven to be a powerful instrument of social control. This attribute is becoming very attractive especially to some politicians. They have discovered they can derive considerable political traction from hyping and exploiting the largely manufactured pandemic panic.

The lockdowns are still a work-in-progress. There are past lockdowns, revolving lockdowns, partial lockdowns, mandatory lockdowns, voluntary lockdowns, severe lockdowns and probably an array of many lockdown types yet to be invented.

The lockdowns extend to disruptions in supply chains, disruptions in money flows, drops in consumption, breakdowns in transport and travelling, increased bankruptcies, losses of finance leading to losses of housing, as well as the inability to pay taxes and debts.

The lockdowns extend beyond personal habitations to prohibitions on large assemblies of people in stadiums, concert halls, churches, and a myriad of places devoted to public recreation and entertainment. On the basis of this way of looking at what is happening, it becomes clear the economic and health effects of the lockdowns are far more pronounced than the damage wrought directly by the new coronavirus.

This approach to following the money leads to the question of whether the spread of COVID-19 was set in motion as a pretext. Was COVID-19 unleashed as an expedient for bringing about the lockdowns with the goal of crashing the existing economy? What rationale could there possibly be for purposely crashing the existing economy?

One possible reason might have been to put in place new structures to create the framework for a new set of economic relationships. With these changes would come accompanying sets of altered social and political relationships.

Among the economic changes being sought are the robotization of almost everything, cashless financial interactions, and elaborate AI impositions. These AI impositions extend to digital alterations of human consciousness and behaviour. The emphasis being placed on vaccines is very much interwoven with plans to extend AI into an altered matrix of human nanobiotechnology.

There are other possibilities to consider. One is that in the autumn of 2019 the economy was already starting to falter. Fortuitously for some, the new virus came along at a moment when it could be exploited as a scapegoat. By placing responsibility for the economic debacle on pathogens rather than people, Wall Street bankers and federal authorities are let off the hook. They can escape any accounting for an economic calamity that they had a hand in helping to instigate.

A presentation in August of 2019 by the Wall Street leviathan, BlackRock Financial Management, provides a telling indicator of foreknowledge. It was well understood by many insiders in 2019 that a sharp economic downturn was imminent.

At a meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole Wyoming, BlackRock representatives delivered a strategy for dealing with the future downturn. Several months later during the spring of 2020 this strategy was adopted by both the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve. BlackRock’s plan from August of 2019 set the basis of the federal response to the much-anticipated economic meltdown.

Much of this essay is devoted to considering the background of the controversial agencies now responding to the economic devastation created by the lockdowns. One of these agencies is empowered to bring into existence large quantities of debt-laden money.

The very public role in 2020 of the Federal Reserve of the United States resuscitates many old grievances. When the Federal Reserve was first created in 1913 it was heavily criticized as a giveaway of federal authority.

The critics lamented the giveaway to private bankers whose firms acquired ownership of all twelve of the regional banks that together constitute the Federal Reserve. Of these twelve regional banks, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is by far the largest and most dominant especially right now.

The Federal Reserve of the United States combined forces with dozens of other privately-owned central banks thoughout the world to form the Bank of International Settlements. Many of the key archetypes for this type of banking were developed in Europe and the City of London where the Rothschild banking family had a large and resilient role, one that persists until this day.

Along with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, BlackRock was deeply involved in helping to administer the bailout in 2008. This bailout resuscitated many failing Wall Street firms together with their counterparties in a number of speculative ventures involving various forms of derivatives.

The bailouts resulted in payments of $29 trillion, much of it going to restore failing financial institutions whose excesses actually caused the giant economic crash. Where the financial sector profited greatly from the bailouts, taxpayers were abused yet again. The burden of an expanded national debt fell ultimately on taxpayers who must pay the interest on the loans for the federal bailout of the “too big to fail” financial institutions.

Unsettling precedents are set by the Wall Street club’s manipulation of the economic crash of 2007-2010 to enrich its own members so extravagantly. This prior experience bodes poorly for the intervention by the same players in this current round of responses to the economic crisis of 2020.

In preparing this essay I have enjoyed the many articles by Pam Martens and Russ Martens in Wall Street on Parade. These hundreds of well-researched articles form a significant primary source on the recent history of the Federal Reserve, including over the last few months.

In this essay I draw a contrast between the privately-owned regional banks of the Federal Reserve and the government-owned Bank of Canada that once issued low-interest loans to build infrastructure projects.

With this arrangement in place, Canada went through a major period of national growth between 1938 and 1974. Canada emerged from this period with a national debt of only $20 billion. Then in 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau dropped this arrangement to enable Canada to join the Bank of International Settlements. One result is that national debt rose to $700 billion by 2020.

We need to face the current financial crisis by developing new institutions that avoid the pitfalls of old remedies for old problems that no longer prevail. We need to make special efforts to change our approach to the problem of excessive debts and the overconcentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Locking Down the Viability of Commerce

Of all the facets of the ongoing fiasco generally associated with the coronavirus crisis, none has been so widely catastrophic as the so-called “lockdowns.” The supposed cure of the lockdowns is itself proving to be much more lethal and debilitating than COVID-19’s flu-like impact on human health.

Many questions arise from the immense economic consequences attributed to the initial effort to “flatten the curve” of the hospital treatments for COVID-19. Did the financial crisis occur as a result of the spread of the new coronavirus crisis? Or was the COVID-19 crisis set in motion to help give cover to a long-building economic meltdown that was already well underway in the autumn of 2019?

The lockdowns were first instituted in Wuhan China with the objective of slowing down the spread of the virus so that hospitals would not be overwhelmed. Were the Chinese lockdowns engineered in part to create a model to be followed in Europe, North America, Indochina and other sites of infection like India and Australia? The Chinese lockdowns in Hubei province and then in other parts of China apparently set an example influencing the decision of governments in many jurisdictions. Was this Chinese example for the rest of the world created by design to influence the nature of international responses?

The lockdowns represented a new form of response to a public health crisis. Quarantines have long been used as a means of safeguarding the public from the spread of contagious maladies. Quarantines, however, involve isolating the sick to protect the well. On the other hand the lockdowns are directed at limiting the movement and circulation of almost everyone whether or not they show symptoms of any infections.

Hence lockdowns, or, more euphemistically “sheltering in place,” led to the cancellation of many activities and to the shutdown of institutions. The results extended, for instance, to the closure of schools, sports events, theatrical presentations and business operations. In this way the lockdowns also led to the crippling of many forms of economic interaction. National economies as well as international trade and commerce were severely impacted.

The concept of lockdowns was not universally embraced and applied. For instance, the governments of Sweden and South Korea did not accept the emerging orthodoxy about enforcing compliance with all kinds of restrictions on human interactions. Alternatively, the government of Israel was an early and strident enforcer of very severe lockdown policies.

At first it seemed the lockdown succeeded magnificently in saving Israeli lives. According to Israel Shamir, in other European states the Israeli model was often brought up as an example. In due course, however, the full extent of the assault on the viability of the Israeli economy began to come into focus. Then popular resistance was aroused to reject government attempts to enforce a second wave of lockdowns against a second wave of supposed infections. As Shamir sees it, the result is that “Today Israel is a failed state with a ruined economy and unhappy citizens.”

In many countries the lockdowns began with a few crucial decisions made at the highest level of government. Large and proliferating consequences would flow from the initial determination of what activities, businesses, organizations, institutions and workers were to be designated as “essential.”

The consequences would be severe for those individuals and businesses excluded from the designation identifying what is essential. This deep intervention into the realm of free choice in market relations set a major precedent for much more intervention of a similar nature to come.

The arbitrary division of activities into essential and nonessential categories created a template to be frequently replicated and revised in the name of serving public heath. Suddenly central planning took a great leap forward. The momentum from a generation of neoliberalism was checked even as the antagonistic polarities between rich and poor continued to grow.

To be defined as “nonessential” would soon be equated with job losses and business failures across many fields of enterprise as the first wave of lockdowns outside China unfolded. Indeed, it becomes clearer every day that revolving lockdowns, restrictions and social distancing are being managed in order to help give false justification to a speciously idealized vaccine fix as the only conclusive solution to a manufactured problem.

What must it have meant for breadwinners who fed themselves and their families through wages or self-employment to be declared by government to be “non-essential”? Surely for real providers their jobs, their businesses and their earnings were essential for themselves and their dependents. All jobs and all businesses that people depend on for livelihoods, sustenance and survival are essential in their own way.

Was COVID-19 a Cover for an Anticipated or Planned Financial Crisis?

A major sign of financial distress in the US economy kicked in in mid-September of 2019 when there was a breakdown in the normal operation of the Repo Market. This repurchase market in the United States is important in maintaining liquidity in the financial system.

Those directing entities like large banks, Wall Street traders and hedge funds frequently seek large amounts of cash on a short-term basis. They obtain this cash from, for instance, money market funds by putting up securities, often Treasury Bills, as collateral. Most often the financial instruments go back, say the following night, to their original owners with interest payments attached for the use of the cash.

In mid-September the trust broke down between participants in the Repo Market. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York then entered the picture making trillions of dollars available to keep the system for short-term moving of assets going. This intervention repeated the operation that came in response to the first signs of trouble as Wall Street moved towards the stock market crash of 2008.

One of the major problems on the eve of the bailout of 2008-09, like the problem in the autumn of 2019, had to do with the overwhelming of the real economy by massive speculative activity. The problem then, like a big part of the problem now, involves the disproportionate size of the derivative bets. The making of these bets have become a dangerous addiction that continues to this day to menace the viability of the financial system headquartered on Wall Street.

By March of 2020 it was reported that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had turned on its money spigot to create $9 trillion in new money with the goal of keeping the failing Repo Market operational. The precise destinations of that money together with the terms of its disbursement, however, remain a secret. As Pam Martens and Russ Martens write,

Since the Fed turned on its latest money spigot to Wall Street [in September of 2019], it has refused to provide the public with the dollar amounts going to any specific banks. This has denied the public the ability to know which financial institutions are in trouble. The Fed, exactly as it did in 2008, has drawn a dark curtain around troubled banks and the public’s right to know, while aiding and abetting a financial coverup of just how bad things are on Wall Street.

Looking back at the prior bailout from their temporal vantage point in January of 2020, the authors noted  “During the 2007 to 2010 financial collapse on Wall Street – the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Fed funnelled a total of $29 trillion in cumulative loans to Wall Street banks, their trading houses and their foreign derivative counterparties.”

The authors compared the rate of the transfer of funds from the New York Federal Reserve Bank to the Wall Street banking establishment in the 2008 crash and in the early stages of the 2020 financial debacle. The authors observed, “at this rate, [the Fed] is going to top the rate of money it threw at the 2008 crisis in no time at all.”

The view that all was well with the economy until the impact of the health crisis began to be felt in early 2020 leads away from the fact that money markets began to falter dangerously in the autumn of 2019. The problems with the Repo Market were part of a litany of indicators pointing to turbulence ahead in troubled economic waters.

For instance, the resignation in 2019 of about 1,500 prominent corporate CEOs can be seen as a suggestion that news was circulating prior to 2020 about the imminence of serious financial problems ahead. Insiders’ awareness of menacing developments threatening the workings of the global economy were probably a factor in the decision of a large number of senior executives to exit the upper echelons of the business world.

Not only did a record number of CEOs resign, but many of them sold off the bulk of their shares in the companies they were leaving.

Pam Marten and Russ Marten who follow Wall Street’s machinations on a daily basis have advanced the case that the Federal Reserve is engaged in fraud by trying to make it seem that “the banking industry came into 2020 in a healthy condition;” that it is only because of “the COVID-19 pandemic” that the financial system is” unravelling,”

The authors argue that this misrepresentation was deployed because the deceivers are apparently “desperate” to prevent Congress from conducting an investigation for the second time in twelve years on why the Fed, “had to engage in trillions of dollars of Wall Street bailouts.” In spite of the Fed’s fear of facing a Congressional investigation after the November 2020 vote, such a timely investigation of the US financial sector would well serve the public interest.

The authors present a number of signs demonstrating that “the Fed knew, or should have known…. that there was a big banking crisis brewing in August of last year. [2019]” The signs of the financial crisis in the making included negative yields on government bonds around the world as well as big drops in the Dow Jones average. The plunge in the price of stocks was led by US banks, but especially Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.

Another significant indicator that something was deeply wrong in financial markets was a telling inversion in the value of Treasury notes with the two-year rate yielding more than the ten-year rate.

Yet another sign of serious trouble ahead involved repeated contractions in the size of the German economy. Moreover, in September of 2019 news broke that officials of JP Morgan Chase faced criminal charges for RICO-style racketeering. This scandal added to the evidence of converging problems plaguing core economic institutions as more disruptive mayhem gathered on the horizons.

Accordingly, there is ample cause to ask if there are major underlying reasons for the financial crash of 2020 other than the misnamed pandemic and the lockdowns done in its name of “flattening” its spikes of infection. At the same time, there is ample cause to recognize that the lockdowns have been a very significant factor in the depth of the economic debacle that is making 2020 a year like no other.

Some go further. They argue that the financial crash of 2020 was not only anticipated but planned and pushed forward with clear understanding of its instrumental role in the Great Reset sought by self-appointed protagonists of creative destruction. The advocates of this interpretation place significant weight on the importance of the lockdowns as an effective means of obliterating in a single act a host of old economic relationships. For instance Peter Koenig examines the “farce and diabolical agenda of a universal lockdown.”

Koenig writes, “The pandemic was needed as a pretext to halt and collapse the world economy and the underlying social fabric.”

Inflating the Numbers and Traumatizing the Public to Energize the Epidemic of Fear

There have been many pandemics in global history whose effects on human health have been much more pervasive and devastating than the current one said to be generated by a new coronavirus. In spite, however, of its comparatively mild flu-like effects on human health, at least at this point in the summer of 2020, there has never been a contagion whose spread has generated so much global publicity and hype. As in the aftermath of 9/11, this hype extends to audacious levels of media-generated panic. As with the psyop of 9/11, the media-induced panic has been expertly finessed by practitioners skilled in leveraging the currency of fear to realize a host of radical political objectives.

According to Robert E. Wright in an essay published by the American Institute for Economic Research, “closing down the U.S. economy in response to COVID-19 was probably the worst public policy in at least one-hundred years.” As Wright sees it, the decision to lock down the economy was made in ignorant disregard of the deep and devastating impact that such an action would spur. “Economic lockdowns were the fantasies of government officials so out of touch with economic and physical reality that they thought the costs would be fairly low.”

The consequences, Wright predicts, will extend across many domains including the violence done to the rule of law. The lockdowns, he writes, “turned the Constitution into a frail and worthless fabric.” Writing in late April, Wright touched on the comparisons to be made between the economic lockdowns and slavery. He write, “Slaves definitely had it worse than Americans under lockdown do, but already Americans are beginning to protest their confinement and to subtly subvert authorities, just as chattel slaves did.”

The people held captive in confined lockdown settings have had the time and often the inclination to imbibe much of the 24/7 media coverage of the misnamed pandemic. Taken together, all this media sensationalism has come to constitute one of the most concerted psychological operations ever.

The implications have been enormous for the mental health of multitudes of people. This massive alteration of attitudes and behaviours is the outcome of media experiments performed on human subjects without their informed consent. The media’s success in bringing about herd subservience to propagandistic messaging represents a huge incentive for more of the same to come. It turns out that the subject matter of public health offers virtually limitless potential for power-seeking interests and agents to meddle with the privacies, civil liberties and human rights of those they seek to manipulate, control and exploit.

The social, economic and health impacts of the dislocations flowing from the lockdowns are proving to be especially devastating on the poorest, the most deprived and the most vulnerable members of society. This impact will continue to be marked in many ways, including in increased rates of suicide, domestic violence, mental illness, addictions, homelessness, and incarceration far larger than those caused directly by COVID-19. As rates of deprivation through poverty escalate, so too will crime rates soar.

The over-the-top alarmism of the big media cabals has been well financed by the advertising revenue of the pharmaceutical industry. With some few exceptions, major media outlets pushed the public to accept the lockdowns as well as the attending losses in jobs and business activity. In seeking to push the agenda of their sponsors, the big media cartels have been especially unmindful of their journalistic responsibilities. Their tendency has been to avoid or censor forums where even expert practitioners of public health can publicly question and discuss government dictates about vital issues of public policy.

Whether in Germany or the United States or many other countries, front line workers in this health care crisis have nevertheless gathered together with the goal of trying to correct the one-sided prejudices of of discriminatory media coverage. One of the major themes in the presentations by medical practitioners is to confront the chorus of media misrepresentations on the remedial effects of hydroxychloroquine and zinc.

On July 27 a group of doctors gathered on the grounds of the US Supreme Court to try to address the biases of the media and the blind spots of government.

Another aspect in the collateral damage engendered by COVID-19 alarmism is marked in the fatalities arising from the wholesale postponement of many necessary interventions including surgery. How many have died or will die because of the hold put on medical interventions to remedy cancer, heart conditions and many other potentially lethal ailments?

Did the unprecedented lockdowns come about as part of a preconceived plan to inflate the severity of an anticipated financial meltdown? What is to be made of the suspicious intervention of administrators to produce severely padded numbers of reported deaths in almost every jurisdiction? This kind of manipulation of statistics raised the possibility that we are witnessing a purposeful and systemic inflation of the severity of this health care crisis.

Questions about the number of cases arise because of the means of testing for the presence of a supposedly new coronavirus. The PCR system that is presently being widely used does not test for the virus but tests for the existence of antibodies produced in response to many health challenges including the common cold. This problem creates a good deal of uncertainty of what a positive test really means.

The problems with calculating case numbers extend to widespread reports that have described people who were not tested for COVID-19 but who nevertheless received notices from officials counting them as COVID-19 positive. Broadcaster Armstrong Williams addressed the phenomenon on his network of MSM media outlets in late July.

From the mass of responses he received, Williams estimated that those not tested but counted as a positive probably extends probably to hundreds of thousands of individuals. What would drive the effort to exaggerate the size of the afflicted population?

This same pattern of inflation of case numbers was reinforced by the Tricare branch of the US Defense Department’s Military Health System. This branch sent out notices to 600,000 individuals who had not been tested. The notices nevertheless informed the recipients that they had tested positive for COVID 19.

Is the inflation of COVID-19 death rates and cases numbers an expression of the zeal to justify the massive lockdowns? Were the lockdowns in China conceived as part of a scheme to help create the conditions for the public’s acceptance of a plan to remake the world’s political economy? What is to be made of the fact that those most identified with the World Economic Forum (WEF) have led the way in putting a positive spin on the reset arising from the very health crisis the WEF helped introduce and publicize in Oct. of 2019?

As Usual, the Poor Get Poorer

The original Chinese lockdowns in the winter of 2020 caused the breakdowns of import-export supply chains extending across the planet. Lockdowns in the movement of raw materials, parts, finished products, expertise, money and more shut down domestic businesses in China as well as transnational commerce in many countries outside China. The supply chain disruptions were especially severe for businesses that have dispensed with the practice of keeping on hand large inventories of parts and raw material, depending instead on just-in-time deliveries.

As the supply chains broke down domestically and internationally, many enterprises lacked the revenue to pay their expenses. Bankruptcies began to proliferate at rates that will probably continue to be astronomical for some time. All kinds of loans and liabilities were not paid out in full or at all. Many homes are being re-mortgaged or cast into real estate markets as happened during the prelude and course of the bailouts of 2007-2010.

The brunt of the financial onslaught hit small businesses especially hard. Collectively small businesses have been a big creator of jobs. They have picked up some of the slack from the rush of big businesses to downsize their number of full-time employees. Moreover, small businesses and start-ups are often the site of exceptionally agile innovations across broad spectrums of economic activity. The hard financial slam on the small business sector, therefore, is packing a heavy punch on the economic conditions of everyone.

The devastating impact of the economic meltdown on workers and small businesses in Europe and North America extends in especially lethal ways to the massive population of poor people living all over the world. Many of these poor people reside in countries where much of the paid work is irregular and informal.

At the end of April the International Labor Organization (ILO), an entity created along with the League of Nations at the end of the First World War, estimated that there would be 1.6 billion victims of the meltdown in the worldwide “informal economy.” In the first month of the crisis these workers based largely in Africa and Latin America lost 60% of their subsistence level incomes.

As ILO Director-General, Guy Ryder, has asserted,

This pandemic has laid bare in the cruellest way, the extraordinary precariousness and injustices of our world of work. It is the decimation of livelihoods in the informal economy – where six out of ten workers make a living – which has ignited the warnings from our colleagues in the World Food Programme, of the coming pandemic of hunger. It is the gaping holes in the social protection systems of even the richest countries, which have left millions in situations of deprivation. It is the failure to guarantee workplace safety that condemns nearly 3 million to die each year because of the work they do. And it is the unchecked dynamic of growing inequality which means that if, in medical terms, the virus does not discriminate between its victims in its social and economic impact, it discriminates brutally against the poorest and the powerless.

Guy Ryder remembered the optimistic rhetoric in officialdom’s responses to the economic crash of 2007-2009. He compares the expectations currently being aroused by the vaccination fixation with the many optimistic sentiments previously suggesting the imminence of remedies for grotesque levels of global inequality. Ryder reflected,

We’ve heard it before. The mantra which provided the mood music of the crash of 2008-2009 was that once the vaccine to the virus of financial excess had been developed and applied, the global economy would be safer, fairer, more sustainable. But that didn’t happen. The old normal was restored with a vengeance and those on the lower echelons of labour markets found themselves even further behind.

The internationalization of increased unemployment and poverty brought about in the name of combating the corona crisis is having the effect of further widening the polarization between rich and poor on a global scale. Ryder’s metaphor about the false promises concerning a “vaccine” to correct “financial excess” can well be seen as a precautionary comment on the flowery rhetoric currently adorning the calls for a global reset.

Wall Street and 9/11

The world economic crisis of 2020 is creating the context for large-scale repeats of some key aspects of the bailout of 2007-2010. The bailout of 2007-2008 drew, in turn, from many practices developed in the period when the explosive events of 9/11 triggered a worldwide reset of global geopolitics.

While the events of 2008 and 2020 both drew attention to the geopolitical importance of Wall Street, the terrible pummelling of New York’s financial district was the event that ushered in a new era of history, an era that has delivered us to the current financial meltdown/lockdown.

It lies well beyond the scope of this essay to go into detail about the dynamics of what really transpired on 9/11. Nevertheless, some explicit reckoning with this topic is crucial to understanding some of the essential themes addressed in this essay.

Indeed, it would be difficult to overstate the relevance of 9/11 to the background and nature of the current debacle. The execution and spinning of 9/11 were instrumental in creating the repertoire of political trickery presently being adapted in the manufacturing and exploiting of the COVID-19 hysteria. A consistent attribute of the journey from 9/11 to COVID-19 has been the amplification of executive authority through the medium of emergency measures enactments, policies and dictates.

Wall Street is a major site where much of this political trickery was concocted in planning exercises extending to many other sites of power and intrigue. In the case of 9/11, a number of prominent Wall Street firms were involved before, during and after the events of September 11. As is extremely well documented, these events have been misrepresented in ways that helped to further harness the military might of the United States to the expansionistic designs of Israel in the Middle East.

The response of the Federal Reserve to the events of 9/11 helped set in motion a basic approach to disaster management that continues to this day. Almost immediately following the pulverization of Manhattan’s most gigantic and iconographic landmarks, Federal Reserve officials made it their highest priority to inject liquidity into financial markets. Many different kinds of scenario can be advanced behind the cover of infusing liquidity into markets.

For three days in a row the Federal Reserve Bank of New York turned on its money spigots to inject transfusions of $100 billion dollars of newly generated funds into the Wall Street home of the financial system. The declared aim was to keep the flow of capital between financial institutions well lubricated. The Federal Reserve’s infusions of new money into Wall Street took many forms. New habits and appetites were thereby cultivated in ways that continue to influence the behaviour of Wall Street organizations in the financial debacle of 2020.

The revelations concerning the events of 9/11 contained a number of financial surprises. Questions immediately arose, for instance, about whether the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers had obliterated software and hardware vital to the continuing operations of computerized banking systems. Whatever problems arose along these lines, it turned out that there was sufficient digital information backed up in other locations to keep banking operations viable.

But while much digital data survived the destruction of core installations in the US financial sector, some strategic information was indeed obliterated. For instance, strategic records entailed in federal investigations into many business scandals were lost. Some of the incinerated data touched on, for instance, the machinations of the energy giant, Enron, along with its Wall Street partners, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.

The writings of E. P Heidner are prominent in the literature posing theories about the elimination of incriminating documentation as a result of the controlled demolitions of 9/11. What information was eliminated and what was retained in the wake of the devastation? Heidner has published a very ambitious account placing the events of 9/11 at the forefront of a deep and elaborate relationship linking George H. W. Bush to Canada’s Barrick Gold and the emergence of gold derivatives.

The surprises involving 9/11 and Wall Street included evidence concerning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. A few individuals enriched themselves significantly by purchasing a disproportionately high number of put options on shares about to fall precipitously as a result of the anticipated events of 9/11. Investigators, however, chose to ignore this evidence because it did not conform to the prevailing interpretation of who did what to whom on 9/11.

Another suspicious group of transactions conducted right before 9/11 involved some very large purchases of five-year US Treasury notes. These instruments are well known hedges when one has knowledge that a world crisis is imminent. One of these purchases was a $5 billion transaction. The US Treasury Department would have been informed about the identity of the purchaser. Nevertheless the FBI and the Securities Exchange Commission collaborated to point public attention away from these suspect transactions. (p. 199)

On the very day of 9/11 local police arrested Israeli suspects employed in the New York area as Urban Movers. The local investigators were soon pressured to ignore the evidence, however, and go along with the agenda of the White House and the media chorus during the autumn of 2001.

In the hours following the pulverization of the Twin Towers the dominant mantra was raised “Osama bin Laden and al-Qeada did it.” That mantra led in the weeks, months and years that followed to US-led invasions of several Muslim-majority countries. Some have described these military campaigns as wars for Israel.

Soon New York area jails were being filled up with random Muslims picked up for nothing more than visa violations and such. The unrelenting demonization of Muslims collectively can now be seen in retrospect as a dramatic psychological operation meant to poison minds as the pounding of the war drums grew in intensity. In the process a traumatized public were introduced to concepts like “jihad.” At no time has there ever been a credible police investigation into the question of who is responsible for the 9/11 crimes.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld chose September 10, the day before 9/11, to break the news at a press conference that $2.3 trillion had gone missing from the Pentagon’s budget. Not surprisingly the story of the missing money got buried the next day as reports of the debacle in Manhattan and Washington DC dominated MSM news coverage.

As reported by Forbes Magazine, the size of the amount said to have gone missing in Donald Rumsfeld’s 2001 report of Defense Department spending had mushroomed by 2015 to around $21 trillion. It was Mark Skidmore, an Economics Professor at the University of Michigan, who became the main sleuth responsible for identifying the gargantuan amount of federal funds that the US government can’t account for.

As the agency that created the missing tens of trillions that apparently has disappeared without a trace, wouldn’t the US Federal Reserve be in a position to render some assistance in tracking down the lost funds? Or is the Federal Reserve somehow a participant or a complicit party in the disappearance of the tens of trillions without a paper trail?

The inability or unwillingness of officialdom to explain what happened to the lost $21 trillion, an amount comparable to the size of the entire US national debt prior to the lockdowns, might be viewed in the light of the black budgets of the US Department of Defense (DOD). Black budgets are off-the-books funds devoted to secret research and to secret initiatives in applied research.

In explaining this phenomenon, former Canadian Defense Minister, Paul Hellyer, has observed, “thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects about which Congress and the Commander In Chief have deliberately been kept in the dark.” Eric Zuess goes further. As he explains it, the entire Defense Department operates pretty much on the basis of an unusual system well outside the standard rules of accounting applied in other federal agencies.

When news broke about the missing $21 trillion, federal authorities responded by promising that special audits would be conducted to explain the irregularities. The results of those audits, if they took place at all, were never published. The fact that the Defense of Department has developed in a kind of audit free zone has made it a natural magnet for people and interests engaged in all kinds of criminal activities.

Eric Zuess calls attention to the 1,000 military bases around the world that form a natural network conducive to the cultivation of many forms of criminal trafficking. Zuess includes in his reflections commentary on the secret installations in some American embassies but especially in the giant US Embassy in Baghdad Iraq.

The US complex in Baghdad’s Green Zone is the biggest Embassy in the world. Its monumental form on a 104 acre site expresses the expansionary dynamics of US military intervention in the Middle East and Eurasia following 9/11.

The phenomenon of missing tens of trillions calls attention to larger patterns of kleptocratic activity that forms a major subject addressed here. The shifts into new forms of organized crime in the name of “national security” began to come to light in the late 1980s. An important source of disclosures was the series of revelations that accompanied the coming apart of the Saudi-backed Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the BCCI.

The nature of this financial institution, where CIA operatives were prominent among its clients, provides a good window into the political economy of drug dealing, money laundering, weapons smuggling, regime change and many much more criminal acts that took place along the road to 9/11.

The BCCI was a key site of financial transactions that contributed to the end of the Cold War and the inception of many new kinds of conflict. These activities often involved the well-financed activities of mercenaries, proxy armies, and a heavy reliance on private contractors of many sorts.

The Enron scandal was seen to embody some of the same lapses facilitated by fraudulent accounting integral to the BCCI scandal. Given the bubble of secrecy surrounding the Federal Reserve, there are thick barriers blocking deep investigation into whether or not the US Central Bank was involved in the relationship of the US national security establishment and the BCCI.

The kind of dark transactions that the BCCI was designed to facilitate must have been channelled after its demise into other banking institutions probably with Wall Street connections. Since 9/11, however, many emergency measures have been imposed that add extra layers of secrecy protecting the perpetrators of many criminal acts from public exposure and criminal prosecutions.

The events of 9/11 have sometimes been described as the basis of a global coup. To this day there is no genuine consensus about what really transpired to create the illusion of justification for repeated US military invasions of Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and Eurasia.

The 9/11 debacle and the emergency measures that followed presented Wall Street with an array of new opportunities for profit that came with the elaborate refurbishing and retooling of the military-industrial complex.

The response to 9/11 was expanded and generalized upon to create the basis of a war directed not at a particular enemy, but rather at an ill-defined conception identified as “terrorism.” This alteration was part of a complex of changes adding trillions to the flow of money energizing the axis of interaction linking the Pentagon and Wall Street and the abundance of new companies created to advance the geopolitical objectives emerging from the 9/11 coup.

According to Pam Martens and Russ Martens, the excesses of deregulation helped induce an anything-goes-ethos on Wall Street and at its Federal Reserve regulator in the wake of 9/11. As the authors tell it, the response to 9/11 helped set important precedents for the maintaining flows of credit and capital in financial markets.

Often the destination of the funds generated in the name of pumping liquidity into markets was not identified and reported in transactions classified as financial emergency measures. While the priority was on keeping financial pumps primed, there was much less concern for transparency and accountability among those in positions of power at the Federal Reserve.

The financial sector’s capture of the government instruments meant to regulate the behaviour of Wall Street institutions was much like the deregulation of the US pharmaceutical industry. Both episodes highlight a message that has become especially insistent as the twenty-first century unfolds.

The nature of the response to 9/11 emphasized the mercenary ascent of corporate dominance as the primary force directing governments. Throughout this transformation the message to citizens became increasingly clear. Buyer Beware. We cannot depend on governments to represent our will and interests. We cannot even count on our governments to protect citizens from corporatist attacks especially on human health and whatever financial security we have been able to build up.

Bailouts, Derivatives, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 was essential to the process of dramatically cutting back the government’s role as a protector of the public interest on the financial services sector. The Glass-Steagall Act was an essential measure in US President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Some view the New Deal as a strategy for saving capitalism by moderating ts most sharp-edged features. Instituted in 1933 in response to the onset of the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act separated the operations of deposit-accepting banks from the more speculative activity of investment brokers.

The termination of the regulatory framework put in place by the Glass Steagall Act opened much new space for all kinds of experiments in the manipulation of money in financial markets. The changes began with the merger of different sorts of financial institutions including some in the insurance field. Those overseeing the reconstituted entities headquartered on Wall Street took advantage of their widened latitudes of operation. They developed all sorts of ways of elaborating their financial services and presenting them in new packages.

The word, “derivative” is often associated with many applications of the new possibilities in the reconstituted financial services sector. The word, derivative, can be applied to many kinds of transactions involving speculative bets of various sorts. As the word suggests, a derivative is derived from a fixed asset such as currency, bonds, stocks, and commodities. Alterations in the values of fixed assets affect the value of derivatives that often take the form of contracts between two or more parties.

One of the most famous derivatives in the era of the financial crash of 2007-2010 was described as mortgaged-backed securities. On the surface these bundles of debt-burdened properties might seem easy to understand. But that would be a delusion. The value of these products was affected, for instance, by unpredictable shifts in interest rates, liar loans extended to homebuyers who lacked the capacity to make regular mortgage payments, and significant shifts in the value of real estate.

Mortgage-backed securities were just one type of a huge array of derivatives invented on the run in the heady atmosphere of secret and unregulated transactions between counterparties. Derivatives could involve contracts formalizing bets between rivals gambling on the outcome of competitive efforts to shape the future.  An array of derivative bets was built around transactions often placed behind the veil of esoteric nomenclature like “collateralized debt obligations” or “credit default swaps.”

The variables in derivative bets might include competing national security agendas involving, for instance, pipeline constructions, regime change, weapons development and sales, false flag terror events, or money laundering. Since derivative bets involve confidential transactions with secret outcomes, they can be derived from all sorts of criteria. Derivative bets can, for instance, involve all manner of computerized calculations that in some cases are constructed much like war game scenarios.

The complexity of derivatives became greater when the American Insurance Group, AIG, began selling insurance programs to protect all sides in derivative bets from suffering too drastically from the consequences of being on the losing side of transactions.

The derivative frenzy, sometimes involving bets being made by parties unable to cover potential losses, overwhelmed the scale of the day-to-day economy. The “real economy” embodies exchanges of goods, services, wages and such that supply the basic necessities for human survival with some margin for recreation, travel, cultural engagement and such.

The Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements calculated in 2008 that the size of the all forms of derivative products had a monetary value of $1.14 quadrillion. A quadrillion is a thousand trillions. By comparison, the estimated value of all the real estate in the world was $75 trillion in 2008.

[Bank for International SettlementsSemiannual OTC derivative statistics at end-December, 2008.]

As the enticements of derivative betting preoccupied the leading directors of Wall Street institutions, their more traditional way of relating to one another began to falter. It was in this atmosphere that the Repo Market became problematic in December of 2007 just as it showed similar signs of breakdown in September of 2019.

In both instances the level of distrust between those in charge of financial institutions began to falter because they all had good reason to believe that their fellow bankers were overextended. All had reason to believe their counterparts were mired by too much speculative activity enabled by all sorts of novel experiments including various forms of derivative dealing.

In December of 2007 as in the autumn of 2019, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was forced to enter the picture to keep the financial pumps on Wall Street primed. The New York Fed kept the liquidity cycles flowing by invoking its power to create new money with the interest charged to tax payers.

As the financial crisis unfolded in 2008 and 2009 the Federal Reserve, but especially the privately-owned New York Federal Reserve bank, stepped forward to bail out many financial institutions that had become insolvent or near insolvent. In the process precedents and patterns were established that are being re-enacted with some modifications in 2020.

One of the innovations that took place in 2008 was the decision by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to hire a large Wall Street financial institution, BlackRock, to administer the bailouts. These transfers of money went through three specially created companies now being replicated as Special Purpose Vehicles in the course of the payouts of 2020.

In 2008-09 BlackRock administered the three companies named after the address of the New York Federal Reserve Bank on Maiden Lane. BlackRock emerged from an older Wall Street firm called Blackstone. Its former chair, Peter C. Peterson, was a former Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The original Maiden Lane company paid Bear Stearns Corp $30 billion. This amount from the New York Fed covered the debt of Bear Stearns, a condition negotiated to clear the way for the purchase of the old Wall Street institution by JP Morgan Chase. Maiden Lane II was a vehicle for payouts to companies that had purchased “mortgage-backed securities” before these derivative products turned soar.

Maiden Lane III was to pay off “multi-sector collateralized debt obligations.” Among these bailouts were payoffs to the counterparties of the insurance giant, AIG. As noted, AIG had developed an insurance product to be sold to those engaged in derivative bets. When the bottom fell out of markets, AIG lacked the means to pay off the large number of insurance claims made against it. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York stepped in to bail out the counterparties of AIG, many of them deemed to be “too big to fail.”

Among the counterparties of AIG was Goldman Sachs. It received of $13 billion from the Federal Reserve. Other bailouts to AIG’s counterparties were $12 billion to Deutsche Bank, $6.8 billion to Merrill Lynch, $5 billion to Switzerland’s UBS, $7.9 billion to Barclays, and $5.2 billion to Bank of America. Some of these banks received additional funds from other parts of the overall bailout transaction. Many dozens of other counterparties to AIG also received payouts in 2008-2009. Among them were the Bank of Montreal and Bank of Scotland.

The entire amount of the bailouts was subsequently calculated to be a whopping $29 trillion with a “t.” The lion’s share of these funds went to prop up US financial institutions and the many foreign banks with which they conducted business.

Much of this money went to the firms that were shareholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or partners of the big Wall Street firms. Citigroup, the recipient of the largest amount, received about $2.5 trillion in the federal bailouts. Merrill Lynch received $2 trillion,

The Federal Reserve Bank was established by Congressional statute in 1913. The Federal Reserve headquarters is situated in Washington DC. The Central Bank was composed of twelve constituent regional banks. Each one of these regional banks is owned by private banks.

The private ownership of the banks that are the proprietors of the Federal Reserve system has been highly contentious from its inception. The creation of the Federal Reserve continues to be perceived by many of its critics as an unjustifiable giveaway whereby the US government ceded to private interests its vital capacity to issue its own currency and to direct monetary policy like the setting of interest rates.

Pam Martens and Russ Martens at Wall Street on Parade explain the controversial Federal Reserve structure as follows

While the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington, D.C. is deemed an “independent federal agency,” with its Chair and Governors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the 12 regional Fed banks are private corporations owned by the member banks in their region. The settled law under John L. Lewis v. the United States confirms: “Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region.”

In the case of the New York Fed, which is located in the Wall Street area of Manhattan, its largest shareowners are behemoth multinational banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

There was no genuine effort after the financial debacle of 2007-2010 to correct the main structural problems and weaknesses of the Wall Street-based US financial sector. The Dodd-Frank Bill signed into law by US President Barack Obama in 2010 did make some cosmetic changes. But the main features of the regulatory capture that has taken place with the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act remained with only minor alterations. In particular the framework was held in place for speculative excess in derivative bets.

In the summer edition of The Atlantic, Frank Partnoy outlined a gloomy assessment of the continuity leading from the events of 2007-2010 to the current situation. This current situation draws a strange contrast between the lockdown-shattered quality of the economy and the propped-up value of the stock market whose future value will in all probability prove unsustainable. Partnoy writes,

It is a distasteful fact that the present situation is so dire in part because the banks fell right back into bad behavior after the last crash—taking too many risks, hiding debt in complex instruments and off-balance-sheet entities, and generally exploiting loopholes in laws intended to rein in their greed. Sparing them for a second time this century will be that much harder.

Wall Street Criminality on Display

The frauds and felonies of the Wall Street banks have continued after the future earnings of US taxpayers returned them to solvency after 2010. The record of infamy is comparable to that of the pharmaceutical industry.

The criminal behaviour in both sectors is very relevant to the overlapping crises that are underway in both the public health and financial sectors. In 2012 the crime spree in the financial sector began with astounding revelations about the role of many major banks in the LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate. The LIBOR rates create the basis of interest rates involved in the borrowing and lending of money in the international arena.

When the scandal broke there were 35 different LIBOR rates involving various types of currency and various time frames for loans between banks. The rates were calculated every day based on information forwarded from 16 different banks to a panel on London. The reporting banks included Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, and Deutsche Bank. The influence of the LIBOR rate extended beyond banks to affect the price of credit in many types of transactions.

The emergence of information that the banks were working together to rig the interest rate created the basis for a huge economic scandal. Fines extending from hundreds of millions into more than a billion dollars were placed on each of the offending banks. But in this instance and many others to follow, criminality was attached to the financial entities but not to top officials responsible for the decisions that put their corporations on the wrong side of the law.

One of the factors in the banking frauds comprising the LIBOR scandal was the temptation to improve the chance for financial gains in derivative bets. The biggest failure of the federal response to the financial meltdown of 2007-210 was that little was done to curb the excesses of transactions in the realm of derivatives.

Derivatives involved a form of gambling that exists in a kind of twilight zone. This twilight zone fills a space somewhere between the realm of the real economy and the realm of notional value. Notional values find expression in unrealized speculation about what might or might not come to fruition; what might or might not happen; who might win and who might lose in derivative speculations.

The addiction of Wall Street firms to derivative betting remains unchecked to this day. The bankers’ continuing fixation with unregulated gambling, often with other people’s money, is deeply menacing for the future of the global economy…. indeed for the future of everyone on earth. According to the Office of the Controller of Currency, in 2019 JP Morgan Chase had $59 trillion in derivative bets. In July of 2020 it emerged that Citigroup held $62 trillion in derivative contracts, about $30 trillion more than it held before it was bailed out in 2008. In 2019 Goldman Sachs held $47 trillion and Bank of America held $20.4 trillion in derivate bets.

A big part of the scandal embodied in these figures is embedded in the reality that all of these banks carry their most risky derivative bets in units of their corporate networks that are protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This peril played a significant part in deepening the crisis engendered by financial meltdown that began in 2007.

One of the most redeeming features of the Dodd-Frank Act as originally drafted was a provision preventing financial institutions from keeping their derivative portfolios in banks whose deposits and depositors were backed up by federal insurance.

Citigroup led the push in Congress in 2014 to allow Wall Street institutions to revert back to a more deregulated and danger-prone economic environment. The notoriously inept decisions and actions of Citigroup had played a significant role in the lead up to the financial debacle of 2007 to 2010. Since 2016 Citigroup has become once again the biggest risk taker by loading itself up with more derivative speculations than any other financial institution in the world.

By returning derivative speculations to the protections of federal financial backstops, taxpayers are once again forced to assume responsibility for the most outlandish risks of Wall Street’s high rollers. It is taxpayers who are the backers of the federal government when it comes to their commitment to compensate banks for losses, even when these losses come about from derivative bets.

How much more Wall Street risk and public debt can be loaded onto taxpayers and even onto generations of taxpayers yet unborn? How is national debt to be understood when it plunders working people to guarantee and augment the wealth of the most privileged branches of society? Why should those most responsible for creating the most excessive risks to the financial wellbeing of our societies be protected from bearing the consequences of the very risks they themselves created?

Along with Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase stands out among a group of financial sector reprobates most deeply involved in sketchy activities that extend deep into the realm of criminality. In a simmering scandal six of JP Morgan Chase’s traders have been accused of breaking laws in conducting the bank’s futures trading in the value of precious metals. They have been accused of violating the RICO statute, a law meant for people suspected of being part of organized crime.

In the charges pressed by the Justice Department on JP Morgan Chase’s traders it is alleged that they “conducted the affairs of the [minerals] desk through a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically, wire fraud affecting a financial institution and bank fraud.”

In 2012 JP Morgan Chase faced a $1 billion fine for its role in the “London Wale” series of derivative bets described as follows by the Chair of the US Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. Senator Carl Levin explained, “Our findings open a window into the hidden world of high stakes derivatives trading by big banks. It exposes a derivatives trading culture at JPMorgan that piled on risk, hid losses, disregarded risk limits, manipulated risk models, dodged oversight, and misinformed the public.”

Traders at Goldman Sachs appear to have been part of the Wall Street crime spree. The tentacles of corruption in the Goldman Sachs case apparently extend deep into the US Justice Department. The case involves allegations of embezzlement, money laundering and missing billions. These manifestations of malfeasance all spin out of a scandal-prone Malaysian sovereign wealth fund administered by Goldman Sachs.

A big part of the scandal reported in Wall Street on Parade in July of 2020 involves the fact that the Justice Department’s prosecutors seem to be dragging their feet in this possible criminal felony case against Goldman Sachs. The prosecutors, including the US Attorney-General, William Barr, worked previously for the law firm, Kirkland and Ellis. Kirkland and Ellis was retained to defend Goldman Sachs in this matter.

Pam Martens and Russ Martens express dismay at the failure of US officialdom to hold Wall Street institutions accountable for the crime spree of some of its biggest firms. They write, “Congress and the executive branch of the government seem determined to protect Wall Street criminals, which simply assures their proliferation.”

Even racketeering charges against officials at JP Morgan Chase, where Jamie Dimon presides as CEO, failed to receive any attention from the professional deceivers that these days dominate MSM. The star reporters of Wall Street on Parade write, “Crime and fraud are so de rigueur at the bank led by Dimon that not one major newspaper ran the headline [of the racketeering charge] on the front page or anywhere else in the paper.

While federal charges that JP Morgan Chase’s Wall Street operation engaged in criminal racketeering was not of interest to the press, Jamie Dimon’s surprise visit in early June to a Chase branch in Mt. Kisco New York aroused considerable media attention. Dimon was photographed with staff wearing a mask and taking the knee. By participating in this ritual Dimon signaled that his Wall Street operation is in league with the sometimes violent cancel culture pushed into prominence by the Democratic Party in partnership with Black Lives Matter and Antifa.

In an article on 21 July marking ten years since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the Martens duo conclude, “So here we are today, watching the Fed conduct another secret multi-trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street while the voices of Congress and mainstream media are nowhere to be heard.”

Enter BlackRock

In March it was announced that representatives of the US Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Board and the BlackRock financial management were joining forces to make adjustments in the US economy. The aim was to address the financial dislocations resulting from the decision to lock down businesses, citizens, schools, entertainment, and social mingling outside the home, all in response to the health care hysteria promoted by governments and their media extensions.

The format of this process suggested some relaxation in the strict distinctions historically drawn between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. What would be the role of the third member of the group? In reflecting on this topic Joyce Nelson observed, “the new bailout bill not only further erases the line between the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, it places BlackRock effectively in an overseer position for both.”

Some saw as symbolically instructive the delegation to BlackRock of a larger role than that assigned it during the first bailout of 2007-2008. It would be hard to overestimate the significance of this prominent Wall Street firm’s return to a strategic role near the very heart of this major exercise of federal power. This invitation to take part in such crucial negotiations at such a consequential juncture in history caused some to characterize BlackRock as a “fourth branch of government.”

As Victoria Guida commented in Politico, “This is a transformational moment for the Fed, and BlackRock’s now going to be in an even stronger position to serve the Fed in the future.”

BlackRock officials had been instrumental in helping to manoeuvre their company into such a strategic role by responding proactively to the understanding in some elite circles that another financial debacle was imminent. Only months before the financial meltdown actually occurred a group of former central bankers all commissioned by BlackRock delivered a recovery plan in August of 2019.

Presented at a G 7 summit of central bankers in Jackson Hole Wyoming, the plan for the government responses to the looming financial collapse was entitled Dealing with the Next Downturn. Its authors are Stanley Fischer, former Governor of the Central Bank of Israel, Philipp Hildebrande, former Chairman of the Governing Board of the Swiss National Bank, Jean Boivin, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, and Elga Bartsch, Economist at Morgan Stanley.

The BlackRock Team at Jackson Hole put forward the case that a more aggressive and coordinated combination of monetary and fiscal policy must be brought to the job of stimulating a financial recovery. Monetary policy includes the setting of interest rates. Where monetary policy has historically been the domain of the central banks, fiscal policy, involving issues of taxation as well as the content and size of government budgets, lies within the jurisdiction of elected legislatures.

The nub of the proposal to unite fiscal and monetary policy put the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve on the same political platform. As the author of this merger of monetary and fiscal policy, BlackRock became third member of the triumvirate charged to address the broad array of economic maladies that arrived in the wake of the lockdowns.

In the spring of 2020 BlackRock has been hired by the Bank of Canada and by Sweden’s Central Bank, the Riksbank, to deliver on the approaches to crisis management its representatives had laid out at Jackson Hole. BlackRock’s most high-profile and strategic engagement, however, began with its involvement in the negotiation of the $2 trillion CARES stimulus package that passed through the US Congress in March of 2020.

The CARES Act included $367 billion for loans and grants to small business, $130 billion for health care systems, $150 billion for state and local government, $500 billion for loans to corporate America, and $25 billion for airlines (in addition to loans).

The heart of the plan involved a payout of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child for households making up to $75,000. This payment to citizens approaches the concept of disseminating “helicopter money” as referred to in BlackRock’s initial outline for dealing with the “downturn.” Helicopter money distributed by the federal government to its citizens was also related to the concept of “going direct” in strategies for stimulating the economy.

BlackRock seems to be moving into the space recently held by Goldman Sachs as Wall Street’s best embodiment of ostentatious success including in the preparation of its corporate leaders for high-ranking positions in the federal government. Laurence Fink, BlackRock’s founder and CEO, might well have replicated this career path to become Treasury Secretary if Hillary Clinton had succeeded in becoming US President in 2016.

BlackRock’s leadership went to great lengths to avoid being tagged with the title in the United States of a “systematically important financial institution” (sifi). To be subject to this “sifi” label entails added federal scrutiny and regulation as well as heightened requirements to keep high amounts of capital on hand. BlackRock’s status as a private company not subject to sifi regulations makes the financial management firm more attractive to its federal partners in the federal payout operation presently underway.

One of the reasons for including a private company in the trio of partners involved in the payouts is to sneak around limitations on the legal powers of the Federal Reserve. As explained by Ellen Brown in her essay, Meet BlackRock: The New Great Vampire Squid, the Federal Reserve can only purchase “safe federally-guaranteed assets.” As a private company, BlackRock apparently faces no such restrictions. It can purchase more risky assets not backstopped by federal insurance.

The regional banks of the Federal Reserve Board are owned by private companies whose directors seem to have been part of the decision to include BlackRock in the implementation of the CARES process. There can be no doubt that the format of the CARES negotiations pulled the supposedly independent Federal Reserve more deeply into the political orbit of the US Treasury branch. The presence of a major Wall Street firm in the process, however, apparently gave the advocates of the Fed’s supposed independence from politics a sense that they retained some leverage in the process.

The inclusion of private companies in the conduct of government business has become in recent decades a very common expression of neoliberalism. One of the reasons for this embrace of public-private partnerships in the conduct of government business is to take advantage of the legal nature of private companies. The apportionment to private companies of significant roles in deciding and implementing public policies helps put veils of secrecy over the true nature of government decisions and actions.

Private companies can more easily assert claims to “proprietary information” than can public institutions when they act on behalf of citizens. This feature of privatization in the performance of public responsibilities by elected government runs counter to the imperatives of democratic transparency. It puts obstacles in the way of genuine accountability because the public is more likely to be kept in the dark about key aspects of what is being decided and done on their behalf.

Suck Up Economics and State Monopoly Capitalism

BlackRock owns, controls, or manages about $30 trillion in total in securities. It directly controls or owns somewhat less than a third of this amount. The remainder of the assets BlackRock manages are to service clients responsible for taking care of pension funds, philanthropies, foundations, endowments, family offices, superannuation funds and such.

A big part of BlackRock’s business model involves attracting customers by allowing them access to great masses of timely information of significant utility to those responsible for making investment decisions. This technological wizardry happens on a very advanced computational platform known as Aladdin.

Aladdin remains a work-in-progress, one that is widely recognized as the most sophisticated medium of its kind for assessing all manner of financial risks and potentials for profit. Its future as an investment platform is to become more and more integrated into the complex mix of hardware and software animating Artificial Intelligence.

BlackRock’s job is to dispense funds ushered into existence through the money-creating powers of the Federal Reserve. These transactions are to take place through eleven so-called “special purpose vehicles” similar to the Maiden Lane companies that BlackRock administered during the prior bailouts.

The funds it distributes in this round starting in 2020 are meant, at least at this early stage of the crisis, as payments for various sorts of assets. These assets might include an array of corporate bonds spanning a range from so-called investment grade to garbage grade junk bonds. The losses incurred in this exchange, involving supposed assets that might turn out to be worthless, or loans that might not be paid back, are to be charged to the US Treasury. Ultimately the liability lies on US taxpayers who are the holders of the national debt.

Bonds of varying levels of worth lie beneath another asset eligible for transformation into cash. This instrument of value is referred to as Exchange Traded Funds, ETFs. ETFs happen to be a specialty of BlackRock ever since the company launched a range of commercial ETFs into Stock Market circulation through its iShares division. BlackRock’s role on both sides of buying and selling ETFs comes up repeatedly as one of the many conflicts of interest of which the Wall Street firm stands accused.

Given that BlackRock is involved in one way or another in the proprietorship of pretty much every major company in the world, there is plenty to back up the allegation that Black Rock is an interested party in most of the transactions in which it engages as part of its partnership with the US Fed and Treasury Branch.

Pam Matens and Russ Martens have been very critical of the role of the Federal Reserve and BlackRock in the current economic crisis. They have anticipated that, if the current drift of events continues, American taxpayers will once again be gobsmacked with a huge growth in the national debt. This development would amount to another major transfer of wealth away from working people to the beneficiaries of Wall Street firms and the same commercial institutions that received the lion’s share of funds during the last bailout.

The co-authors picture BlackRock is part of a scheme to use “Special Purpose Vehicles” like “Enron used to hide the true state of its finances and blow itself up.” They entitle their article published on 31 March, 2020 as  “The Dark Secrets in the Fed’s Wall Street Bailout Are Getting a Devious Makeover in Today’s Bailout.”

The authors observe. “What makes the New York Fed’s bailout of Wall Street so much more dangerous this time around is that it has decided to use a different structure for its loans to Wall Street – one that will force losses on taxpayers and, it hopes, will provide an ironclad secrecy curtain around how much it spends and where the money goes.”

I find this account of an effort by the Federal Reserve to create an “ironclad secrecy curtain” shocking under these circumstances. It suggests an intention to exceed the deceptiveness of the last bailout. This warning renews longstanding suspicions that the failures of transparency and accountability have not subsided since the beginning of the era when deregulation and the 9/11 deceptions converged in the domestic and international operations of Wall Street.

The structural problems already identified in the process initiated to implement the CARES Act could have enormous consequences if the current economic crisis continues to deteriorate. This deterioration is not likely to stop anytime soon given the depth of the crash and its probable domino effects. It was reported in late July that during the second quarter of 2020 the US Gross Domestic Product collapsed at an annualized rate of 33%, the deepest decline in output ever recorded since the US government began measuring GDP in 1947.

The CARES Act helped set in motion a program with the potential to repeat elements of the earlier bailout. The amount of $454 billion was to be set aside to assist the banking sector. The Fed can leverage this amount by ten times according to the principles of fractional reserve banking.

The news of this development caused Mike Whitney to imagine “the Fed turning itself into a hedge fund in order to buy the sludge that has accumulated on the balance sheets of corporations and financial institutions for the last decade,” Whitney pictured an onslaught of “scheming sharpies who will figure out how to game the system and turn the whole fiasco into another Wall Street looting operation.”

Meanwhile the Martens Team at Wall Street on Parade called attention to the $9 trillion already injected by the New York Fed to flood liquidity into the still-troubled Repo Markets that began to falter in September of 2019. Add to this revelation the news that the Fed “has not announced one scintilla of information on what specific Wall Street firms have received this money or how much they individually received.”

There is no doubt that the nature of economic relations will be substantially altered in the process of dealing with the financial meltdown induced by the lockdowns and by the overreliance on high debt rates combined with artificially low interest rates prior to 2020. The altered political economy that is beginning to emerge following the lockdowns is sometimes described as state monopoly capitalism.

In deciding what companies get bailed out and what companies don’t, the financial authorities that are intervening in this crisis are pretty much deciding what enterprises get the advantage of federal financial backstops and what enterprises will not enjoy government sanction. Increasingly, therefore, it is the state that determines winners and losers in the organizing of financial relations. This development further undermines any notion that some idealized vision of competition and market forces will determine winners and losers in the economy of the future.

As Peter Ewarts has observed, it seems that BlackRock is being delegated by federal authorities to exercise “discretionary powers to pick winners and losers,” a choice that is “where the real bonanza and clout lies.” Will the winners be chosen from the companies run by executives that used the money gained from the prior bailouts to engage in stock buy backs? This process of buying back stock tends to be reflected in CEO bonuses and higher share prices. Alternatively this way of allocating funds tends to short change workers as well as innovation and efficiency in industrial production?

Will companies be rewarded whose executives have moved production facilities overseas or issued billions in junk bonds? Will companies be rewarded whose directors have participated in the effort to censor the Internet, bring about lockdowns or foment mask hysteria? Why is it that the coddled elites serving the financial imperatives of most wealthy branches of society are being put in the best position to decide who gets a life preserver from the state and who must sink and drown?

Might this bias be a factor in the current process that led Forbes Magazine to conclude in a headline that “Billionaries Are Getting Richer During the Covid-19 Pandemic While Most Americans Suffer.”

There can be no doubt that the financial transactions beginning with the CARES Act represent a crucial initial stage in what the promoters of the World Economic Forum have been labeling as the Great Reset. Laurence Fink and the BlackRock firm are significant participants in the World Economic Forum. The WEF helped introduce the pandemic in Event 201 in October of 2019 even as it is now trying to put a positive face on the fiasco.

Why should the people most harshly affected by the lockdowns tolerate that the very Wall Street interests dispossessing them, are tasked once again to lead and exploit the reset of the financial system? As presently structured by the likes of BlackRock and its beneficiaries, this process is once again transferring new wealth to the most wealthy branches of society. Simultaneously it is burdening the rest of the population with yet another massive increase in both personal and national indebtedness.

There is no more discussion of “trickle down” economics, a frequent metaphor invoked in the Reagan-Thatcher era. Instead we are in the midst of an increasingly intense phase of suck up economics. The rich are being further enriched and further empowered through the dispossession of the poor and the middle classes. This procedure, initiated when locked down citizens were sidelined from the political process, has the potential to result in the largest upward transfer of wealth so far in history.

BlackRock Versus the Debt-Lite Legacy of the Bank of Canada

At the end of March Laurence Fink, CEO and founder of BlackRock, announced in a letter to his company’s shareholder, “We are honored to have been selected to assist the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Bank of Canada on programs designed to facilitate capital to businesses and support the economy.”

This announcement might leave the impression that the Bank of Canada and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are similar institutions. This impression is unfounded. The two banks have very different structures and histories. A spotlight on these differences helps illuminate the nature of a number of core financial issues.

These financial issues should command avid attention during this time of reckoning with a serious economic crisis that may well be still in its early stages. Such issues inevitably draw attention to the current manifestations of very old questions about the character of money and its relationship to the concepts of usury and debt. Questions about debt, debt enslavement as well as the possibility of debt renunciation or debt forgiveness are becoming especially pressing.

These controversial queries arise in an era when a tiny minority is aggressively asserting sweeping claims to ownership of vast concentrations of the world’s available assets. The other side of this picture reveals that the largest mass of humanity is sinking into a swamp of rising debt on a scale that is concurrently unsustainable and unconscionable. How did this level of inequity reach such audacious extremes? Are there any remedies in sight?

There is nothing to suggest structural remediation in the current approach to the economic crisis. In fact so far there is every indication that the current approach of bringing about an enormous expansion in the availability of debt-laden money will only compound the further dispossession of the already dispossessed in order to expand the wealth of the already wealthy.

As already noted, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is one of twelve regional banks that together constitute the US Federal Reserve. Every regional Federal Reserve Bank is owned by a group of private banks. Each of the private banks at the base of a Federal Reserve regional bank marks its proprietorship through the ownership of shares. These shares cannot be freely traded in stock markets. The ownership of these shares expresses the private ownership of the US banking system.

The Fed’s New York regional bank has a special role in money creation given its location at the heart of the US financial sector on and around Wall Street. In this crisis, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is creating new money in the name of holding back onslaughts of destitution and penury in a traumatized society. Ever since 1913 every new dollar brought into existence by the Federal Reserve, which is the central bank of the United States, creates added debt that collects compound interest as long as it is left unpaid.

The Bank of Canada was created to counter the delegation of money-creating authority to privately-owned banks. The Bank of Canada was founded during the Great Depression, a time when the failure of many existing institutions created the conditions to try out alternative entities in the attempt to improve economic relationships.

One of the driving forces in the creation of Canada’s new banking system was Gerald Gratten McGeer. McGreer was an elected official in British Columbia dedicated to changing the system so that the people of Canada could generate their own currency through the sovereign authority of Canada’s Parliament. McGeer helped to push the national government of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett in this direction. The wheels were set in motion in 1933 through the work on the Royal Commission on Banking and Currency.

McGeer drew much of his inspiration from former US President, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln led the US federal government throughout the US Civil War. To finance the Armed Forces of the Union, Lincoln used the authority of the federal government to create “Greenbacks” as a means of paying the troops. By employing the sovereign authority of the US government to create its own currency, Lincoln avoided the intrigues that often accompanied the process of borrowing money from foreign lenders.

McGreer had obtained what he viewed as credible evidence that Lincoln had been assassinated because of his antagonism to the designs of private bankers seeking to widen their base of power in the United States. The Canadian politician had taken to heart a comment attributed often to Lincoln: “The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity.”

The Bank of Canada was created in 1934 and nationalized as a Crown Corporation in 1938. To this day it retains its founding charter that affirms,

WHEREAS it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of Canada.

The Bank of Canada formed an essential basis of a very creative period of Canadian growth, development, and diversification throughout the middle decades of the twentieth century. The Bank of Canada created the capital that financed the Canadian war effort from 1939 until 1945. After the war the Bank of Canada lent money at very low rates of interest to the municipal, provincial and national governments. The monies were used for infrastructure projects and for investments to increase the wellbeing and creative potential of Canada’s most important resource, its people.

This type of low interest or no interest financing formed the economic basis for projects like the creation of a national pension plan, national health care insurance, the Trans-Canada Highway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Avro-Arrow initiative as well as a formidable system of colleges and universities.

One could say that the Bank of Canada provided an indigenous money supply that was spent into the operations of a fast growing economy greased with lots of federal liquidity. The new money derived its value from the efforts of Canadian workers.  Together they brought about significant increases in the country’s net worth through practical improvements that bettered the lives of all citizens.

Consider the contrast between this type of national development and the kind of larceny facilitated by the Federal Reserve’s infusions of the money it creates into Wall Street’s operations in the twenty-first century. In, for instance, the financial bailouts of 2007 to 2010 the largest part of the newly-created money ended up in the coffers of the wealthy whereas the new debt created ended up as part of a US national debt.

The burden of carrying this debt falls inter-generationally on average working people who form the lion’s share of taxpayers. They have long been saddled with an “inextinguishable debt” that unrelentingly grows, hardly ever shrinks, and remains basically unpayable forever. The very concept of “compound interest” conveys the image of an overall debt spread out over many venues. This debt must grow in perpetuity. There is a constant need for additional debtors while existing debtors must face constantly growing personal debt.

There is reason to suspect that the financial debacle of 2020 will re-enact some the worst excesses of the 2008 bailout. Might the payouts this time around to derivative-addicted Wall Street firms like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase exceed the scale of the prior bailout? Would there be any way of even knowing whether the current round of payouts outdoes the former round of bailouts? The current process of federal disbursements is not transparent. In fact the process has been described as one designed to “provide an ironclad secrecy curtain around how much [the Fed} spends and where the money goes.”

Why is the Canadian government turning to the very firm that emerged as Wall Street’s main fixer and winner in the 2008 bailouts? Why is Justin Trudeau looking to BlackRock to respond to the Canadian aspects of the 2020 economic crash?

Justin Trudeau seems unwilling or unable to provide a coherent answer to this question and others requiring thoughtful replies rather than barrages of platitudes. Why is Justin Trudeau instituting what Joyce Nelson has characterized as a “new feudalism” in Canada’s economic policies?

Any decent effort of response on Trudeau’s part would have to make some reference to the background of the current debacle. There would have to be some acknowledgment that between 1934 and 1974 the Canada government did not build up any significant national debt. Then, between 1974 and 2020, the national debt of Canada skyrocketed from $22 billion to $700 billion.

Why was such a good and sustainable use of the Bank of Canada put aside, one that contributed magnificently to the health and wellbeing of the Canadian people as well as the Canadian federation? Who lost out? Who gained besides the international bankers?

The incomprehensible abandonment of a winning formula for Canadian development by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau puts a special onus on his son, Canada’s current PM, to explain the incredibly costly mistake of his father. Why won’t Justin Trudeau fix the mistake of his father and restore the Bank of Canada to its former role in Canadian nation building?

There has never been a full and satisfactory explanation of what really happened in 1974 to persuade Pierre Trudeau to throw aside the means of developing infrastructure with resources generated internally within Canada. Trudeau Senior’s decision to stop building up Canada through the operation of the Canadian people’s own national bank was not debated in Parliament. The option was never part of an election platform let alone the subject of a national referendum.

Apparently the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements, which is often referred to as the central bank for central bankers, had some role in Pierre Trudeau’s decision to cease using the Bank of Canada’s powers to generate near-debt-free Canadian currency.

Government as a Means of Escaping Debt Entrapment

That powers of debt-lite money creation invested by Parliament in the Bank of Canada have never been formally withdrawn. The Bank of Canada could still revert back to the direct creation of Canadian currency to be spent into an economy of national recovery; to be spent in investments in infrastructure as well as in cultivating and applying the creative skills of the Canadian people.

Between 2011 and 2017 a court case was brought against the government of Canada with the aim of restoring the Bank of Canada to its former role. As Rocco Galati, the lawyer for the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform (COMER) explained  “Not only has the government abandoned its constitutional duty to govern, but it has transferred it to international private banks which corresponds to an abandonment of its sovereignty.”

After some significant rulings and contentious appeals, the COMER case came to an end without delivering results that its plaintiffs sought. But the court case helped to put a spotlight on the potential of the Bank of Canada. If properly utilized, this institution could provide a model corrective to the subordination of governance to the international Lords of Debt Explotation and their minions.

This process of politicizing the role of the Bank of Canada should extend to a process of calling out Justin Trudeau’s current approach to selling off key components of Canada’s infrastructure.

This topic came up in private discussions between Larry Fink and Justin Trudeau at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January of 2016. Fink apparently got Trudeau interested in attracting private investors to the project of improving or building Canadian infrastructure projects like roads, high-speed trains, airports and such. This kind of approach to developing infrastructure projects runs counter to the role once played by the Bank of Canada in incorporating self-sufficiency into the process of national building.

The dangers and opportunities in this time of manufactured crises are indeed unprecedented.  Instead of rejecting the Davos crowd’s preoccupation with a giant reset, why not embrace the concept? Why not treat this moment as an opening to reset the global economy in a way that would restore the Bank of Canada to some of its former functions. Why not highlight this return to the sovereign embrace of benevolent nation building as an example for the rest of the world?

Why not reconstitute the worldwide structures of the international system of economic relations to restore elected governments to the functions that have been pre-empted by unaccountable institutions like the US Federal Reserve or the Bank for International Settlements? Why not renew the model of banking as an exercise and expression of national sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples in a dynamic global arena of rules-based economic interaction?

Why not withdraw the power from private bankers to create national currencies? Why not follow the advice of the deceased Abraham Lincoln by restoring “the greatest of all creative possibilities available to governments,” namely their power to issue money and set interest rates. The restoration of economic power to governments and the people and peoples they represent would involve the infusion of life into conceptions of globalization very different than those used to justify the industrialization of China and the deindustrialization of North America.

By delegating to international organizations much of their capacity to influence the economic conditions affecting their own people, national legislatures have lost much of their capacity to provide responsible government. Governments thus weakened are not realistically in a position to derive their authority from the consent of the governed. When representative bodies cannot effectively express the right of their constituents to collective self-determination in economic realm, what legitimacy is left to the institution of representative government?

This strange moment puts humanity face to face with much that is novel and unprecedented and much that is old and integral to the history of human interaction. The economic dimensions of this crisis constitute its most devastating and far-reaching attribute. The supposed remedy being rushed into operation is to flood large quantities of debt-laden loans into existence and for governments to distribute the borrowed funds to individuals, businesses, and organizations as they see fit.

Once again, vast quantities of debt-laden money are being created without the informed consent of those on whose shoulders the vastly increased loads of debt are falling. Once again governments are rewarding political friends and punishing political enemies by means of the way the new funds are being apportioned.

Decisions are pushed forward that emanate not from citizen constituents but from cabals of supranational connivers actively engaged in wrecking what little remains of responsible government. As governments lose legitimacy by engaging in collusion with corrupt cronies and international crime syndicates they must depend more and more on police state thuggery to enforce some semblance of order.

This process is going forward in spite of the fact that alternative means exist to create as much new money as is required without having to pay large amounts of compound interest to private bankers. Every sovereign government has the capacity to generate new money by following the model of the Bank of Canada between 1938 and 1974.

There is an especially urgent need at this time for some serious reckoning with the economic dimensions of the crisis before us. This reckoning will inevitably meet the resistance of extremely powerful interests who are deriving great benefits from the existing system. The process of privatizing the creation of money has enriched and empowered a clique whose institutionalized, deep-rooted and continuing kleptocracy was exposed in part by the bailout of 2008.

Why should we take for granted in 2020 that the best way to deal with the economic debacle put before us is to create new money by agreeing to go much deeper into a quagmire of debt entrapment. This debt trap, whose cumulative amount will soon be more that $300 trillion globally, creates gross liabilities in a trajectory of disadvantage that severely limits the life chances even of many generations still unborn.

The other side of debt is embodied in assets. Who gets the assets and who gets the liabilities that coalesce to form indebtedness? What is to be made of the role of birth or inheritance or race or natural ability or social connections in apportioning assets or imposing the enslavements of accumulated debt?

John Perkins addressed some of these issues in his Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and in a subsequent follow-up volume. Perkins chronicled how an inter-related complex of US institutions aligned themselves with his own greedy and unscrupulous interventions. The goal of their coordinated aggressions was aimed at imposing the enslavements of massive debt with compound interest. Their version of loan sharking is one of many manifestations expressing a very old and common phenomenon. It often happens that powerful interests parasitically exploit the weak to further enrich themselves.

This partnership between John Perkins and the kleptocratic agencies directed by the US government has long been drawing wealth from struggling countries by pushing them more deeply into national indebtedness. Once the governments of target countries succumbed to greater dependence on debt-based financing, the conditions were ripe to force officials into adopting policies of austerity that harmed local citizens in order to augment the assets of international investors.

Significantly the World Bank demonstrated how this coercion works in the context of the current economic crisis. The World Bank attempted to impose conditions on a loan of $940 million to Belarus because the WB wanted Belarus to conform to the lockdowns that are a primary cause of the current manufactured crisis.

As revealed by the Belarus’s President, Alexander Lukashenko, the World Bank wanted his country to adopt the full set of COVID-19 measures that had been implemented by the Italian government. Lukashenko said no to the loan. He refused to accept the conditions and carried on the established policies of Belarus, a country that has “not implemented strict coronavirus containment measures.”

Lukashenko is far from alone in his contempt for the manipulative tactics of the apparatus promoting the manufactured crisis. For instance Tanzanian President, John Magufuli, tested the accuracy of the testing procedures being forced on his country by the World Health Organization. President and Medical Doctor Mugufi included in the samples submitted to the testing agency some tissue of a goat and a papaya. Both the goat and the papaya tested positive for COVID-19, an outcome he publicized before ordering the WHO group to leave his country.

The Political Economy of Usury From the Middle Ages to the Era of Social Credit and Ezra Pound

We cannot assess the division of humanity between a massive group of debtors and a much smaller group of creditors without touching on the issue of usury. The subject of usury, the lending of money with the addition of interest payments, has been an extremely contentious issue throughout much of human history.

There were prohibitions against usury in ancient Greece, ancient India and the Roman Empire. Throughout much of the last thousand years usury has been regarded as a sin outlawed in the Bible, the Torah and the Koran. At different times in history the Roman Catholic Church has been an especially zealous opponent of some forms of usury.

Considering the nature of our current predicaments including obscene levels of economic inequality, usury might yet again arouse contentions. Some of the core ethical issues raised by the resort to usury remain unresolved. How is it ethical, for instance, to subject disinherited children in poor countries to the indignities of deepened poverty so that rich folks in rich parts of the world can reap larger dividends?

Beginning in the Middle Ages, forms of usury began to show up first in the Italian city states and in the towns of the Franco-Flemish realm. The act of loaning money with interest gradually spread throughout Europe. In some predominately-Muslim jurisdictions, the concept conveyed in the Arabic term, “riba,” approximated the idea of usury or interest. Over time various versions of riba have affected Muslim banking practices.

Often there were prohibitions preventing Jews from demanding interest on loans made to other Jews. There were many Talmudic teachings, however, permitting interest to be collected from gentiles when they borrowed money from Jews. Many accounts of Jewish efforts to break down prohibitions on usury highlight obstacles preventing Jews from pursuing other lines of work. The case is made that the pull of some Jews into banking came about in part because of their exclusion from other occupations.

Whatever the case, the obstacles to usury continued to be lessened including through the changes to Biblical interpretation that came with the Protestant Reformation. Even in the twentieth century, however, usury continued to arouse criticism and distrust. Ezra Pound was one of those who became very outspoken when it came to problems with usury.

The modernist poet and scholar, Ezra Pound, was one of the most influential literary figures of the twentieth century. The importance of his work was expressed not only in his own literary efforts but also in his contributions to other authors in his circle of friends and colleagues.

Pound’s outspoken criticism of usury formed part of the discourse that was integral to the political movements seeking economic reform. The creation and successful nationalization of the Bank of Canada was one of the outgrowths of the concerted quest to give substance to economic institutions that would more effectively serve human needs.

The creation of the Bank of Canada drew on the ideas of Abraham Lincoln and also on those of many other theorists including Major C.H. Douglas. While Major Douglas and John Maynard Keynes each denounced one another’s work, both sought to stimulate economic activity by expanding the supply and distribution of money.  Major Douglas’ vision of Social Credit, one that Pound enthusiastically embraced, sought to bring about greater harmony and equilibrium between the forces of production and consumption.

A biographer of Pound has explained that this formidable literary figure believed “there was the prospect of building a Social Credit society where money served the consumer and served the producer.”  As Pound pictured it, “the middle men” seeking usurious, interest bearing profit” to be collected “without work or prior motivation, could be cut out.” During the Depression the hope of prosperity through the application of Social Credit principles was seized upon by many. One of them was an evangelical preacher in the Canadian province of Alberta.

Largely as a result of the popularity he gained by incorporating Major Douglas’ analysis of Social Credit into his Sunday afternoon Christian radio broadcast, “Bible Bill” Aberhart became the Premier of Alberta. His Social Credit Party gained 56 of 63 seats in the Alberta Legislature. The Social Credit Party continued in power until 1971.

The Social Credit preoccupation with bringing about changes in the relationship of citizens to financial institutions helped add to the discourse from which the Bank of Canada emerged as a dynamic instrument of nation building.

The enthusiasm was well placed of those who threw their lot in with the movement to create and enlivened the Bank of Canada. The generations that put their trust in this federal financial institution had the satisfaction of knowing that their taxes were not devoured to pay big amounts of interest to private bankers in the style that presently prevails almost everywhere.

Like his good friend and colleague, Ernest Hemingway, Pound was a devotee of clear, terse and succinct prose.

This characteristic of his writing comes through strongly in his harsh condemnations of usury. “Usury is the cancer of the world,” Pound wrote. He explained, “Until you know who has lent to whom, you know nothing of politics, you know nothing whatever of history, you know nothing of international wrangles.”

Ezra Pound was born in Idaho but was attracted to Italy throughout long periods of his life. In Italy he lionized its fascist leader, Benito Mussolini. He embraced the Axis side in World War II developing close relations with the British fascist leader, Oswald Mosley. Pound threw himself into the contest producing a torrent of radio broadcasts seeking to win over English-speaking converts to the Axis side. These broadcasts are today widely described as war propaganda.

Pound was indicted in the United States in 1943 and arrested at the war’s end by the US Armed Forces in Italy. After being jailed in Pisa, Pound was charged with treason. Then Pound was diagnosed as being mentally unfit to face charges.

The finding that he was mentally ill caused Pound to be locked up as a patient in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in the Washington DC area for the next 13 years. In spite of his severe prejudices against Jewish bankers and his active embrace of fascism during the war years, Pound continued to carry on very lively interactions with his formidable circle of poets, essayists and novelists.

Pound’s circle included James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, and T.S. Eliot. All these writers wrote works that won a Nobel Prize for Literature. These and many other authors benefited from Pound’s encouragement and mentorship. In 1948 Eustace Mullins joined Pound’s circle. Mullins was introduced to the famous poet and scholar through Pound’s wife, Dorothy Shakespeare,

When he first met Pound, Mullins was an art school student and a veteran of the US Air Force. He had already published some short pieces in the British journal, Social Creditor. Mullins remembered Pound’s place of forced residence as “a hideous, urine-soaked madhouse in Washington D.C.” As their visits became increasingly regular, Pound encouraged Mullins to conduct research into the history and activities of the Federal Reserve.

When Pound proposed the idea Mullins was unaware of the existence of the Federal Reserve. Nevertheless, Mullins threw himself into the project that he supported by combining his research with work as a book stacker at the Library of Congress. At the Library he befriended George Stimpson who was well known among Washington journalists and government officials for his wealth of knowledge and his ability to locate relevant research materials.

Stimpson happily worked with Mullins. He helped the aspiring author by guiding him into the primary and secondary literature illuminating many facets of the Federal Reserve’s history

Eustace Mullins Explores the Secrets of the Federal Reserve

An initial edition of the volume appeared in 1952 as Mullins on the Federal Reserve. Another edition with added information was published in 1954. The text has been republished many times, sometimes in different editions under the title Secrets of the Federal Reserve. The text is organized around both thematic and chronological facets.

Mullins lays out the history of the Federal Reserve with considerable attention to the institution’s roots and origins. The author emphasizes several strands of continuity showing the links of the Federal Reserve to the banking establishments of Europe but especially those of Great Britain and Germany.

Mullins characterizes the Federal Reserve as the most powerful institution in the United States whose influence grew so that “it gradually superseded the popular elected government of the United States.” The power of the Fed and its core facet, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is said to have become so formidable because the agency operates in secrecy without any genuine form of accountability to any public institution. The NY Fed combines the power of secrecy with the enormous power to create new currency and to set interest rates becoming in the process “the most gigantic trust on earth.”

Mullins makes the case that the financial district known as the City of London exercised enormous influence over the activities of the Federal Reserve and many of the large Wall Street banks. Mullins wrote, “London is the world’s financial centre, because it commands enormous sums of capital created at its command by the Federal Reserve Board of the United States.”

Mullins is conscientious in presenting many citations to back up his observations and interpretations. He cites, for instance the New York Times on January of 1920 where it states, “The Federal Reserve is a fount of credit not capital.” The manipulation of credit, however, can greatly affect the industrial economy by affecting the ability of manufacturers and farmers to produce.

Mullins emphasizes throughout the text how events are often engineered to strengthen the hand of the Lords of Credit in the matrix of society’s operations. In referring, for instance, to a secret banker’s plan to crash the stock market in 1929, Mullins expressed a view that could as easily describe the growing suspicion in 2020. Could it be that the lockdowns of businesses and workers were purposely engineered to strengthen the hands of the Lords of Credit whose main platform is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?

Mullins explains that sometimes “bankers paralyse the industrial energies of the country” in order to highlight and strengthen “their tremendous powers” over the financial and business organization of the American economy. Mullins’ observation that “panic is an instrument of [financial] power” is another statement with obvious relevance to the current crisis.

As have many authors since, Mullins emphasizes the importance of a top-secret meeting on Jekyll Island in the state of Georgia in 1910. At this meeting Paul Warburg essentially took the intellectual lead in creating a plan for a Central Bank in the United States. Such an institution was long contemplated and promoted but it had been stopped repeatedly, most famously be Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s political career culminated in his winning the US presidency between 1829 and 1837.

Warburg left his family banking business in Hamburg Germany in 1902. He joined the Wall Street Office of Kuhn Loeb, a Wall Street House that helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Mullins devotes much effort to describing the complex of alliances and rivalries that characterized banking before and after the founding of the Fed.

Weaving throughout these networks of financial activity were the banking operations of the Rothschild family. Mullins leaves no doubt that the operations of the Rothschild family of bankers were extensive, elaborate and very influential.

In the nineteenth century the Rothschild banking establishment gradually wove its operations into those of large segments of Europe’s royal and aristocratic establishments. Mullins emphasizes the genesis of the close business relationship between the Rothschild banking clan and a London-based US company, George Peabody and Company.

Peabody’s bank was passed on to a father and son team, Junius Spencer Morgan and John Pierpont Morgan. In the days of the Fed’s founding and even today, the name of J.P. Morgan is synonymous with New York banking. Mullins explains how the Rothschild bankers kept a fairly low profile in New York by conducting much of their American business largely through the financial organizations associated with the name and reputation of J.P. Morgan.

Mullins outlines the role of the Federal Reserve in the funding of two world wars. Many of the topics covered in Secrets of the Federal Reserve were later pursued in much more detail in the prolific writings of Antony C. Sutton.

Most of Sutton’s volumes describe the role of Wall Street in helping to bring about many of world history’s major turning points during the twentieth century. These turning points include Wall Street’s funding of the rise of the National Socialist government in Germany in the 1930s and the role of Wall Street in financing the Bolshevik Revolution and the business activities of the Soviet Union.

The capacity of the New York Bank of the Federal Reserve to create vast quantities of credit to finance wars, often with the same bankers funding competing sides in conflicts, provided the key to the creation of huge fortunes. The funding of both sides in war can be seen as an early form of hedging one’s bets. This kind of high impact intervention through banking sometimes created huge leverage for a very small number of people to steer history towards preconceived destinations.

As Mullins explains it, the Federal Reserve was founded in extreme secrecy and often employs deceptive tactics to misrepresent its true nature. As Mullins sees it, for instance, the creation of the twelve regional banks was a ploy to gain political acceptance for the Central Bank’s core entity, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Mullins explains, “the other eleven banks were so many expensive mausoleums erected to salve local pride and quell the Jacksonian fears of the hinterland