Covid sure came at a convenient time for the global elite elite, didn’t it?
Think about it: The age of information, social media, and the internet just rose in the past 30 years, with social media only exploding in the past 20 years. Not even two decades since the explosion of social media among the general population in 2005.
2008 was the first real economic crisis in the age of social media - of mass decentralized information flow between people, instantaneously, at virtually any distance.
TheMcGwire is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
If you had to sum up 2016 in one word, you might choose “populism.”…
In fact, while definitions do vary, the core of populism is a concerted anti-establishment posture: It's us (“the people”) vs. them (“the establishment").
A distrust of the elite and pandering to the masses has been around before 2016, of course. So how did it come to dominate our understanding of the world over the past year?
Gee. How, or why, did populism, a “people” versus “establishment” mentality, rise in the collective consciousness? Perhaps greater awareness? Greater access to information on how the government and corporations are fucking over constituencies and populations?
I feel the populism trend to generally be indicative of rising awareness of reality - even if I disagree with many flavors of populism. There are many flavors. In the US, You had Bernie Sanders and Trump, opposites from a partisan perspective, but both populists, drawing their success on the rising appeal and demand of populism.
Trump, the Washington outsider using anti “deep-state” rhetoric, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist who wants to give everyone a living wage and healthcare in the world’s richest nation.
At the end of the day Bernie Bros and the MAGA crowd might be very different camps, with very different perceived solutions to the crises facing America, but they had common ground in recognition of general problems.. both camps feel that the ruling powers do not represent their interests, and they believe are even working against their interests. You don’t have to agree with someone’s solutions to a perceived problem to recognize common ground on a grievance.
It isn’t just economic factors, but both economic and cultural/social elements are at play in the general trend of populism, and populism can be stratified into various types(such as economic or cultural). The Conversation published an article in 2021 titled “Populism Erupts When People Feel Disconnected and Disrespected”
Populist campaigns and parties often function as warning signs of a political crisis. In both Europe and the US, populist movements have been most successful at times when people see the prevailing political norms – which are preserved and defended by the existing establishment – as being at odds with their own hopes, fears, and concerns.The populists express these neglected concerns and frame them in a politics that pits the people against an intransigent elite. By doing so, they become catalysts for political change.
Populist campaigns and parties, by nature, point to problems through demands that are unlikely to be realized in the present political circumstances… But they still point to tears in the fabric of accepted political wisdom.
To get an idea of the rising trend of populism, and how this was affecting the Davos globalists, let us look at a brief timeline of headlines about Davos in relation to populism from 2016-2020.
Read all of the headlines below chronologically and take note of the context of the timeline.
The timeline tells a story of rising populism - which challenges globalism. Thus the Davos elite explicitly feeling threatened by the trend.. .and feeling the need to front-run it by spoofing and infiltrating it. After all, The Davos elite are great at infiltrating. Don’t take it from me, take it from Klaus.
Klaus Schwab boasts of overthrowing world governments: “What we are very proud of right now is that we are infiltrating cabinets. More than half of Canada’s cabinet ministers are actually young global leaders of the World Economic Forum. This is true in Argentina and in France….like Trudeau[(like many others Merkel, Putin, Macron, Johnson, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.)]” — Klaus Schwab: German economist, founder and permanent president of the World Economic Forum in Davos (since 1971)
After years of the Davos crowd publicly fretting over the rise of populism, By 2019 you have Bolsonaro being “the face of populism at Davos” according to the New Tork Times, while WAPO was seen publishing “A Trumpless Davos Tries to Counter Populism”.
The same year, in 2019 Foreign Policy would publish Davos Has Learned to Fake Populism… Foreign Policy would comment “The world’s most powerful economic elites are using anti-globalist rhetoric to help turbocharge globalization—and enrich themselves.”……. Interesting
“Trump is part of a broad populist upsurge running through the Western world. It can be seen in countries of widely varying circumstances, from prosperous Sweden to crisis-ridden Greece. In most, populism remains an opposition movement, although one that is growing in strength…”
“Abstract: Rising support for populist parties has disrupted the politics of many Western societies. What explains this phenomenon?Two theories are examined here.
Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism -- the economic insecurity perspective--emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies.
“The world order has been upended. As the United States retreats from the promise of free trade, China is taking up the mantle…
Fear of the Populist ‘Threat’
The religion of the global elite — free trade and open markets — is under attack, and there has been a lot of hand-wringing over what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund has declared a “middle-class crisis.”
…The biggest concern? Finding a way to make the people who are driving populist movements feel like they are part of the global economic pie that Davos participants have created and largely own.
Note how NYT says the religion of the global elite is “Free trade and open markets”. Meanwhile, Breitbart says that “more redistribution” is answer to scary populism. Are the globalists elite capitalists or communists?!The right calls them marxist, the left calls them capitalists. The truth is, the globalist mantra is somewhere in between, their ideology is conditional to who it applies too. I thought about subtitling this article “The Globalist Mantra: Free Markets for Me, Communism for Thee”
I have refined the focus of this article, so I might save that for it’s own piece down the road. Nonetheless, the dynamic I just pointed out is deeply important, I believe. The globalists want total control and strong regulations for populations and domestic businesses, but freedom and lax regulations for themselves and their transnational corporations.
“This year the champagne may be flowing even more freely than usual in the Swiss Alps resort of Davos, owing to a turn in the global situation pleasing to the sorts of people who make the annual pilgrimage — heads of state, corporate chieftains and those who manage extraordinary piles of money.
The last time these putative guardians of civilization convened for this festival of internationalist concern, they found themselves in an uncustomary position: in the cross hairs of a global insurrection.”
”President Donald Trump’s combative personal style has allowed him to retain firm grasp of the populist political movement he rode to power a year ago, but he’s delivered scant results to his own supporters, according to world leaders and political scientists on a panel Tuesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos…
This time, however, a year’s record in office suggests that Trump’s nationalist and anti-establishment rhetoric is less consequential than many Davos elites previously believed. He speaks to the grievances of his supporters, these observers said, but his policies — including a tax overhaul with benefits skewed toward wealthy Americans — have not addressed more enduring problems like rising inequality.
The world’s most powerful economic elites are using anti-globalist rhetoric to help turbocharge globalization—and enrich themselves
“Schwab, like the broader Davos set, is trying to adjust to the age of populism. But that’s not to suggest they’re surrendering to it. Quite the opposite: Schwab’s anti-globalist shift is a hijacking attempt. It shows how corporate elites are trying to accommodate nationalist populism while still maximizing their own personal gains—which, of course, come at the expense of the very masses they’re attempting to appeal to.”.
“Populist movements around the world, left and right, disagree in detail but are united around one big idea: The political and economic elites running modern societies are very powerful people who know what they are doing.
What they are doing is often bad—greedy, exploitative, short-sighted—but they are doing it with purpose and confident control.”
“In a report this month, Sterne noted that most major economies performed dramatically worse than expected after the 2007-2009 Great Recession….
‘There was genuine underperformance by the big institutions,’ he said. The result is a populist backlash. ‘If you don’t do anything about your failings, they can come back and bite you.’
^Subtitled^ —“World leaders at venues like Davos need to start taking the public’s declining faith in institutions seriously—or face more upheaval to come”
The AP article, Facing Populist Assault, Global Elites Regroup in Davos, acknowledged that the global populist movement that culminated in 2016 was likely largely a delayed response to dissatisfactory economic conditions in the wake of 08’. The tea party’s momentary success, as well as the virality of the occupy Wall street movement, could be seen as foreshadowing later waves of populism in America.
Additionally, the article covering Davos 2019 acknowledged the reaction to globalism by developed nations:
A year after getting a standing ovation from the elites at Davos, French President Emmanuel Macron is sinking in the polls as he contends with “yellow vest” protesters who have taken to the streets to call for higher wages and fairer pensions. Nationalist political movements are gaining strength across Europe…
For most of the past quarter century, the worldview symbolized by the World Economic Forum — of ever-freer world trade and closer ties between countries — had dominated. Then came a backlash from Americans and Europeans whose jobs were threatened by low-wage competition from countries like China and who felt alienated at home by wealth inequality and immigration… “The winners from globalization have had the megaphone,” said Paul Sheard, a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at Harvard University’s Kennedy School. “The losers have been somewhat silent, but now are starting to express themselves through the ballot box and through the political process.”…
Globalization produced millions of “winners” over the years, but also “has left certain people behind,” Schwab said at the Davos conference center, where his teams gave pre-event tours to delegations ahead of the formal start on Tuesday.
“In the age of social media, you cannot afford any more to leave anyone behind,” Schwab said.
“In the age of social media, you cannot afford any more to leave anyone behind,” Schwab said. What did he mean by this?
The Imperial group lead an IdeasLab session titled ‘Developing a Vaccine Revolution’.
….Professor Robin Shattock, Head of Mucosal Infection and Immunity within the Department of Medicine, is working on the manufacturing of RNA vaccines to create quicker and more accessible responsiveness to outbreaks of known pathogens - such as flu, and unknown pathogens, called Disease X.
His team is improving the production system of vaccines to quickly provide tens of thousands of new vaccine doses within weeks of a new threat being identified. Currently, vaccines can take 10 years or more to develop….
The theme for this year’s WEF Annual Meeting is Globalization 4.0: Shaping a Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
Covid would fill the role of the placeholder “disease X” a year later. The Davos elites just happened to start focusing on rapid vaccine development of diseases with the new technology of RNA vaccines, right before Covid hit. Isn’t that just dandy?
Does that mean the “next pandemic” the elite keep warning us about will happen about a year from now?
The Imperial presentation at Davos, the goal of manufacturing vaccines in months when the standard was years, a decade, isn’t the only coincidence of 2019.As the “conspiracy theorists” pointed out, Event 201 was pretty suspect.
Recently Senator Ron Johnson said on record, “This is all pre-planned by an elite group of people. That's what I'm talking about, event 201 that occurred in late 2019 prior to the rest of us knowing about this pandemic again… planned for our loss of freedom.”
“They don't want you to be made aware of the fact that the vaccines might have caused injuries, might've caused death. So many people just simply don't want to admit they were wrong and they're gonna do everything they can to make sure that they're not proven wrong.”
The fact you have a sitting congressman, a senator no less, referencing Event 201, saying that an elite group of people intentionally created the pandemic shows you where we are at in terms of levels of distrust. Quite honestly, this blew me away, and is what inspired me to take this piece off the backburner and finish it - as that was essentially the thesis I was working up to. ….A few days after Johnson’s statement on Fox, as I am getting read to publish this piece, Tass published ”US Experts Study Over 2,500 Bats in Search for New Coronavirus Strains — Russian Military”.
"The fact that the [actual] pandemic unfolded exactly according to this scenario, as well as the implementation of EcoHealth Alliance’s projects, gives rise to questions as to whether COVID-19 was in fact an intentionally man-made disease and whether the US may have had a hand in this incident,"the head of the Russian Armed Forces’ NBC Protection Troops concluded.
Twilight Zone indeed…
Russian Ministry: ”We do not exclude the use by the United States of these so called defensive technologies for offensive purposes as well as for the purpose of global management by creating crisis situations of a biological nature”.
According to the Ministry, Washington has been amassing various pathogens from its direct involvement with various biolabs around the world, which they say are for research and preventative measures. But Russia's Defense Ministry is not buying that. And they point out that whenever the Pentagon, for example, is interested in any pathogens, be it COVID-19 or avian influenza or the African swine flu, they later somehow end up becoming pandemic.
And who stands to benefit from this? As we've seen time and time again, it's American pharmaceutical companies. And they point out, their findings Point out that, for example, that there is a possible collusion between Big Pharma and USAID via an intermediary company called Eco Health Alliance. Now, they have been studying the diversity of bat population since 2015, and they've also been looking at mechanisms how to transfer coronavirus strains from bats to humans. And we know that just two months before the world ever heard about COVID-19, there was an exercise conducted at the Johns Hopkins University in New York wherein that exercise entailed scientists transferring an unknown at the time strain of coronavirus from bats to humans via a pig.
There will be those, of course, who will say that these are just all conspiracy theories or Russian propaganda. But we are talking about specific examples, specific organizations. And let's not forget that Washington has itself admitted that it does have biolabs, including in Ukraine. And again, let's not forget just how terrified they were at one point in case their research there falls into the wrong hands and how catastrophic that may be if it falls into Russian hands. So what that research there was all about? Perhaps this is what we're talking about.”
Event 201, which Senator Ron Johnson also referenced, per John Hopkins, was “hosted in collaboration with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” in late 2019. It was a simulation of a coronavirus with eery parallels to what would follow just months later.
”The experts added a new layer of realism by reaching beyond government and NGOs to leaders in the private sector and business community. Participants included representatives from NBCUniversal, UPS, and Johnson & Johnson”
To recap, in the years leading up to 2020, economic conditions were declining, and populism was rising, which the internet and social media undoubtly played a large role in alongside declining economic conditions, and shifting culture. The Davos elite were publicly worrying about populism rising for years starting in 2016, which is also when they started feeling the need to police speech on social media. As the Guardian reported in an article titled, “The Worst Thing About Davos? The Masters of the Universe Think They are Do-Gooders”
“The pastry-munching crowds of Davos want to have their Swiss chocolate and eat it, too. And that is their fatal flaw. The supreme irony is that this event that claims to identify and analyze global trends – and which has, for years now, been fretting over the rise of what is inexactly termed “populism”,which threatens to consume the political order that has facilitated corporate capitalism’s postwar dominance – is itself one of the most perfect fuels on earth for populist anger. If the minds of Davos actually believed their own bullshit, they would shut the conference down immediately…
It is no exaggeration to say this monstrosity of opulence playing out amid the ominously reduced snowpack of the Alps is such a powerful symbol of all that is wrong with the neoliberal era of the world that it will help to bring about its own downfall.
It is a symbol of cloistered elites boldly pampering themselves as they lecture on the need for sustainability; it is a symbol of exclusivity draping itself in the language of democracy; it is a symbol of the unaccountable financiers and bureaucrats and intellectuals who went to the right schools and work for the right institutions and are therefore allowed to lock themselves in an impermeable bubble, gaze out in ignorance at a world whose problems they have never experienced, and prescribe a course of action that will, coincidentally, perpetuate the dominance they have enjoyed for generations.”
So in 2019, after years of worrying about Populism, Davos 2019 is revolving around the 4th industrial revolution. Included in that, is the plan to use AI to manufacture vaccines at record breaking time for unknown future pandemics. Also, John Hopkins in partnership with the WEF, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and many other private institutions as well as some public….ran a pandemic simulation, Event 201, which, “dropped participants right in the midst of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak that was spreading like wildfire out of South America to wreak worldwide havoc. As fictional newscasters from "GNN" narrated, the immune-resistant virus (nicknamed CAPS) was crippling trade and travel, sending the global economy into freefall. Social media was rampant with rumors and misinformation, governments were collapsing, and citizens were revolting.”…
And then hit Covid a few months later. Conveniently.
- Bill Gates appeared in Netflix 'Explained' series to discuss risks of viral spread
- The billionaire said world is ill-prepared to deal with global pandemic
-Microsoft tycoon predicted virus outbreak would begin in wet market in China
In a 2019 Netflix documentary, billionaire Bill Gates predicted a killer virus could originate in China's wet markets to rapidly infect the world
Of course, these pattern of coincidences made for lots of conspiracy theories, which had the corporate media up in arms to defend our benevolent overlords who would surely never plan such diabolically malicious actions, having broken from the pattern of history (so what if some of them, including Bill Gates, were hanging out with a known child sex trafficker, before and after he was convicted for such, get a grip!)
“…Covid-19’s biggest political casualty might be governability.
I expect that politics in the aftermath of the pandemic will increasingly be marked by defiance and intimidation…
Conspiracy theories [Like the Wuhan Lab leak, vaccines being harmful, lockdowns being harmful instead of beneficial, Ivermectin works, facemasks are useless, Fauci and gain of function research, etc, etc…] and bizarre beliefs flourished during previous pandemics; only in the current era, their rapid dissemination is facilitated by the internet…
Note: This article was published by NBC in Oct. of 2022.. And they are still trying to assert disinformation and “conspiracy theories” as a negative consequence from the pandemic - completely ignoring the fact that many of the “conspiracy theories” that were viciously censored and suppressed had already turned out to be true, or finally acknowledged by many to be upon emerging evidence.
Suddenly there was a crisis where misinformation resulting from social media could conveniently be sold to the world as dangerous and used to set a pretext for greater control of speech.
While on the surface, some of the effects of Covid might seem counter productive to the elite’s plans, such as continued economic and social deterioration. But impoverished people fighting each other facilitates the great-reset, and helps set a pretext for it.
Social Division helps divide and conquer, and while the average people and businesses experienced economic deterioration, corporations gained market share during the pandemic, largely as a result of the pandemic response by governments, leading to headlines such as the following from WAPO in July of 2020
The NBC article above does correctly point out that the rapid dissemination of information through the internet and social media is unique to this emerging time period - the era of mass information dissemination within a decentralized manner….
Then, after some scrolling, the NBC article comes to acknowledge the reality of Covid as a pretext for a trend towards authoritarianism across the world. Of course, government expanding its control over the internet, social media, and speech was a large part of the pandemic response. Conveniently.
The NBC article would note the expansion of government controlling what was “ordinarily personal space” for democracies (“democracies”) , while “authoritarian governments exploited the pandemic to tighten their control”.
While Americans lost faith in democracy, bureaucrats were expanding governmental powers - as they were around the world.
In another survey, the number of U.S. participants who considered democracy a bad way to run their country more than doubled from 10.5% in 2019 to 25.8% in 2021… The pandemic accelerated the erosion of democracy worldwide. Democratic governments imposed controls that intruded into ordinarily personal space, while authoritarian governments exploited the pandemic to tighten their control. …
Overall, trust in public institutions, which has been declining in America for some time, further eroded during the pandemic. In part, this reflects the difficulty authorities have in responding to major outbreaks of disease. Furthermore, the measures taken to combat the spread fueled opposing narratives of virility versus weakness, state sovereignty versus federal tyranny, corporeal autonomy versus health mandates.
Covid Accelerated Pre-Existing Trends of Rising Distrust of Institutions, Political Unrest, Economic instability
Foreign Policy Published “The Global Trust Crisis” in January of 2020 while the Davos elite were meeting for their annual WEF event in Switzerland.
“World leaders at venues like Davos need to start taking the public’s declining faith in institutions seriously- or face more upheaval to come.”
In 2020 the frequency of protests and demonstrations experienced a lull as the world underwent lockdowns, before spiking in the later half of the year.
But it would be a mistake to pin the blame on the pandemic should those crises arrive. The seeds were sown long before COVID-19. Between 2011 and 2019, public debt in a sample of 65 developing countries increased by 18 percent of GDP on average--and by much more in several cases. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, debt increased by 27 percent of GDP on average.
From this author’s perspective, both trends are partially correlated with deteriorating economic conditions for the average person.
For a brief hiatus Covid actually suspended an ongoing wave of populists protests, conveniently allowing world elite to enact unprecedented emergency powers and lockdowns restricting freedom of movement, assembly, protest, among other rights violations/state power-grabs such as expansion of censorship and the strengthening of police state apparatus via an increased focus on surveillance.
Covid-19 has had this kind of chilling effect on opposition movements everywhere. The world is now a long way from 2019, which was dubbed the “year of street protest.”
“No one jumps on the barricades when they think the barricade might have a virus on it,” said Richard Gowan, the UN director at the International Crisis Group. “[Coronavirus is] a deterrent to protest and it may be giving some pretty authoritarian leaders a bit of respite in this context.”
Since the financial collapse of 08’, global unrest has been on a general incline. Populism wasn’t far behind.
In 2017, Reuters published an article in May titled: Davos Offers Unsettling Glimpse of New World Order, which painted a picture of rising economic and geopolitical instability around the globe in 2017.
Welcome to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos circa 2017. This is not a dream. It is, or may be, the new reality in a world shaken by economic and geo-political tremors not seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or possibly World War Two.
In past years, this annual gathering of leaders, CEOs and bankers in the Swiss Alps has had a glum undertone to it because of the succession of crises, mainly of a financial nature, rocking the globe.
But this year there was a sense that something far bigger is going on, a shifting of the tectonic plates of global politics that is breeding deep uncertainty and may herald a return to a rougher, tougher world defined by national self interest.
The “return to a rougher, tougher world defined by national self interest.” mentioned at the end of the excerpt above is likely referring to the rise of economic protectionism and the growing popularity of populism as a reaction to neoliberal globalism.
Boy, Coronavirus Sure Came At a Convenient Time for the Globalist Elite to Concentrate Power…
According to recent data of the Institute for Economics and Peace, the last decade (2011 – 2021) is notable for increased social unrest. The recession brought about by the global economic crisis of 2008 and the impact of austerity policies led citizens to the streets. As Figure 1 shows, the main expressions of social malaise occurred in 2011 with the wave of protests of the so-called Arab Spring, the Occupy movement, and the Indignados (15-M) movement in Spain. After 2012, these protest movements waned in intensity for different reasons. On the one hand, because they had achieved some of their goals, or because they had been suppressed by government forces. On the other hand, because they dispersed and evolved into other kinds of social movements (organisation of political platforms, social projects, neighbourhood activism, etcetera). A little later, demonstrations and protests increased again to reach a significant peak in 2016 and another in 2018-2019. Cities like Cairo, Beirut, Tunis, Khartoum, and Algiers recorded the highest numbers of protests in these years.
The US economist Dani Rodrik has coined the phrase “the globalisation trilemma” to capture the idea that countries cannot have democracy, national sovereignty and globalisation; they can only ever have two out of the three.
The WEF said recent events in Europe and the US suggested an “appetite for rebalancing towards democracy and national sovereignty”[and a populist rejection of globalization].
The WEF said it had been pointing out the dangers of rising inequality and political polarisation for more than a decade, but that the slow pace of recovery from the deep recession of 2008 had intensified income gaps within countries.
Emergency measures such as quantitative easing – the creation of money by central banks – had become permanent features of economic policy, and had exacerbated inequality by boosting the returns of those holding financial assets.
It added that the trends of recent years had come into sharp focus in 2016 with rising discontent and disaffection evident in the UK referendum and in the US with Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
Rising economic inequality, largely catalyzed by the 2008 crisis, was a major factor of growing discontent with globalization, and a major boon for the rise of populism.
Alain Berset said on day 2 of WEF’s 2023 Forum in Davos that the rise in populism is a result of growing inequality. ”All the fears expressed in 2012 under our meeting have come true. Inequality brings with it huge political and social collateral damage. And what we call populism is essentially a reaction to growing inequality”
While populations were rallying around populism, the WEF was rallying around the 4th industrial revolution. The technologies and intentions of the 4IR increasingly make humans obsolete, and increase the ability for the ruling powers to control humans.
In an article from 2018 titled, “Why is populism suddenly all the rage?”, the Guardian would report that “The increasing popularity of the term is no coincidence. Populist parties have tripled their vote in Europe over the past 20 years. They are in government in 11 European countries. More than a quarter of Europeans voted populist in their last elections.”
Why? There is no easy answer to this question. Recent academic studies have shown that throughout the western world populist attitudes are widespread. Many citizens take the view that ordinary, virtuous people have been betrayed, neglected or exploited by a corrupt elite. Although citizens with strong populist attitudes do not necessarily vote for a populist party (in fact, many of them don’t), there are various circumstances that increase the likelihood that they will do so.
Recap: Social and political unrest is on the rise. Its been on the rise, for a decade before Covid. It is still approaching a climax/rising, and tensions are higher than ever. Distrust in institutions follows the same trend. While social and political unrest is rising.
Covid compounded the economic hardship and served to polarize the public, as resentment was cultivated between those who supported government lockdowns and mandates, and those who did not. As the Pulse reported, In the wake of institutions having sought to coerce a large portion of the public into submission to lockdowns, masks, vaccines—global trust in the media is now at all time lows. Mass censorship did not help.
A World Economic Forum survey of economists revealed that two-thirds predict recession for the year ahead…..Speaking of trust, Davos offered a forum for the communications group Edelman to release the 23rd iteration of its Global Trust Barometer. It shared more in common with Guterres’ “sorry state” assessment of international relations than with the rose-tinted mood among the Davos elite.
The report found business leaders were the only generally trusted institution worldwide, far more trusted than governments, NGOs or the media. Not one developed nation had more than 36 per cent of its people confident their family would be better off in five years.
They Wouldn’t Need To Censor Us if They Weren’t Lying
The lies surrounding Covid have woken many up many more to the reality of how capable the legacy media is at lying, as is the government. Similarly, Covid facilitated the awareness in millions that much of corporate mainstream “journalism” is nothing more than government propaganda.
Many independent journalists have already directly faced censorship as the war on disinformation grew out of 2016, which marked the rise of the age of fact checkers and the war on misinformation.
[My articles covering the breaking OPCW leaks(2019) and Bolivia’s coup(2019), were removed by Facebook within hours - outright censored as “misinformation”]
My 2019 OPCW Leak article was published by The Mind Unleashed, who faced heavy censorship along with The Anti Media, which also faced extreme censorship.
Derrick Broze wrote an article for The Last American Vagabond in May 2020, featured below, appropriatelyreflecting on internet censorship as Covid took the world by storm, warning people to not trust the fact checkers, and to not rely on big tech for information as they were in bed with the fact checkers. Broze, like many other independent journalists, American or not, had been censored heavily for years leading up to Covid.
Ironically, Broze highlighted The Mind Unleashed (TMU) being labeled by Newsguard as Fake news because of a story TMU wrote covering speculation that Covid could have been a bioweapon.Of course, that speculation has been validated and repeated by Congress years later.
Perhaps the most insidious method is the recent use of “fact checkers” to limit the reach of an outlet, or simply brand them with the fake news scarlet letter to discourage readers from engaging. This has been increasing in the last 2 years and I personally know of several remaining indy media outlets who have had to decide whether or not to run certain articles or video reports out of fear they might be censored or banned. Of course, with the algorithmic games being played by social media platforms, most outlets are reaching a tiny fraction of what they once were.
Case in point, The Mind Unleashed. I have been part of the TMU team on and off for the last year or so. In that time we have been struggling to reach a small fraction of our 9 million Facebook followers. Part of the reason we are struggling to reach people is because we have the dubious recognition of being labeled fake news by Facebook and affiliated fact checkers.
In a recent article published in Newsweek Espanol, in partnership with Newsguard, The Mind Unleashed is described as a “site that promises to ‘promote and inspire unconventional thinking,’ but is actually dedicated to publishing falsehoods.”.
The quote was in reference to a story TMU had written about the origins of COVID-19 and the potential for the virus to have been created as a bio weapon.
Newsguard is one of a number of “fact checker” services which has proliferated since the election of Donald Trump to U.S. President.
In the wake of the Twitter Files, Joe Martino, founder of Collective Evolutionand The Pulse, and Jason Bassler, founder of The Free Thought Project and Police The Police, aired the podcast featured below. The two veteran independent journalists discuss their experiences and perspectives with the rise of fact-checking, demonetization, and censorship - Pre-covid
Broze would continue his article “This is Why You Can’t Trust the Fact Checkers”, pointing to Whitney Webb’s work on exposing Newsguard’s connections to the national security apparatus. He would point out that among Newsguard’s advisors are the first secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, as well as Ret. General Michael Hayden who is a former CIA director, former NSA director, and principal at the Chertoff group, a security consultancy seeking to “advise corporate clients and governments, including foreign governments” on security matters that was co-founded by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who also currently serves as the board chairman of major weapons manufacturer BAE systems..”
Newsguard started as a partnership between Steven Brill and Louis Gordon Crovitz, with Crovitz appearing to be the connection to the world of finance, media, and geopolitics. Crovitz held a number of positions at Dow Jones and at the Wall Street Journal, is a board member of Business Insider, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and claims to have been an ‘editor or contributor to books published by the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation.’
As Webb noted, ‘the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is one of the most influential neoconservative think tanks in the country and its ‘scholars,’ directors and fellows have included neoconservative figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and Frederick Kagan.’
Broze would expand on the development of the era of Fact-checking, Contextualizing how in 2018 Facebook partnered with the Atlantic council for fact checking. The Atlantic council which has close ties with the US government, intelligence community, and NATO.
In January 2018, PropOrNot would be exposed for their connections to The Atlantic Council, a think tank with connections to the western Military-Industrial Complex. Coincidentally, in May 2018, Facebook announced a partnership with the Atlantic Council, which officially claims to provide a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. The social media giant said the partnership was aimed at preventing Facebook from “being abused during elections.”
The press release promoted Facebook’s efforts to fight fake news by using artificial intelligence, as well as working with outside experts and governments…
The Atlantic Council receives funding from the Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment, Cato Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Rand Corporation, to name a few. In addition, various members of the Military-Industrial Complex are benefactors of the Atlantic Council, including Huntington Ingalls, the United States’ sole maker of aircraft carriers; Airbus, the plane manufacturer; Lockheed Martin, the shipbuilder and aviation company; and Raytheon, which makes missile systems. All of the companies have contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and offer financial support to the Atlantic Council. The Council also receives support from Chevron and the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Finally, the Atlantic Council receives direct financial support from the U.S. Departments of the Air Force, Army, Navy and Energy and from the U.S. Mission to NATO.
By October 2018 – only five months after the Atlantic Council partnership with Facebook – the social media giant announced they were unpublishing, or purging, over 500 pages and 200 accounts who are accused of spreading political spam. Several of these pages and writers were also removed from Twitter on the same day.
To give you an idea of what the ghouls over at the Atlantic Council are like — As I am polishing this piece, The Atlantic Council just published an article on August 16th declaring the US and its allies must be “situated to fight a two-front limited nuclear war in East Asia”.
While many understand that censorship started before Covid, many do not. But it did. The “Censorship industrial complex”, as Michael Shellenberger deemed it in the Twitterfiles, did not appear overnight.
“Nearly 3 years later, we are still seeing the repercussions of the purge of independent media voices. In the wake of COVID-19 and calls for stemming the flow of “misinformation”, we will likely see more censorship and digital purging. Those who are attempting to stay informed and aware need to recognize that getting your news from Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc., will keep you trapped in a bubble of sanitized, state-approved information.”
The FOIA document, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), was produced by a little-known U.S. government organization called the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI). It was created by the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its official purpose is “to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States.”
The NSCAI is a key part of the government’s response to what is often referred to as the coming “fourth industrial revolution,” which has been described as “a revolution characterized by discontinuous technological development in areas like artificial intelligence (AI), big data, fifth-generation telecommunications networking (5G), nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), and quantum computing.”…
The vice-chair of NSCAI, Robert Work – former Deputy Secretary of Defense and senior fellow at the hawkish Center for a New American Security (CNAS), described the commission’s purpose as determining “how the U.S. national security apparatus should approach artificial intelligence, including a focus on how the government can work with industry tocompete with China’s ‘civil-military fusion’ concept.”
…the three main groups represented within the NSCAI – the intelligence community, the Pentagon and Silicon Valley…
Speaking of the National Security State and Big Tech fusing..
”The GEC flagged accounts as “Russian personas and proxies” based on criteria like, “Describing the Coronavirus as an engineered bioweapon,” blaming “research conducted at the Wuhan institute,” and “attributing the appearance of the virus to the CIA.”…
Twitter was taking requests from every conceivable government body, beginning with the Senate Intel Committee (SSCI), which seemed to need reassurance Twitter was taking FBI direction. “
Do you get the point? The tech sector was one big alphabet soup. The government was using big tech companies by proxy to censor and control speech. And it wasn’t all a result of gross negligence and grand incompetence, where they actually thought they were preventing misinformation. Much of the censorship was outright lying and covering up what they knew to be factually true, or reasonable speculation/questions. From the lab leak theory to the Hunter Biden laptop.
The problem for the globalist elite was that with the rise of social media and the internet, they lost the ability to control the narrative. They were losing influence. Mainstream journalism was becoming relatively obsolete while citizen journalism alongside alternative and independent media was rapidly growing - threatening the legacy media.
Even before 2020 and Covid, the corporate media and government has been caught repeatedly coordinating disinformation campaigns, and then when the truth gets traction they cry “Russian disinformation” and “dangerous conspiracy theories” and censor that which challenges the official narrative.
The video shows CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox affiliates sharing the exact message [about how disinformation is extremely dangerous to our democracy]. Sinclair's aggregate televised reach covers about 40 percent of the U.S. Watch the surreal compilation above"
”The script came from Sinclair Broadcast Group, the country’s largest broadcaster, which owns or operates 193 television stations. The company is seeking a $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media, a move that’s being held up by regulators over antitrust concerns.
Sinclair representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday. But Mr. Livingston told The Baltimore Sun that the script was meant to demonstrate Sinclair’s “commitment to reporting facts,” adding that false stories “can result in dangerous consequences,” referring to the Pizzagate conspiracy as an example.
Note: The NYT “debunking” article hyperlinked to “Pizzagate conspiracy”, cited by NYT, does not address much of the bulk of evidence and claims. It is very short, for a reason. Essentially cherry picking and a poor attempt to genuinely address the bulk of the evidence surrounding pizzagate.
Additional Note: Conveniently, John Podesta's niece, Lesley Podesta, was on Twitter's "Trust and Safety Team", the ones that are responsible for "content moderation"/censorship.The Podesta leaks, which pizzagate spawned from, were the leaked emails of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager.
Lesley Podesta appears to be John Podesta's niece by her own admission.
@sourpatchlyds deleted her tweet later on, not sure why. perhaps it was just disinfo. The uncle tweet could have been a joke. There is no confirmation/proof of them being related. But no denial either. #Podesta
Wikileaks launched the DNC leaks earlier that year, and there are articles and think tank publications echoing the warning of “Russian disinformation” all though 2016 in what seems like a direct response to the series of Wikileaks DNC Leaks(June and July before DNC Convention) and Podesta leaks(October)..
The prominent RAND corporation (establishment neocon think tank) issued a report in September calling for fact checkers, and by December you had Facebook rolling out their mass factchecking
Hillary Clinton and her campaign have sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of thousands of emails leaked by WikiLeaks showing the inner workings of Clinton’s campaign.
It’s not just that they came from Russian hackers in an attempt to meddle in the U.S. election.
But also that they might have been doctored.
A. There is no proof that it was Russian hackers. B. They were authentic, which is why they wanted to censor them so bad (Think Hunter Biden Laptop). Even Snopesfact-checked a Hillary Clinton connected news outlet trying to claim they were doctored [ironic].
It was a smear campaign. The legacy media realized they couldn’t fight the truth, they couldn’t discredit facts with facts, so went for just dismissing anything that made the establishment look bad as “Russian disinformation” or the like.
America is behind the power curve in countering Russian disinformation. U.S. leaders should raise public consciousness,..
As with human rights and religious freedom abuses, the Department of State could issue annual public reports on foreign government use of dishonest propaganda, naming and shaming outlets such as RT and Sputnik. The department could also fund independent organizations that raise awareness. A noteworthy one is stopfake.org, a community that checks facts and refutes disinformation about events in Ukraine.
U.S. public diplomacy is under-performing. In 2013 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress that the Broadcasting Board of Governors — which oversees the Voice of America, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other surrogate media — is “practically defunct.” Reforms in a bipartisan congressional bill could improve their operation."
Radio Free Europe is known to have spawned from a CIA cutout, the National Committee for a Free Europe which was formed by notorious CIA director Allen Dulles..
Notice how not only does the RAND Report call for the government to create lists of what is acceptable media and what is not, but also for funding of more fact-checking and propaganda. Coincidentally, this type of media blacklist is what the Atlantic council-connected ProporNot list did a couple months later.
PropOrNot List Was Eventually Disowned, Discredited… But Not Before Doing Damage
In casting the group behind this website as “experts,” the Post described PropOrNot simply as “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” Not one individual at the organization is named….
Included on this blacklist of supposed propaganda outlets are prominent independent left-wing news sites such as Truthout, Naked Capitalism, Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, and Truthdig.
Also included are popular libertarian hubs such as Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and the Ron Paul Institute, along with the hugely influential right-wing website the Drudge Report and the publishing site WikiLeaks.
Not only were legitimate independent news organizations, many ran by American citizens, being labeled as Russian propaganda… but the Ron Paul Institute, a former senator’s think tank, was being labeled Russian propaganda…
And WeAreChange, The first outlet I was published by. I still volunteer/contribute to the Telegram, feel free to join. While you’re at it, subscribe to the Newswire I help manage.
Also on the list were Antimedia and TheMindUnleashed, whom published my articles on Bolivia and Syria (Both of which were censored by Facebook within hours of course]
Additionally, TheFreeThoughtProjectand Police the Police, run by Jason Bassler. If you have been online for years you’ve almost certainly come encountered his content and memes at some point, despite Bassler and his organizations being incessantly targeted by the censorship industrial complex since 2016.
A month after this PropOrNot list was published, Facebook implemented mass fact-checking and labeling of “fake news”.
”Disputed articles will be marked with the help of users and outside fact checkers amid widespread criticism that fake news influenced the US election”
The media really went into overdrive warning of Russian dis-info and fake news as a result of the series of DNC leaks in 2016, but it picked up pace at the end of the year. But the point of this article is to zoom out and look at the bigger picture. The era of social media and the internet was rapidly threatening the ruling powers grip of control by removing the reliance on centralized information streams and gatekeepers.
If the truth was allowed to flow freely, the ruling powers would not maintain consent. This is why Julian Assange is not free, and many of our rulers are.
Instead of relying on your local ABC/CNN/FOX/NBC/CNBC Owned broadcaster, or your similarly owned local radio station affiliate for information, people started to be able to go to the internet and search… not be spoonfed. And if people wanted to be spoonfed, they could follow independent or citizen journalists who keep a critical eye on things, rather than relying on massive media corporations. With social media, the barrier to access for publishing was removed, and anybody could transmit information, or analyze, or publish investigative journalism. And you could tune in to an information stream anytime, when you wanted, you wern’t restricted by which broadcasting and radio slots you were able to tune in during.
Information streams decentralized all over the world rapidly, and the narrative handlers and consent manufacturers started losing grip of the narrative and as a result, consent was being threatened. (not to say that uninformed consent is proper consent..)
From Pizzagate to George Soros conspiracies, “fake news” has become a noxious presence in public discourse, especially since the 2016 presidential election. A recent New York Times video series explores the long history of Russian disinformation and its origins in what the Soviets dubbed “active measures.” Nick Schifrin speaks to Adam Ellick, who created the series, for more…
Nick Schifrin: So, there's a lot of talk about Russian disinformation, of course, in 2016, even 2018,
Another conspiracy is, JFK was killed by the CIA, also created by…Soviet origin.
Obviously, Schifrin here is saying that the JFK/CIA conspiracy was created by the Russians…
The CIA’s role in Kennedy’s assassination remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of American history. A majority of Americans believe the president was killed as part of a conspiracy that went beyond Oswald, and roughly a third believe the CIA or elements within the CIA had a hand in it.
Carlson blasted the release of thousands of new files related to the JFK assassination this week, nothing thousands of documents are still being withheld, blasting both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden for not releasing all the files in accordance with 1992 legislation for everything to be released by 2017.
The Fox News host claimed he spoke to someone “deeply familiar” with the JFK-related materials not seen by the public:
Carlson, who earlier pointed to the CIA as an “obvious suspect” in Kennedy’s death, insisted his source “is not a conspiracy theorist.”
“This is someone with direct knowledge of the information that once again is being withheld from the American public,” he said. “And the answer we received was unequivocal. Yes, the CIA was involved in the assassination of the president.”
Tucker would recently have RFK on his show again, on August 14th, 2023:
"He ... looked me dead in the eye, and he said, 'The entire upper echelon of that agency [CIA] is made up of individuals who do not believe in the democratic institutions of the USA.' That's a quote.”
Its hard not to keep going on tangents when I am looking at old articles about misinformation and, thanks to the internet, many of the “conspiracy theories” that were once considered cooky and fringe are now mainstream, if not normalized and accepted. Besides, to reiterate the point above…if the CIA killing JFK is just a baseless conspiracy theory, why is the US STILL withholding information on it? Why?
So to return back to the point of declining trust in institutions, and even rising distrust, - these efforts by various alphabet agencies in alliance with big tech to censor “Russian misinformation”, and those who promote it, like the "conspiracy theory that the CIA killed JFK”…
These efforts were a response to the truth growing too accessible, not Russian disinformation. A result of the internet and technology evolution happening too freely. The information flow, the sudden access to a whole world of new ideas and information by the average person, millions of new people that would never otherwise be in a position to talk, research, and connect to so effortlessly…
In December of 2016, after the Wikileaks drops, after the election, anonymous US officials would “leak” information to the Washington Post, NYT, and other outlets asserting that Russia was behind the DNC email leaks hacks. As Glenn Greenwald reported at the time, “Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence”. Of course, that evidence Greenwald and so many others wanted never came.
The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.
“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.
Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had “no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.”
Of course, the intelligence community lies all the time. We’ve destroyed countries and killed millions as a result of the American people putting too much stock in the intelligence community’s honesty and integrity (which is like putting stock in a serial murderer to not murder again). But that is the problem with a free internet - for the elite..
Before social media and the internet, the intelligence community could lie through their teeth, and the people paying attention and seeing their lies, couldn’t call them out. Want to demand evidence for the WMDs in 2003? Want to share a bit of information that throws into question the official narrative? Maybe you can get TV stations going to broadcast your message. Probably not. The radio stations likely aren’t either. This is where/when people would make political fliers and pamphlets and stickers to distribute in public to broadcast a grassroots message. Then suddenly, people are able to connect all over the country instantly, on their own time, at the press of a button, without even leaving their homes.
The aggregate information stream of society started decentralizing rapidly. And truths that were once easily covered up and swept under the rug, began to surface and gain discussion and attention, with the traditional gatekeepers being circumnavigated.
Over time, with the internet and social media, information began circulating more and more…information that was revealing to everybody that the government, and the powers that are ultimately in control of it, have been lying to them again and again. And again. And again. And again. Ad infinitum
The US’s Jan 6th, and Brazil’s Jan 8th are good examples of where large segments of the population were rapidly losing faith in institutions, the media and governments .
I wrote a piece 2 months ago that compared Brazil’s Jan 8th to the US’ Jan 6th, but not like how most of the media did (incessantly). Instead, I compared the similarities in the holes in the official narratives:.
Namely, the events being known to the country’s intelligence community weeks in advance(and intel about the massive protest withheld from police, according to the capitol police chief), the on-scene capitol police forces allowing the protestors into the government buildings they would later be accused of forcefully overtaking, along with total vehement denial to acknowledge the grievances and concerns of millions of people the protestors are echoing. And, of course, social media censorship of the opposition party by the ruling party.
Although the censorship was more overt in Brazil’s case with the supreme court censoring opposition congressmen and media, the Biden admin has nowacknowledged to have covered up the Hunter Biden Laptop leaks, putting pressure on social media tech giants to do so, among many other revelations from the twitter files and house oversight committee.
Since I wrote that article on Brazil 6th, just 2 months ago, the former DC capitol police chief, who was the police chief on Jan 6th. 2021, went on record in a National Pulse exclusive, stating, “Everything appears to be a cover up.” The National Pulse would report:
Having served as a police officer for over 30 years, including taking over as Chief of the United States Capitol Police in 2019, Sund explains the events leading up to January 6th, including prior to the incident at the Capitol itself, and the aftermath, appeared to be a “cover up.”
“Everything appears to be a cover up,” says the decorated police chief, explaining that most things to do with his department were political, specifically because he reported to politicians including then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. “Like I said, I’m not a conspiracy theorist,” Sund explains, “…but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it’s all watered down. I’m not getting intelligence, I’m denied any support from National Guard in advance. I’m denied National Guard while we’re under attack, for 71 minutes…”
The full interview has thus far been hidden from the public at the behest of Rupert Murdoch’s increasingly left-wing Fox News channel, which unceremoniously fired its prime time host Tucker Carlson allegedly as part of a private settlement with Dominion Voting Systems.
The support for the protestors by the armed services and police on January 8th, the protestors being allowed into the building, and the mobilization of unarmed protests being known to the government well in advance being turned into “Attacks on democracy” and treated like “insurrections” - points to as a form of a self-coup, also known as an a autogolpe.
A self-coup is a tactic that has been used by dictators and authoritarian governments many times throughout history to justify an expansion of power.
According to WAPO: “Between 1946 and 2022, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts took place, 110 in autocracies and 38 in democracies”
Brazil’s Supreme Court outright censored popular opposition congressmen and political thought leaders, and then when Brazilians rose up to protest it at the capitol, planning for weeks in advance… rather than set up adequate barriers and control measures, they pretended to be caught off guard, many boots on the ground supported the protestors, and then when the protestors went inside - or were let inside, the buildings - protesting for auditable/open-source election software* …”aSsAulT oN dEmOcRaCy” and the government points and says “see! We need to expand our power”
”To conclude, the latest events in Brasília are a result of a spontaneous reaction against an electoral process that millions of Brazilians perceive as being completely lacking in transparency and credibility. Amid allegations of massive electoral fraud, these concerned citizens have been protesting in their millions over hundreds of cities nationwide. The problem is that millions of Brazilians do not trust the Electoral Court and believe that such court is part of the electoral fraud scheme in this presidential election.”
The point is the media and government’s handlings, of both January 6th and January 8th for DC and Brazil, are great examples of double standards that exist for the framings of events, and how straw manning, demonizing demographics, lying by omission, and other actions by the establishment narrative handlers and institutions has has contributed to the declining trust in those institutions.
I want to state clearly, I think the proper course of action for Brazil is for the government to make the code open-source. If an audit proves there was no tampering—great. Then the country moves forward as is with increased unity. If tampering had occurred, then obviously a recount is needed. The institutions and media would surely try to dismiss my opinion as “supporting a coup”. But being in support of either side having legitimate power when the election is in question is a false dichotomy. Even the protestors weren’t demanding a transition of power. They were demanding the source code. And likewise, it was a demonstration, not an armed military coup like the recent events in Niger. In Latin America, military coups have played such an important role in history they have their own name, known as a Junta - a recent example of which is Bolivia.
The point of examining Brazil, and almost by proxy Jan 6th, is to A. give an example of why distrust in institutions is rising, and B. demonstrate how that leads to social unrest. And it also is a great way to show how American Media lies.
When Jacinda Arden resigned as New Zealand’s prime minister, notoriously known around the world for her harsh enforcement of authoritarian Covid policies, many cheered and took it as another indication of the Covid narrative collapsing.
The clip above features New Zealand’s former prime minister arrogantly proclaiming the government to be the people’s “single source of truth”.
Crazy conspiracy theory here………… maybe there shouldn’t be a single source of truth? Maybe they’re just simply ISN’T.
It isn’t just politicians who have been wrong, of course. Pharmaceutical companies were essentially ground 0 for a lot of the lies that the world’s population were bombarded with.
They have been wrong about a multitude of important, incessantly repeated narratives. From natural immunity to the effectiveness of the vaccines, to the statistics around covid deaths, breakthrough cases….
I mean on some level, we should pity the experts. As The Atlantic wrote, they have had a bad year”. (no seriously, that is a real article by The Atlantic)
It is comical at this point. But the global elite want us to continue on allowing them to steer us to their “solutions” to the problems those beneath them face. They expect us to continue thinking they care. And the sad part is, when they use government as a proxy, many believe they do.
Brazil isn’t alone in hosting a large political minority that feels the levers and agencies of government have been weaponized against them politically”
This article will go on to discuss how declining trust in institutions and deteriorating economic conditions for the middle and low class are contributing to a rise in global unrest and populism—and will likely continue to do so. Additionally, it will explore the dynamics between economic populism/protectionism, globalism, Henry Kissinger and his protégée Klaus Schwab, the WEF, Covid, the timing of the pandemic, the Covid response, and consequences resulting from the Covid response in the context of the WEF’s globalist agenda.
Economies on the Decline—Distrust in Institutions + Social Unrest On the Rise
Joe Martino of The Pulse recently published a piece titled: “Loss of Faith in Societal Institutions: a Necessary Chaos” in which he summarized the reality of the blowback resulting from the Covid response by governments around the world:
“Billions of people witnessed the chaotic COVID moment largely manufactured by governments. These actions have sown a level of distrust so deep that latest Gallup polls indicate people's trust in media, both television and newspapers, in the United States is at an all-time low.
To be clear, the loss of trust in mainstream media equates to a loss of trust in government because legacy media has just parroted what government has said without questioning or holding it to account. And since many in the general public knew government was wrong, the lack of trust in mainstream media = lack of trust in government.
There is a clear link/correlation between declining trust in institutions, and rising civil and social unrest. And the primary driver of declining trust is declining economic conditions. Notice the chart above in the Gallup poll starts in 1972. What happened in 1972?
Better question: What happened in 1971?
No seriously. What the F%@# happened in 1971!?
Economic Decline Leading to Declining Trust/Faith in Institutions
”Wages in the U.S. have stagnated since the early 1970s. Between 1979 and 2020, workers’ wages grew by 17.5% while productivity grew over three times as fast at 61.8%.”
I am asking rhetorically what happened in 1971. I could show you pages and pages of charts and infographics demonstrating a general decline in economic conditions for the average American since 1971, but there is an entire site dedicated to this.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
But here are a few.
Charts depicting the deteriorating economic conditions since 1971 https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Nixon de-pegged the dollar from Gold on August 15th, 1971—ending the effective Gold Standard and delivering the “Nixon Shock” to the world economy. The Wall Street Journal would write:
”The dramatic move, announced by the president upon his return to the White House on August 15, 1971, suspended the most fundamental rules of the international monetary system, affecting the prices of all products, commodities and services in world commerce. No policy choice since World War II has done more to shape global exchange, with repercussions still visible in today’s economic and geopolitical rivalries.
Nixon’s decision overturned arrangements created by the U.S. and its wartime allies in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where Washington had agreed to exchange dollars for gold at a rate of $35 per ounce.
“Shock waves from Washington’s decision to break the link with gold have rippled down the decades. The creation of the euro, the hollowing out of US manufacturing, the arrival of cryptocurrencies and the ability of central banks to print seemingly unlimited quantities of money can all be traced back to August 1971.”
By a Variety of Metrics, the Economic Conditions for the Average American Worker Has Been on a Steady Decline for Decades Sinc Nixon’s Abolishment of the Gold Standard.
Stagnant wages, a steadily rising cost of living, and widening wealth inequality between the the upper and lower class is steadily leaving more and more workers feeling disenfranchised, and left in the dust by society.
For you seed oil hating giga-chads, even the inflection point for the the rising production of cheap seed oils can be observed right around 1972 following Nixon’s decision to effectively end the gold standard.
The Petrodollar system, the global standard of trading oil in US dollars which has been a major factor in keeping the US dollar the dominant world reserve currency, was established largely with the support and help of Saudi Arabia.Investopedia summarizes:
“The emergence of the petrodollar dates back to the early 1970s[1974] when the U.S. reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia to standardize the sale of oil based on the U.S. dollar.”
Notice how the agreement happened in the early 1970’s, beginning in 1974, directly following the total collapse of the Bretton Woods system 1972 , in which Nixon removed the gold-standard and turned “Goldbacks” — dollars backed by gold--into “Greenbacks” — dollars backed by nothing. The Petrodollar is infamous for being the backbone of the dollar’s dominant reserve currency status. While many, like Ray Dalio who was featured in the first article, are pointing out the world economic order seems to be on the brink of a massive transition, many experts are calling for a new Bretton Woods conference, which in 1944 established the IMF and the original Bretton Woods system.
Economic Deterioration + Growing Awareness of Lies, Deception, or even just that “Something Isn’t Quite Right”
Economic Populism manifests when people start to attribute the deteriorating economic circumstances to the ruling powers. Both, “the people” and “ruling powers” are vague. Some view the ruling powers as the billionaires, some as government, some as the corporations. Some see all 3 as part of the problem. Government, Media, Corporations, all institutions. And Covid exposed for many how much they work in lockstep.
The amount of examples we have of media lies, coordinated campaigns of disinformation by the establishment media while facts and truth are censored as “disinformation” by fact checkers….is truly astounding. In 2020, I wrote a 4 part series about gabbard which covered much of the media hypocrisy, double standards, and deception I felt I witnessed at the time.
The first part would appropriately introduce with a brief on Operation Mockingbird.
The headline, which originally read, "It's time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president," was changed to "It's time to switch to preference primaries" without any editor's note after the op-ed was blasted on social media.
I believe a positive feedback loop phenomenon can be witnessed in many areas, As we have already acknowledged, the actions of the Brazilian government (particular the supreme court) + distrust in the election process has led to the Brazilian people and major sections of its armed forces demanding an audit of the source code.
The method by which the government and ruling-party media ignored and dismissed this major concern of the Brazilian people led to them protesting to demand the source code. Many were demanding an end to the censorship as well but the central demand that everyone gathered around was open source election software.
Consequently, hardly any mainstream media coverage of the mostly peaceful Brazilian protestors addresses the context for their concerns or demands, and instead are portrayed as a bunch of sore loser “election deniers” and failed insurrectionists. Then the governments use the reaction as an excuse for more power expansion. Those who have lost faith in institutions feel viciously gas-lit by the very institutions they have lost faith in. This does nothing to depolarize, or to restore faith in institutions,.
The New York Times wrote the day following the events of the 8th:
Whatever security lapses[lol] may have occurred, Sunday’s riot laid bare in shocking fashion the central challenge facing Brazil’s democracy. Unlike other attempts to topple governments across Latin America’s history, the attacks on Sunday were not ordered by a single strongman ruler or a military bent on seizing power, but rather were fueled by a more insidious, deeply rooted threat: mass delusion.
Millions of Brazilians appear to be convinced that October’s presidential election was rigged against Mr. Bolsonaro, despite audits and analyses by experts finding nothing of the sort. Those beliefs are in part the product of years of conspiracy theories, misleading statements and explicit falsehoods spread by Mr. Bolsonaro and his allies claiming Brazil’s fully electronic voting systems are rife with fraud
What Audits and analyses? What Experts? Why can’t there be an open audit? Why were were top generals calling for an audit? The Brazil article linked above explores these questions more. But it isn’t just Brazil where censorship, government overreach, and dubious election integrity can be seen generating backlash.
It is a bit interesting to note that while the Brazilian **riots** were being covered non-stop for January 6th fear porn… Peru was undergoing nationwide **protests**[MSM choice of words]causing a state of emergency across the country to be declared. And hardly anyone talked about it. Note, I am not suggesting that the Peru protests be called riots. It is the police initiating much of the violence, and doing all the killing - but the Peru Protests certainly saw more violence.
At least 66 protestors have died in the recent wave of protests in Peru. None died On Brazil’s Jan 8th. Nonetheless, its a convenient example to point to as a manifestation of rising political unrest, and as an example of how the media focuses on one area when it fits their narrative, while ignoring another when it doesn’t fit their narrative….
But nonetheless, It is interesting to note how the media applies terminology selectively, in juxtaposition to considering how that affects trust in the media and institutions that echo these preferred terminologies. Selective application of terminology, linguistic warfare, is just one tool in the toolbox of the propagandists. But the point is, people have started to pick up and point it out more, and social media gives the ability for things to go viral organically, without gatekeepers. Until the fact-checkers and algorithmic-censorship-industrial complex formed.
I wrote about the use of selective vocabulary in media framing in a 2019 article titled: “Bolivia: Coup or Revolt? A Battle of Narratives” when Bolivia experienced a (US-backed) coup in 2019. (worth noting Facebook deleted this article within hours after being published by The Anti-Media)
Those on the wrong side of double standards don’t appreciate them. Whether this is “We can spend 4 years saying Russia stole the election when we lose, but if you question election integrity when you lose we will label you domestic terrorists” or “We need to send all your money over to eastern oligarchs to stop this other country across the globe from committing human rights violations, never mind the the long history of perpetuating war crimes and human rights violations around the planet the past many decades”.
Many might interpret that quote to mean that a riot, separate from a protest, occurs when protests are not heard. That is what he meant.
But it is interesting to think of it from the lens of media framing. Those who the media does not want you to listen to, those who demonstrate along lines contrary to the establishment agenda, can be deemed rioters and dismissed if people simply allow the media to selectively apply the terms as is convenient without critical thought. This is how unarmed Jan 6th protestors were all labeled rioters while the “mostly peaceful” BLM protesters', that did cause far more damage and saw far more violence, were largely labeled protestors by the same outlets that called all attendees of Jan 6th insurrectionists.
In juxtaposition to the Brazilian protestors temporarily occupying public buildings to echo the demand: “We want the source source code”, the Peruvian civilians being gunned down by police seemed to be entirely peripheral.
Just two days after the Brazilian “riots” on the 8th, where nobody died, Reuters would publish the headline “At least 17 dead in deadliest day of anti-government protests in Peru”. “Earlier, Peru’s Ombudsman’s Office had said that 39 civilians had been killed in clashes with police and another seven died in traffic accidents related to road blockades, as well as the fallen police officer.”
In the course of this article being written, reports were trickling in of protests expanding across the country of Peru.
The unrest began in early December following the destitution and arrest of Castillo, Peru’s first president of humble, rural roots, following his widely condemned attempt to dissolve Congress and head off his own impeachment.
The protest, mainly in neglected rural areas of the country still loyal to Castillo, are seeking immediate elections, Boluarte’s resignation, Castillo’s release and justice for the protesters killed in clashes with police.
Protests in Peru related to the arrest of former President Pedro Castillo have become increasingly violent, leading to many deaths, and show no real signs of abating.Despite the unprecedented political violence and calls for her resignation, Castillo’s successor and former Vice President, President Dina Boluarte, refused on Friday to step down, saying, “My commitment is with Peru.”
Is it not fascinating that the coverage of the Brazilian protests(where no-one had died) can be ubiquitously called and label riots, domestic terrorism, etc, while the Peruvian protests are able to avoid that designation, “despite the unprecedented political violence” and the protests calling for the resignation of the president being “violent, leading to many deaths in nature”?
Is that not indicative of a bias by the institutions employing this double standard? Is this not a double standard? Is there not a subjective perspective at play in deciding whether to name something an unruly protest, or to give it a more negative connotation, and call it a riot?
Did the media not highlight this in 2020 by repeatedly calling highly destructive demonstrations where groups burned down buildings indiscriminately and vandalized entire cites, protests …while 6 months later, referring to unarmed protestors who were agitated into taking an unscheduled tour of the capitol building as domestic terrorists, let alone rioters. And I use that word agitated for a reason.
8/3/23 — Former Capitol Police Chief Told Tucker Carlson Events Surrounding Jan 6 ‘Appear to Be a Cover-Up’ in Unaired Interview
So you can have a protest where you see indiscriminate vandalizing of businesses and homes to achieve their political end, but planning a protest weeks in advance for a public building and temporarily occupying it after many have already entered and you are being let in and escorted by law enforcement makes you a domestic terrorist….does the reader not see hypocrisy in that?
Whether organically or as a result of agitator plant provocateurs (like many think happened on January 6th, and Ray Epps), —and suddenly, despite walking past armed forces who smile as they let you in the building peacefully, you are a labeled domestic terrorist.
This is not to say there wasn’t violence or crimes on the part of individuals within these protests. It is to say that mass treating all the protestors as rioters, insurrectionists, even domestic terrorists…. that is the real crime
The BLM protesters (its not like every protest was a riot - most weren’t) shouldn't be blanket labeled rioters either, to be clear. But some protests did turn into outright riots that did see indiscriminate, mass, damage, with many deaths having occurred across the country.
Like the Peruvian protesters, the BLM protestors shouldn’t all be delegitimized by the media as domestic terrorist rioters with no legitimacy to their grievances( as the establishment media wants us to believe about Brazil). but the framings discrepancies are good examples point out the hypocrisy and say that the Brazilian protestors are being held to a totally different standard.
The double standard that is displayed in the discrepancy to how the protestors, their grievances, and the contexts for them, and how they are covered(or not covered) by the media is crucial when put into context of rising political unrest and distrust in institutions.
The protestors that feel unheard and neglected, who feel their democracy is corrupted, that their elections are fraudulent, and the people they represent—-millions of concerned Brazilians—they deserve more conversation and less lies by omission than what the media is offering.
Marginalized people identified with Castillo because they saw in him, finally, at least some form of representation, weak as it was. Those people already held serious, legitimate grievances with the Peruvian state and its elite are now engaged in some of the bloodiest protests in Peru’s recent history. They’ve shut down airports, blocked major roads, and clashed violently with police.
“The conditions are ripe for this kind of violence, and so the last thing you want to do is ignore it, neglect it, or inflame it,” Cameron said, referring to the extreme poverty and lack of resources and representation for Peru’s rural, poor, and Indigenous and multiracial populations. “That’s why Boluarte, instead of saying, ‘Well, I’ve done everything I could, I advanced the date of the elections,’ — well, no, you’re the president. You’ve got a job, and the job of the president here is to build bridges, and start dialogue, to take leadership and to try to give people a sense that there’s a coherent vision of a way forward,” he said.
Right-leaning critics of the protesters have referred to them as terrorists, evoking the deep national trauma of the Shining Path insurgency of the ‘80s and ‘90s. Maoist Shining Path insurgents killed an estimated 31,000 Peruvians, and their actions are still evoked in the Peruvian concept of terruqueo, as Simeon Tegel wrote in the Washington Post Thursday. Terruqueo, or smearing an opponent by falsely accusing them of terrorism, has bubbled up in the recent protests — allegedly with racist overtones due to the backgrounds of the demonstrators, providing a veil of impunity for the use of excessive force.”
Since 2016, “no Peruvian president has finished their term, and it’s unlikely that Boluarte will complete the remainder of Castillo’s”. The Peruvian author of the Vox article cited above, Simeon Tegel, wrote for Foreign policy that Peru’s political crisis “has been simmering since 2016.” Alongside Brazil and Peru, Israel is also currently undergoing turbulent times, although the situation is deteriorating as Netanyahu’s right wing coalition has seized total control of the government in the last elections, aggressively pursing expansionist, polarizing policy. Parallel to Brazil, Netanyahu’s new government is being accused of blatant judicial overreach and misuse.
A series of roads have been blocked nationwide and some protesters have been arrested as demonstrators rally outside the homes of cabinet ministers across the country...
Last night, 37 protesters were arrested nationwide in fiery demonstrations after Tel Aviv police chief Ami Eshed said he was forced out of his job for not cracking down more harshly on protests.
Members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition aim to annex the West Bank, stifle dissent, dismember the independent judiciary, crush the Palestinian Israeli minority, curtail women’s and LGBTQ rights, and send Israel back a few thousand years into a Halachic state.
The democracy movement that has erupted in response is big: Some half a million Israelis have protested, which is the equivalent of approximately 17 million Americans. It is powerful: It has shut down an airport, highways, schools, businesses. It is broad: The country’s doctors, as well as 150 of its largest companies, have gone on strike. Lawyers, scientists, teachers, students, entrepreneurs, and agricultural workers have joined the protests; the Histadrut, Israel’s national trade union representing more than 700,000 workers, has been pressured to call a general strike. Tech firms have threatened to leave the country. Women’s-rights advocates demonstrate dressed in the somber red capes of TheHandmaid’s Tale. Shockingly, thousands of reservists, including pilots and members of the elite fighting units, have threatened to withhold their service. Former leaders of the Shin Bet and the Mossad have spoken out strongly in support of the protests and condemned what the opposition refers to as a coup.
While rising economic hardship and poverty is an obvious reason for rising social unrest, perceived governmental overreach is becoming an increasingly important factor.
.. especially in the post-Covid era, where it is all the more prevalent. In the case of Israel, it is a reasonable assumption that increased civil unrest will be a result of the increased propensity for judicial oppression and abuse manifested by the proposed overhaul by Netanyahu’s new government.
Kissinger’s Post-Pandemic World Order: Declining Trust In Institutions + Rising Political, Social, and Economic Instability
On April 3rd, 2020 — as society began to take the virus seriously— Henry Kissingerpublished a piece titled “The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter the World Order” that warned governments that maintaining public trust in institutions would be a challenge, and that how well the government responds to the crisis would be integral to how the public perceives governments in the post-pandemic world.
”Now, in a divided country, efficient and farsighted government is necessary to overcome obstacles unprecedented in magnitude and global scope. Sustaining the public trust is crucial to social solidarity, to the relation of societies with each other, and to international peace and stability.
Nations cohere and flourish on the belief that their institutions can foresee calamity, arrest its impact and restore stability. When the Covid-19 pandemic is over, many countries’ institutions will be perceived as having failed.Whether this judgment is objectively fair is irrelevant. The reality is the world will never be the same after the coronavirus. To argue now about the past only makes it harder to do what has to be done.
… The ultimate test will be whether the virus’s spread can be arrested and then reversed in a manner and at a scale that maintains public confidence in Americans’ ability to govern themselves. The crisis effort, however vast and necessary, must not crowd out the urgent task of launching a parallel enterprise for the transition to the post-coronavirus order.
Leaders are dealing with the crisis on a largely national basis, but the virus’s society-dissolving effects do not recognize borders. While the assault on human health will—hopefully—be temporary, the political and economic upheaval it has unleashed could last for generations. No country, not even the U.S., can in a purely national effort overcome the virus. Addressing the necessities of the moment must ultimately be coupled with a global collaborative vision and program. If we cannot do both in tandem, we will face the worst of each.
After acknowledging the world-changing implications of the ensuing pandemic, and that the “political and economic upheaval it has unleased could last for generations”, coupled with globalist jargon, Kissinger would go on to write that the US is “obliged to undertake a major effort in three domains”, those being the following:
“First, shore up global resilience to infectious disease. Triumphs of medical science like the polio vaccine and the eradication of smallpox, or the emerging statistical-technical marvel of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence, have lulled us into a dangerous complacency. We need to develop new techniques and technologies for infection control and commensurate vaccines across large populations. Second, strive to heal the wounds to the world economy. Global leaders have learned important lessons from the 2008 financial crisis. The current economic crisis is more complex: The contraction unleashed by the coronavirus is, in its speed and global scale, unlike anything ever known in history. And necessary public-health measures such as social distancing and closing schools and businesses are contributing to the economic pain. Programs should also seek to ameliorate the effects of impending chaos on the world’s most vulnerable populations. Third,safeguard the principles of the liberal world order. The founding legend of modern government is a walled city protected by powerful rulers, sometimes despotic, other times benevolent, yet always strong enough to protect the people from an external enemy. Enlightenment thinkers reframed this concept, arguing that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people: security, order, economic well-being, and justice. Individuals cannot secure these things on their own. The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.”
To summarize Henry Kissinger’s advice for American policy in April of 2020: 1. Develop new experimental products , and “commensurate vaccines across large populations”
2. Lockdowns for businesses and schools are necessary, but will further hurt economy. Maybe the government imposing the lockdowns can bail people out.
3.Individuals can’t survive on own, they need “security” and “order” for their own good, even if its despotic because it’ll be for “economic well being” and “justice”.
The notorious statesman would go on to conclude by essentially saying that the world’s elite need to pick their battles and put their geopolitical and ideological differences aside in order to overcome Covid :
”The world’s democracies need to defend and sustain their Enlightenment values [defined as security, order, economic well-being, and justice]. A global retreat from balancing power with legitimacy will cause the social contract to disintegrate both domestically and internationally. Yet this millennial issue of legitimacy and power cannot be settled simultaneously with the effort to overcome the Covid-19 plague. Restraint is necessary on all sides—in both domestic politics and international diplomacy. Priorities must be established.
We went on from the Battle of the Bulge into a world of growing prosperity and enhanced human dignity. Now, we live an epochal period. The historic challenge for leaders is to manage the crisis while building the future. Failure could set the world on fire.”
America’s oracle of realpolitik, Henry Kissinger, seeks to put the coronavirus pandemic in the context of his ongoing narrative of the changing world order.
In his two recent books, “On China” and “World Order,” Kissinger describes the geopolitical dynamics of the past half-century. He sees the changes as having laid the groundwork for a massive shift in world influence from the United States and the West to the People’s Republic of China.
It is a revolutionary transition that he played a major, if not dominant, part in arranging as an adviser to eight U.S. presidents and, simultaneously, to five supreme leaders of Communist China…
Kissinger has spent an entire career prevailing upon Western leaders to accept this China for what it is and to make room for it in the ever-evolving world order.
That, however, was not what Nixon had in mind when he first educated the Soviet nuclear scholar and Harvard professor on the nature of the China challenge and the urgent need to change its system and world outlook. When he dispatched Kissinger to Beijing to prepare for Nixon’s upcoming visit, he cautioned him about the need to avoid making preemptive concessions to China.
But that advice was not followed, beginning with the abandonment of Taiwan. Decades later, and despite Taiwan’s full democratization, Kissinger still seeks the consummation of that betrayal, warning the Taiwanese government and people that Beijing’s patience is wearing thin. True to form, Xi Jinping has repeated Kissinger’s message and has escalated military preparations against Taiwan.
In December the construction contracting was announced for a new Pacific base on the island nation of Palau. Zerohedge reported in January on China’s Foreign Minister accusing the pentagon of seeking to create new tensions, and saying “Decoupling is in no-one’s interest'“
Last month China's Foreign Ministry accused the Pentagon of seeking to create new tensions across the Taiwan Strait with its provocative sail-throughs. At the same time the Chinese military has on multiple occasions in recent months breached the Taiwan Strait median line both in the air and at sea - a pattern which grew only after Nancy Pelosi's provocative August visit to Taipei.
Meanwhile, as we noted earlier this week, Xi's newly appointed Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang is busy attempting a 'softening' and breakthrough in US-China relations.
After taking over the post last Friday (Dec. 30), before which he served as the ambassador to the US, he wrote in a new Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday that US-China competition "should not be a zero-sum game," arguing further that "The world is wide enough for China and the US to both develop and prosper."
He asserted that "decoupling serves no one’s interest," but that healthy relations including economic cooperation "will remain an important mission" in his new role as Beijing's top diplomat, but it remains that "Improving relations takes work by both sides," he wrote.
But as the Hill noted, Covid didn’t mark the beginning of Kissinger predicting that China would be absorbing influence and chipping at US hegemony, he has been warning about it for decades.
“He sees the changes as having laid the groundwork for a massive shift in world influence from the United States and the West to the People’s Republic of China.”
In Kissinger’s eyes, Covid was more of a catalyst for expediting an existing trend of China gaining influence and power relative to the US. And Kissinger believed that rather than continuing to escalate tensions, the US and China should essentially seek to figure out how to share power.
The Hill elaborated:“Instead, Kissinger instructs U.S. officials not to neglect “the urgent task of launching a parallel enterprise for the transition to the post-coronavirus order.” Based on his previous writings and his 50 years of activities since Richard Nixon enlisted him to help with the opening to China, it is likely that the new world order he envisions is some form of China-U.S. condominium, with China increasingly the dominant “partner.”
In July, The Hill would write another article following Kissinger’s recent trip to China, Where Xi declined to meet with John Kerry, acting in an official capacity, but accepted a meeting from his ‘old friend’ Kissinger :
Centenarian Henry Kissinger demonstrated his remarkable physical and intellectual vigor when he met in Beijing last week with Xi Jinping, who simultaneously declined a meeting with the visiting John Kerry, President Biden’s climate change czar. Xi praised Kissinger’s “insightful” part in establishing U.S.-China relations and hoped he would “continue to play a constructive role.”
It was the latest in a series of over 100 such Kissinger trips since 1971, when he helped pave the way for President Nixon’s own historic visit the following year — what Nixon proclaimed as “the week that changed the world.”(Feb. 21 - 28, 1972)
Months before Kissinger’s historic trip to China to meet Xi in 1972, “the week that changed the world”, the US was taken off the gold standard. Interesting to note.
For the first time in history, a genuinely global economic system has come into being with prospects of heretofore unimagined well-being. At the same time - paradoxically - the process of globalization tempts a nationalism that threatens its fulfillment.
In periods of economic distress, these trends are magnified. The debate over trade policy in the U.S. presidential campaign is a case in point.
In industrialized countries, globalization impacts domestic politics in two ways: Improved productivity generates the paradox of enhanced well-being, accompanied by higher unemployment. At the same time, there occurs a migration away from menial jobs, which are then filled by workers from abroad. A clash of cultures and a nationalism advocating exclusion develop. Variations of protectionism thereby acquire a domestic base.
That trend takes place even within the productive sector of the industrialized world. Connected by the Internet to similar industrial and financial institutions around the world, transnational enterprises operate in the global marketplace served by staffs that often have longer tenure than those of governments and fewer restrictions on their analyses… The transnational companies advocate free trade and free movement of capital; the national companies (and trade unions) often push for protectionism.
Henry Kissinger and his former pupil, Klaus Schwab, welcome former- UK PM Ted Heath at the 1980 WEF annual meeting. Source: World Economic Forum
Henry Kissinger, Mentor of Klaus Schwab, the Protégée, The WEF, Globalism
It is not insignificant that not only was Kissinger a mentor to Schwab, but David Rockefeller was a mentor to Henry Kissinger.
We met 60 years ago as part of a study group at the Council on Foreign Relations, among the first such efforts to discipline the ominous aspects of nuclear technology by moral and political purposes. Shortly afterward, he encouraged a discussion group, which later was developed into what is now known as the Bilderberg Group, an annual meeting of European and American leaders to explore their challenges and common purposes.
A decade later, David called on me, at the time secretary of state, to inform me that, in the view of some of the colleagues he had brought with him, the scope of U.S. foreign policy needed broadening. A truly global study to include Asia was required for that challenge. His associates, in fact, included Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Zbigniew Brzezinski; in other words, a government in exile waiting to replace the administration in which I served. But David's combination of dedication and innocence was such that the thought never took hold. Instead, I became a founding member of the Trilateral Commission, which thrives to this day.
The New York Times published in a 1992 article that reported Kissinger’s first big success didn’t come until he was appointed staff director of a study group on nuclear weapons and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, which lead to his first book “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy”, which “argued against the doctrine of massive retaliation, which implied a full-scale nuclear war and in favor of a "limited nuclear war" that would not inevitably escalate into total destruction. Despite the seemingly restricted subject, the book made him into an instant celebrity.” Ironically, this is now what the Atlantic Counil is telling us to prepare for in a recent article mentioned later in the article.
Mr. Kissinger's next great leap forward brought him into personal contact with the rich and famous through his third important patron, Nelson Rockefeller. Mr. Isaacson calls their association an "odd-couple relationship." Mr. Kissinger became the director of a Rockefeller-sponsored Special Studies Project to define the nation's "critical choices." In "International Security: The Military Aspect" (1958), a report that resulted from the project, Mr. Kissinger again lent his name to the doctrine that it was necessary to develop tactical nuclear weapons in order to prepare to fight a limited nuclear war.
Curiously, this thesis was so misguided that Mr. Kissinger himself later had to back away from it… Nevertheless, this book also added to his reputation.
At this time, Mr. Kissinger still hovered between the academic and political worlds. He received tenure at Harvard in 1959 and the rank of full professor of government in 1962. He also served as a part-time consultant to Rockefeller, who in 1959 had become Governor of New York and with whom he seemed to have indissolubly linked his name and future. Yet he was a registered Democrat and accepted the modest role of a part-time consultant in the Kennedy Administration. When Rockefeller unsuccessfully sought the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964, however, Mr. Kissinger worked as an adviser to him.
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy” —Henry Kissinger
In 2022 Kissinger would join his protégé Klaus Schwab virtually to speak following Russia’s invasion. The WEF posted the transcript under the headline: “Kissinger: These are the main geopolitical challenges facing the world right now “. The notorious statesman, who first spoke at Davos in 1980, was warning what he has been for decades now, that the US and China have to find a way to coexist, that China was here to stay. Except now, we appear to be closer to war than ever.
Just a few months ago, Klaus Schwab sat down with Chinese state media to praise the CCP and their system,saying that "the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries.”
"On the G20," the interviewer began, "you were there meeting some of the leaders as well. Professor Schwab, what do you make of the result? … It seems quite positive with all the voices included."
"I think it's positive," Schwab replied. "The base has been formed, but we have to go one step further. We have to have a strategic mood; we have to construct the world of tomorrow."
He went on to push for a "systemic transformation of the world," adding that "we have to define how the world should look like which we want to come out of this transformation period."
"I respect China's achievements … over the last forty years," Schwab continued, referring to them as "tremendous." He suggested that China could act as a "role model for many countries," admitting that in the end, each country should be left to make its own decision regarding the system it wants to adopt.
"We should be very careful in imposing systems," he concluded, "but the Chinese model is certainly a very attractive model for quite a number of countries."
Schwab has not been shy in expressing his admiration of China's economic development and has on numerous occasions invited CCP leader Xi Jinping to speak at WEF events.
In 2017, after one such speech, Schwab applauded China as "an important force in the global economy," and said to the audience that the dictator[XI’s]'s ideas had "brought us some sunshine."
Schwab has worked to facilitate closer cooperation between China and the WEF, and suggested that the nation should take on more global responsibilities.
In 2017, the same year Klaus Schwab praised the CPP as a “role model for many countries”, Xi would attend Davos - The first China statesmen to do so. CBS reported:
Laura Ingraham in the clip below talks about how the global elite were looking to China for a model as rising populism and economic protectionism were on the rise in America and Europe. She also talks abut how China’s “social order”, the mass passivity and compliance of the subjugated Chinese which is a result of authoritarianism, is appealing to the Davos elite.
”The World Economic Forum has announced a June meeting — a “Summer Davos” — of global elites to be held in Tianjin in China, showing once again its willingness to work with communists to take over the world’s governments.
If only Joe Biden weren’t president, perhaps this gathering wouldn’t be so worrisome.
As it stands, Biden is fully committed to the WEF’s Great Reset vision of total top-down control of the world’s populations. He just calls it something different; he just terms it Build Back Better.
But it’s one and the same.
It’s all about bringing about a more Marxist model of government that completely redefines capitalism and free markets; reconfigures priorities of businesses; redirects profits and redistributes revenues in line with political elitists’ agendas — and does this all by feigning “for-the-good-of-all” approaches to the environment, health, education and justice.’
6 Years ago, Klaus was featured on Chinese State media after predicting the country would become a “responsible and responsive” global leader. Chinese state media reported:
”Klaus Shwab founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum has expressed his expectations of China becoming a responsible and responsive global leader amidst uncertainties and protectionist trends in the world”
Globalists sure are worried about protectionism, huh? Well - They are all globalists. Protectionism protects domestic industry from transnational corporations.
Ironically, as a result of necessity from deteriorating trade relations with increased tensions with China, the US and Europe are starting to worry about supply chain localization and import substitution of goods they are reliant on China for. On the surface, supply chain localization, or bringing it closer to home is attributed to a trade war with China. A big part of this is also export controls on China’s part.
But the waning status of the US dollar plays a big role as well. I wrote half a book in 2019 I never published titled: “Venezuela’s Decline: A Case Study for America’s Impending Economic Collapse - Oil dependency was to Venezuela what the US dollar’s reserve currency status is to America”…..I wish I finished it.
The US waited until the problem smacked it in the face twice - first with Covid, twice with Ukraine - before addressing import dependency. And it is at an inconvenient time when BRICS is challenging US hegemony and the US dollar, with share of global trade in dollars declining.
“The United States is losing ground to China in the battle for influence in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is strengthening its relationships in the region often called “America’s backyard.”
China’s growing footprint in the region has raised concerns in Washington that the PRC is leveraging its economic might to further its strategic goals and displace American dominance in the region. …
The PRC is now South America’s top trading partner and a major source of foreign direct investment and lending in energy and infrastructure. It is also forging cultural, educational and political ties.
… in 2000, less than 2 percent of LAC exports went to China.By 2021, that number had risen to $450 billion. China is currently the second largest trading partner for LAC after theU.S., and LAC-China trade is expected to more than double by 2035.
Another Chinese objective is to use economic agreements to isolate Taiwan by persuading LAC countries to abandon diplomatic recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty. Currently, 25 of the 33 Latin American countries recognize the PRC rather than Taiwan.”
Perhaps it isn’t just Latin America China has been seeking to gain influence over in the western hemisphere.
In March, shortly before Kissinger made these group of statements in April, I wrote my 3 part article series about the potential economic consequences and implications of Russia’s invasion, as well as shifting geopolitical reqlationships. Part 2 of my Ukraine War article series, titled “US Hegemony Threatened As Saudis, UAE, India Ignore Threats of Sanctions, Turn to Russia and China” concluded in its final sentence:
We could be witnessing the fall of the US empire, and its reserve currency, coincided by the rise of an emerging power structure and world economic system in which BRICS nations rise as the new dominant power of the globe.
Since the publication, BRICS has gained remarkable momentum, which I covered more in-depth in an article from last month
Rewinding back to what Kissinger said in April of 2020, 2 years before Russia’s invasion. After his first publications on the 3rd, On April 25th, 2020 Kissinger published on his website an interview transcript between him and Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner in which they “They discussed the pandemic’s effects on global politics, China’s rise as a world power, and the future of the European Union.”
Alongside predicting China rising and chipping at US hegemony, Henry Kissinger predicted that if governments didn’t manage the Covid crisis well, social unrest would rise. Specifically, he pushed the narrative that vaccinations were crucial to managing the crisis, and that the consequences of an inadequately vaccinated population would outweigh the consequences of government action. Foreign Policyechoed the narrative in July of 2020, attempting to scrape goat future unrest in the Global South on inadequate levels of vaccine adoption.
In the interview, Dopfner prompts Kissinger the question: “What is the pandemic experience going to change in the political context in the long run? Will safety win versus individual freedom? Will autocratic systems gain ground versus democratic centrist systems?”
Kissinger dodged the “Will safety win versus individual freedom? Will autocratic systems gain ground versus democratic centrist systems?” question before addressing more directly later on in the interview:
“In this country, the majority of people have had health and safety concerns that they’ve never experienced before. And they have been very occupied with maintaining a lifestyle that they used to take for granted. At the same time, there are [elite globalists?] groups who are systematically urging a new governmental and national philosophy. And while they are not the majority or even close to a majority, they continue pursuing their convictions – while the rest of the country[serf class] is focused more on day-to-day life, or on very short-term political issues.”
Döpfner re-approached the topic, prompting Kissinger:
“Politicians had to make difficult decisions in the context of the pandemic. For example, legal restrictions concerning border controls and traveling that were considered to be impossible were suddenly possible. You might even say that authoritarian measures had to be implemented in order to save lives. The pandemic has reinforced political authority. And in a couple of countries, at least to a certain degree, people have been very supportive of that. Do you think that democracies are going to be more authoritarian?”
Kissinger would finally respond with precision:
”A great deal will depend on the impact of vaccinations, where there is already a wide gap between America and Europe. In the US, daily deaths from COVID-19 have been receding; young people are now being vaccinated; businesses and restaurants are beginning to reopen. Much of Europe remains locked down and fearful. Vaccination is beginning to pick up in Europe, but it remains several months behind America. The exception, of course, is the UK.
So, to return to the question of political stability, if vaccination successfully reduces the incidence of the disease then the pandemic will be perceived mostly as a health problem that was overcome. The danger is less that emergency measures taken to fight the pandemic will persist than that if infections remain high for a prolonged period, on either side of the Atlantic, we would then witness a crisis of confidence in leaders and institutions”
Kissinger was essentially stating that the danger of government losing trust by allowing infections to persist was a greater threat than the potential loss of trust from “emergency measures” taken to fight the pandemic - which Kissinger believed vaccination was critical to. It’s ironic.
Now you, the reader, might be thinking: “Wait! But the vaccines didn’t work! They didn’t stop the pandemic, they didn’t restore or sustain my trust in institutions. the Vaccine push eroded my trust in the government! The crisis of confidence isn’t resulting from lack of vaccinations, its from forced vaccinations, lockdowns, being lied to, censorship, a deteriorating economy, political persecution, gaslighting, government overreach, failure of ‘the experts’, CDC, FDA. etc etc
Besides, growing mistrust in institutions was already on the rise before covid, people choosing to remain unvaccinated isn’t a cause of distrust in institutions, it is a symptom!”
Rob Schneider : “$115,000,000,000 BILLION US TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO UKRAINE…$1,900,000 million dollars to American Maui fire victims. Biden hates Americans…”
The same reason 2008’s financial meltdown led to a global trend of political unrest is a major overlapping factor in why pandemics traditionally spark rising social unrest.
According to the study, there is evidence to demonstrate that epidemics can disrupt civil society in three ways. Firstly, because policies to prevent the spread of disease can conflict with people's interest; secondly because the epidemic's impact on mortality and economic welfare can worsen inequality; and finally due to the psychological shock that can lead people to believe irrational narratives regarding the spread of disease, "which may result in social, racial discrimination and even xenophobia."
The co-authors also noted that since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic late last year, "protest movements seem to have lost their voice all over the world," including that in Hong Kong, the environmentalist movement inspired by Greta Thunberg, France's populist 'gilet jaunes' movement, and the anti-right wing Sardines movement of Italy. Of 20 protest movements active in December 2019, only two or three are still active, they said.
But the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on social and economic relations, combined with government restrictions to prevent the spread of disease, "are causing a latent sentiment of public discontent," wrote Morelli and Censolo.
Conspiracy theories surrounding the virus and their support by some political leaders are "the symptom of potentially dangerous frictions inside society."
A few months after the article above warning of a “latent sentiment of public discontent”, Davos would reconvene for the World Economic Forum 2021 Davos
The Davos Agenda 2021 will center on the theme of a "Crucial Year to Rebuild Trust".
Sessions will focus on critical issues such as COVID-19 vaccination programmes, job creation and climate change.
Foreign Policy would echo Kissinger’s narrative that a rise of social unrest would follow the pandemic as well as scapegoating potential future unrest as a result of not enough people getting vaccinated.
To Foreign Policy’s credit, they did acknowledge the pre-existing conditions that had been boiling over prior to the pandemic, as they point to the blowback of lockdowns which might have temporarily halted the social unrests/protests:
“To call 2021 the summer of discontent would be a severe understatement. From Cuba to South Africa to Colombia to Haiti, often violent protests are sweeping every corner of the globe as angry citizens are taking to the streets.
Each country has different histories and realities on the ground, particularly in Haiti, where years of violence and government corruption culminated two weeks ago in the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse[Several involved were US law enforcement and military].
But they all faced a perfect storm of preexisting social, economic, and political hardships, which fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic only inflamed further.And they are merely a foreshadowing of the post-coronavirus global tinderbox that’s looming as existing tensions in countries across the world morph into broader civil unrest and uprisings against economic hardships and inequality deepened by the pandemic.”
Rising economic inequality and hardship prior to the pandemic was the backdrop for the Covid crisis, which exacerbated the pre-existing economic issues while creating new ones. In the conclusion, the Foreign Policy columnist would also acknowledge the social tensions and growing social rifts and increased polarization created by the pandemic.
“The shocks caused by the pandemic have also eroded social cohesion, further fraying relations between communities and deepening polarization. That is especially true in the United States, where social and political pressures both deepened the health crisis and were themselves worsened by it. …
Trends show the social scarring from such shocks don’t show up for years, and the coronavirus pandemic is unlikely to be an exception. Lockdowns and crisis-induced displays of national unity have masked the full effect of the pandemic, which will become more apparent once the economic reopening gets into full swing. The non-health impacts of COVID-19 will far outlast the disease.”
But the Foreign Policy columnist, in what was reminiscent of Kissinger’s early framing in April of 2020 in the above interview, pegged the “global vaccine shortage” as fueling instability. The author would go on to suggest that Africa, Asia, and Latin America being behind in vaccinations will constrain its economies (Rather than the WHO recommended lockdown policies or the world going full QE money printer brrrrrrrrr mode) .
The global vaccine shortage is fueling the instability. A majority of Africa is lagging far behind the world in vaccinations, meaning COVID-19 will continue to constrain national economies and, in turn, become a source of potential political instability. The same is true for much of Latin America and Asia, where countries don’t have enough vaccines to protect their populations and simmering sources of protest—such as rising living costs and deepening inequalities—are more likely to boil over.
The article did point to plummeting public confidence in institutions and governments for the key driver of instability, and seemed to imply that the main causes of diminished trust in government were poor economic or financial conditions.
The global risk firm Verisk Maplecroft has warned that as many as 37 countries could face large protest movements for up to three years. A new study by Mercy Corps examining the intersection of COVID-19 and conflict found concerning trends that warn of potential for new conflict, deepening existing conflict, and worsening insecurity and instability shaped by the pandemic response.
[***]The group found a collapse of public confidence in governments and institutions was a key driver of instability. [***]People in fragile states, already suffering from diminished trust in their government, have felt further abandoned as they face disruptions in public services, rising food prices, and massive economic hardships, such as unemployment and reduced wages. Supply chains disrupted during the pandemic have seen food prices skyrocket, while in the global recession humanitarian aid budgets are being slashed, bringing many countries to the brink of famine. For the first time in 22 years, extreme poverty—people living on less than $1.90 a day—was on the rise last year. Oxfam International estimates that “it could take more than a decade for the world’s poorest to recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic.”
A Collapse in Confidence and Trust In Institutions Is Key Driver of Instability
To people paying attention, it should be obvious why trust in institutions is declining. They are lying, cheating, stealing (I’m quoting Pompeo). One would think that by now, the narrative handlers would be shifting down gears instead of constantly warning ominously of “the next pandemic”, as officials draft plans to mass role out more ineffective, unsafe, experimental vaccines again, and have nations cede sovereignty to the WHO and UN.
They are marching on with the agenda. Despite being caught in so many lies, these globalist institutions still pretend to be the arbiters of truth.
In December, the WHO tweeted and promoted a video created by Dr. Hotez which declared that “anti-vaccine activism” is “a major killing force globally”, killing more people than gun-violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or cyber attacks.
“During the Covid Pandemic, 200,00 Americans needlessly loss their lives because they refused the covid vaccine even after vaccines became widely available. And now that anti-vaccine activism is expanding across the world, even into low and mid income countries — It’s a killing force.
Anti-science now kills more people than things like gun-violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, or cyber attacks, and now its become a political movement. In the US it’s linked to the far extremism on the far-right, same in Germany. So this is a new face of ‘anti-science aggression’. And so we need political solutions to address this.”
In 2021, Hotez wrote that opposing Covid measures was not only anti-science but also a form of “aggression,” which he blamed on conservative politicians, academics, and news outlets.
In 2023, Hotez’s organization would still be towing the line.
Apparently doing your own research and not blindly believing big pharma(glorified drug cartel) is “anti-science aggression”…. but forcing millions to take experimental injections against their desire through coercion, while denying natural immunity and alongside other forms of *actual* science denial is okay. Stunning and brave actually.
WHaT is cAuSiNg dEcLiNiNg TrUst in iNsTiTuTioNs? ….*slowly scrolls up to re-watch the WHO-promoted Hotez video saying questioning science is terrorism*
The fact that videos and narratives such as the WHO-sponsored Hotez video above serve to chip away at public trust in institutions should be self-evident to those who are not captured by such radical indoctrination. The Washington Examiner published a piece titled “The WHO thinks 'anti-vaccine activism' is deadlier than terrorism”, in which the author wrote “The most chilling part of the video, however, comes as Hotez speaks his final line: ‘And so we need political solutions to address this.’ “
More disturbingly, Hotez also began suggesting the need for federal action to curb what he referred to as “anti-science groups.”
In a 2021 article, Hotez pronounced opposition to COVID-19 restrictions as not just a form of anti-science activism but a form of “aggression” perpetrated by congressional Republicans, right-wing news outlets, and conservative intellectuals.
… In a September 2022 commentary published by Nature Reviews Immunology, Hotez wrote of the need to seek “outside advice from experts in homeland security, justice, commerce and even the US State Department,” as well as “the various United Nations agencies” to protect the world from anti-science activists.
Hotez does not offer many specifics for what he wants these agencies to do or what his aforementioned “political solutions” might look like. However, censoring or prosecuting people who commit acts of anti-science aggression would seem like a reasonable assumption. The former has become commonplace on social media, and the latter is a tactic that has been called for by the American Medical Association in efforts to silence critics of doctors providing "gender-affirming" care to children.
Whatever his goals, Hotez's methodology is now easy for him to justify: When you label any form of disagreement or skepticism as “aggression,” it's suddenly reasonable to ask the strong arm of government to intervene.
The fact that this type of oppressive, abusive mindset is supported, propagated, and normalized( or at least attempted to be) by a body such as, and with as much influence as, the WHO is intertwined with the rising distrust in institutions.
And the WHO isn’t the only unelected transnational governmental body wielding significant influence over policy that is engaged in supporting this type of radicalism.
To circle back to the UN who had been warning of vaccine misinformation in 2019… After Covid and in the wake of novel, experimental vaccines rushed through with emergency authorization, the UN didn’t leave any room for skepticism.
The political declaration also included a commitment by countries to address misinformation and tackling vaccine hesitancy, key challenges to successful inoculation campaigns against COVID-19 globally.
Countries highlighted the importance of increasing acceptance of the need to fully vaccinate populations across the world. Stating that they will cooperate with the UN’s ‘Verified’ initiative, they called on the UN system overall to help counter so-called vaccine hesitancy in all parts of the world.
Launched in May last year, the ‘Verified’ initiative is aimed at promoting and sharing compelling, clear content and fact-based advice, to fight conspiracies and hate speech, and foster global solidarity.
Melissa Fleming, Under-Secretary-General of the UN Department of Global Communications (DGC) underlined the Organization’s efforts to vaccinate the world and ensure that that no one is left behind.
“The statements endorsed by Member States reinforce their commitment to our Verified Initiative and to our work to produce and disseminate factual, timely, targeted, clear, accessible, multilingual and science-based information”, she added.
And it isn’t just transnational governmental bodies that have been drumming up distrust in institutions as a byproduct of their efforts to manufacture consent. MSNBC and other news outlets regularly host and promote Hotez, who is a great example of the way the media normalized aggressive, hateful, rhetoric against the non-vaccinated or those against lockdowns and masking.
Perhaps even more important than the hateful rhetoric, or outright demonization, is the intellectual dishonesty and disingenuity, even after the science (non trademarked) has proved your narrative demonstrably false and ripped it to shreds.
For 2 years, those who spoke against the tyrannical Covid policies were patronized, mocked, and gaslight at best—and viciously demonized at worst.
Harmful propaganda widely propagated by the government, coached by the WHO, UN, and CDC, and echoed by the mainstream media, and backed by Academia and co-opted journals has resulted in many tragic cases of *actual* aggression and coercion against the non-vaccinated. If you resisted the propaganda campaign and chose to speak up, you very likely faced censorship—and almost certainly observed it coinciding alongside relentless propaganda.
It is hard to count how many times something was censored and labeled disinformation only for it to turn out true, or at least acceptable to consider and believe as evidence emerged. This piece is 30,000 words and I am in trim mode, having been on too many tangents about how many different lies have been told and how many “conspiracy theories” have later come to be true. They say now the definition of conspiracy theory is about 8 months to reality.
In what world, is blindly trusting the government and media not a form of insanity? Why have so many people outsourced discernment and critical thought to entities that have proven time and time again they are capable of gross incompetence at best, and at worst, willing to lie and deceive for ulterior motives to the detriment of the general public and society.
And even when their narratives and lies and webs of deception have been seen through, even when they have been caught lying or spreading misinformation on a topic, even if they have had to backtrack dozens of times, the narrative handlers still project the notion that they are capable of being arbiters of the truth, let alone that there should be any in the first place.
Here is CNN’s Brian Stelter hosting a panel discussion titled “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation Panel” ……... If this isn’t dystopian to you, please, do wake the fuck up ……..
Mouton’s blaming of “misinfo” being why he couldn’t “get people to take the Covid vaccine” doesn’t even have time to age poorly, that statement came out of his mouth with a terminal birth defect. The science has already rendered it obsolete. Any rational person that has been paying attention would point out that the government spread alot(like alot, alot) of misinformation about the vaccine and Covid in general.
Not only was the government wrong on a lot,but many of the things so called “conspiracy theorists”, and “fringe” doctors and health professionals, said about the vaccines—from natural immunity’s superiority to the risk of myocarditis—has been proven unequivocally true.
How the fuck did natural immunity even become a conspiracy theory? Future generations will look back at this period like it was some sort of dark ages. And in a sense, it is.
But the problem isn’t just that the government forced totalitarian policies depriving its citizen’s of bodily autonomy, denying informed consent, forcing medical experiments in violation of the first Nuremberg code.. The problem isn’t just that the government and institutions such as academia and the media relentlessly, shamelessly, and abusively gaslit its citizens as their rights were trampled (bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, privacy, speech, etc) ..
The problem isn’t just the past, but what we have to deal with in its aftermath, the future.
The reality that many have learned nothing from their mistakes, and by the looks of things the powers that be are waiting for “the next pandemic” with the intent on repeating the mistakes, and tyranny, of the pandemic.
The problem is the acute epidemic of sudden death syndrome, the surge in excess deaths, the UN and WHO plans for global digital vaccine passports tied to a digital identity and your bank account…
The problem is, if people like me are right - Covid was just the beginning of the tyranny.
While BRICS is seen as the rallying point for the world against US hegemony, as spoken on earlier briefly, BRICS governments talk of multi-polarity does not mean they do not wish to consolidate power regionally into organizations that continue to erode national sovereignty and move power up the top-down totem-pole….
Unless you are cool with CBDC’s, 15 minute cities, digital identification, surveillance state expansion, carbon credits, ESG, social credit scores, regional “cooperation” superseding national sovereignty, Agenda 2030 and the sustainable developmental goals,…and everything else one associates with the agenda for top-down control by governments(or a singular world one)…you shouldn’t* look to BRICS governments or politicians to save you from the globalist agenda they are taking the reigns of…
Lets not kid ourselves and tell ourselves BRICS governments arnt authoritarian globalist cesspools like Western nations, ran by control-hungry psychopaths like all governments, let alone communist ones(looking at you China).
China’s Xi just spoke at Davos in January, as he has many times. Brazil’s Lula and and Bolsonaro are both WEF stooges. Even Putin was a WEF global leader, mingling heavily with Klaus Schwab the Davos crowd, until recently. South Africa and India have plenty of representation at Davos.
And it is worth noting the UAE annually hosts the World Government Summit, which garnered some attention last year as global governance think tanks and organizations attracted more scrutiny due to shifting public awareness.
One of the viral videos from this year’s World Government Summit was of Klaus Schwab speaking at the conference, describing how those who master technology will master the world….
Take these following headlines from BRICS nations as examples. This one from Tech Monitor on India’s CBDC Pilot mentions how China, another BRICS member, is the only country whose CBDC has seen success/performed at or above expectations.
Countries looking to join BRICS+ like the UAE and Nigeria, are leading the way in piloting CBDCs.
While in this article only India and China’s CBDCs are mentioned, it is worth noting that South Africa was one of the first countries in Africa to pilot a wholesale CBDC. Regarding Russia and Brazil, the other BRICS core members, take the following recent headlines from this month:
I won’t waste your time explaining why the digital ruble is no different from the digital euro, or the digital peso, or whatever kind of soul-crushing digital token your own government is currently shilling.
Yes, there have been valiant attempts by the internet’s most revered intellects to portray the digital ruble as a sanctions-busting, sovereignty-protecting, completely voluntary, extremely friendly and benign digital coin.
But unfortunately these Very Serious Pundits are very seriously misinformed.
….The Bank for International Settlements announced this month that NINETY THREE PERCENT of central banks are currently working on CBDCs, and that 24 could be live by 2030.
“This [digital ruble] will permit better traceability of payments and money flow, and also explore the possibility of setting conditions on permitted terms of use of a given unit of currency.”
“Just imagine that you are able to give your kids some money in digital rubles and then restrict their use for purchase of junk food, for example.”
“That would be a useful functionality for a customer, and of course you can come up with hundreds of other similar use cases.”
Censorship Industrial Complex, Agenda for Digital IDs, CBDCs, Centralized Fight Against ‘Misinformation’ Marches On
I’m not going to go through all the back-peddling the CDC, FDA, and other organizations have had to do on vaccines and Covid. But the fact that these institutions and people are still pretending they didn’t get tons of major things, or that it doesn’t matter when they get it wrong(or straight up lie), as they still push for censoring what they deem to be “misinformation”…about sums up the macrocosm.
As stated at the beginning, even before the twitter files, many, but not nearly enough, knew censorship had been rampant. And even before Covid, Many of us have already directly faced censorship as the war on disinformation grew out of 2016, which marked the rise of the age of fact checkers and the war on misinformation. And despite the Covid censorship coming to light, the day isn’t saved. The Censorship industrial complex marches on. And don’t think twitter is here to save the day.
”The reality is that while Twitter, under Musk, was vocal about being a ‘free speech’ platform, there was an alarming increase in account bans and content deboosting.'
Such actions made one question the transparency and authenticity of Musk’s commitment. It’s evident that any content deemed ‘spicy’ or potentially contentious faced an 81% deboost, a statistic unsettling to many, especially when such determinations rely heavily on automated systems known for inaccuracies.”
Musk, a self described “free-speech absolutist” is not such an absolutist after all. In retrospect, people should acknowledge that his company, Space X, has major contracts with the US military. Whether Musk had genuine intentions setting out to buy twitter or not, or was controlled opposition from the get-go, it doesn’t change the fact that he looks pretty controlled.
His purpose may have been to play the “good cop” and prevent a continued exodus away from traditional social media to newer, alternative social media. The purpose of Musk buying twitter may have been because the establishment overplayed their hand with Covid censorship, and they needed to run damage control and rebuild trust.
Though it is unknown exactly which Silicon Valley figures were most connected to Epstein and which tech executives were potentially being blackmailed by Epstein, it is known that Epstein associated with several prominent tech executives, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.
Last year, Epstein claimed to be advising Tesla and Elon Musk, who had been previously photographed with Epstein’s alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. A few years ago, Epstein also attended a dinner hosted by LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, where Musk had allegedly introduced Epstein to Mark Zuckerberg. Google’s Sergey Brin is known to have attended a dinner hosted by Epstein at his New York residence where Donald Trump was also in attendance.
On July 23rd, Barr gave the keynote address at the 2019 International Conference on Cyber Security (ICCS) and mainly focused on the need for consumer electronic products and applications that use encryption to offer a “backdoor” for the government, specifically law enforcement, in order to obtain access to encrypted communications as a matter of public safety.
The direct DARPA connection to HARPA underscores that the agenda behind this coming agency dates back to the failed Bio-Surveillance project of DARPA’s Total Information Awareness program, which was launched after the events of September 11, 2001. TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project sought to develop the “necessary information technologies and resulting prototype capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically, and significantly earlier than traditional approaches,” accomplishing this “by monitoring non-traditional data sources” including “pre-diagnostic medical data” and “behavioral indicators.”
While nominally focused on “bioterrorist attacks,” TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project also sought to acquire early detection capabilities for “normal” disease outbreaks. Bio-Surveillance and related DARPA projects at the time, such as LifeLog, sought to harvest data through the mass use of some sort of wearable or handheld technology. These DARPA programs were ultimately shut down due to the controversy over claims they would be used to profile domestic dissidents and eliminate privacy for all Americans in the US…
As Unlimited Hangout has recently reported, major aspects of TIA were merely privatized, giving rise to companies such as Facebook and Palantir, which resulted in such DARPA projects being widely used and accepted.
Did the decline in trust start with Covid? It is safe to say no. Hell no. Trust in media has been on a steady decline for decades with deteriorating economic conditions, populism has been rising since 2016, and general distrust in institutions and the government has been on a sharp uptrend since 2008. Distrust in the media has been on a steady decline since the 1970s. Covid, or the response to it, has merely been an accelerant for distrust in institutions, rising economic disparity, and political and social unrest that is a product of the first two.
The Great Reset and the 4th Industrial Revolution
In fact, in 2021 Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum(WEF) wrote a follow up to his infamous “The Great Reset”(2020) book titled The Great Narrative for a better future:, in which he acknowledged this reality.
”It is already clear that the COVID-19 crisis has put into motion momentous changes that will unfold in a multifaceted fashion. Some of these changes were already apparent prior to the crisis but have been accelerated (even “turbo-charged”, as some pundits would argue) by the pandemic. Among them are the acceleration of automation and innovation, rising inequalities, the growing power of tech and surveillance, the rising rivalry between the United States and China, the partial retreat from globalization, the economic paradigm shift, and an increasingly fractious geopolitical landscape.
But other changes now in the offing go beyond a mere acceleration of pre-existing trends, including a handful that would have seemed inconceivable before COVID-19 struck. The reconsideration of our social priorities (as expressed notably in the “Great Resignation” phenomenon), more radical welfare and taxation measures, new forms of state intervention, the rising appeal of well-being policies and a new appreciation for nature – these are just a few examples of new systemic changes that will grow in relevance.
From the perspective of this author, Klaus Schwab clearly titled and wrote this book in partial response to the growing public awareness/backlash of his previous book, The Great Reset.
“Over the past millennia, pandemics have been the rule, not the exception. This being so, how can history help us understand what lies ahead? Pandemics are by nature a shock that divides and traumatizes. As such, they tend to exacerbate the same major issues and problems that have recurred throughout human history: wars and conflicts, inequalities and impoverishment, social cohesion and strife, political turbulence, the disruption of supply and demand, debt distress – to name a few notable ones. However, because of their inherently disruptive nature, pandemics can also prove to be a force for lasting and often radical change. COVID-19 is no exception. It has revealed, in a quasi-photographic manner, two things: (1) the main fault lines that beset today’s world, like social divides, lack of fairness, limited cooperation, failure of global governance, geopolitical turmoil; but also (2) our extraordinary ability to mobilize and innovate when confronted with conditions of intense adversity. Who could have predicted back in the early days of the pandemic that so many governments and central banks would come to the rescue of their countries’ societies and economies with such extraordinarily accommodative fiscal and monetary policies? Who could have imagined in the spring of 2020 that not one but several vaccines would be available less than a year later? A new world (not a “new normal”) is now emerging, the contours of which will largely be defined by the narratives that evolve to inform and construct the way forward.”
Notice how Schwab writes that the chaos and crisis of a pandemic can be transmutated, “because of their inherently disruptive nature”, into mechanism by which to implement “lasting” and “radical” change. What kind of “lasting”, “radical” change?
The World Economic Forum has also been the subject of unfounded conspiracy theories which it is trying to address head-on.
Referencing WEF’s previous theme, “The Great Reset,” hundreds of thousands of posts have circulated on social media in recent years, many appearing to claim that the global elite were planning to use the coronavirus to bring about total economic collapse.
“We, like many other organizations have been the target of misinformation campaigns. And that is something that we’re very proactively trying to work towards combating,” said Saadia Zahidi, managing director at the World Economic Forum.
“We believe in facts, we believe in science, we believe in evidence and we believe in expertise. And that’s what the hundred or so experts that are gathered at this meeting along with business leaders and political leaders, that’s what they are going to provide.”
Well?! Are you sold? Does that put it to bed? Can we stop talking about conspiracy theories about how billionaire technocrats want to maintain control over the global population now?
Was Covid just a convenient opportunity for governments to expand power? It sure did come at a convenient time when the elites were losing their grip on populations, and those same elite had just run simulations of a Covid pandemic and were coincidentally suddenly looking to design vaccines on "disease x" in months instead of years.
Or was it a manufactured opportunity, a manufactured crisis? If we allow the government to expand power in times of crisis, the government will create crises.
The powers that be were ready to meet the challenge and seize the opportunity. Never let a good crisis go to waste. But what if it wasn’t just a spontaneous occurrence that the Elite took advantage of? What if it was a problem—reaction—solution?
As Wide awake media reported on the Dutch Farmers: World Economic Forum puppet and Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, is closing down independent Dutch farms en masse, with the intention of replacing them with WEF "Food Innovation Hubs". None of this has anything to do with preventing the imaginary "climate emergency", and everything to do with centralised control of the entire global food supply. Why? Because a population that is dependent on globalist "food hubs" to avoid starvation, will be a lot more compliant with unfettered totalitarianism than a population with easy access to an abundance of food.
