Time for more of it
I watched Schindler’s List. I could hardly stand it. As my husband observed, it’s too close.
One of my theories of people’s blindness to truth in our current crisis is the inability to conceive and believe that such evil exists. Even in the movie, the Polish Jews who had already been forced from their homes, lived in and then forcefully evacuated from a ghetto, and faced cruel conditions in a work camp still refused to believe circulating stories about gas chambers. “It’s ridiculous. I don’t believe it” is an exact quote in the movie. We now know those unimaginable horrors were indeed true.
There are innumerable evil deeds of the last two-plus years that need to be exposed. How indeed do we move people from denial to belief? A cognitive expert my husband recently interacted with asserts it is in the hearing of stories.
I’ve had two stories worth listening to sent to me recently, facilitated in their telling by the same podcaster, nurse Colette Martin.
The first story is that of a woman hospitalized for covid-19 who attributes her survival to alternative treatment snuck into her against hospital protocol. Being privy to many a text from hospitalized covid-19 patients (some of whom did not survive), I can vouch for a lot of her experience. Much of what has gone on in hospitals during this crisis, as patients have been separated from the protective eyes of family and friends, is simply horrific.
The second story is that of Dr. Meredith Grembowicz, a pediatrician who was fired for expressing the “wrong” opinions on early treatment and novel vaccine technology. Dr. Grembowicz is one of the pediatric specialists who participated in our Global Covid Summit pediatric declaration. I wish her story was unique. On one of our first Zoom calls organized to craft this declaration, most of the participating pediatric specialists had similar stories. Interestingly, many also had personal or family stories of living under communism that motivated their participation.
We timed our pediatric declaration to precede the FDA’s consideration of the now-approved emergency use authorization of novel genetic products in children aged 6 months to 5 years. Having lost all confidence that institutions formed to protect us still do, we nevertheless desired to get a message to pediatricians and parents to protect children. The story of the travesty of a clinical trial used to justify the FDA’s decision is also worth hearing.
There were many different players in the true story that is the Holocaust. There were victims. There were perpetrators. There were cowards that went along with the perpetrators. There were those who turned a blind eye because they weren’t personally affected. There were heroes.
Oskar Schindler did not set out to be a hero. He was an incredibly morally flawed businessman who saw a money-making opportunity employing Jews desperate for “essential” employment that allowed them to work and trade goods outside the ghetto. The movie portrays that he was not too bothered about their unjust treatment until he witnessed Jews being killed during the purging of the Warsaw Ghetto. All his actions after that moment meet the definition of Biblically shrewd (Matthew 10:16, Luke 16:8).
If you or your friends or family have yet to be affected by hospitalization or death, or inability to get treatment that you need, or vaccine injury, I’m thrilled for your good fortune and pray it does not come to you. I do not, however, want you to remain in your blind ignorance. People are suffering and dying around you. It is past time for evil deeds to come to light, and more heroes to step into their roles.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. Ephesians 5:6-13
Source: Kimberly Milhoan MD Substack
Physicians caution against ‘pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children’
By Yudi Sherman Jul 06, 2022
A group of 76 physicians have penned an open letter to Her Majesty’s government warning against following in the footsteps of the United States, whose Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months.
The letter, posted by world-renowned scientist Dr. Robert Malone, began by saying that the “balance of benefit and risk” in administering the vaccine to small children is “totally inappropriate”, citing the very low risk and very high immunity young children have.
Then the physicians attacked Pfizer’s documentation used to convince the FDA to allow small children to be vaccinated.
To begin with, “the protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.”
Second, no statistical significance was found between the placebo groups and vaccinated groups, and the results were based on only three participants in the younger age group, and seven in the 2-4-year-olds.
Third, the calculated vaccine efficacy is only 15%.
The letter also added that in the immunogenicity studies against Omicron, only 66 children were tested a full month after the third dose.
“It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children,” wrote the physicians. They highlighted other gaps in Pfizer’s research, and noted that countries like Sweden, Holland and Norway are not injecting small children who have had COVID-19.
The meticulously sourced letter cited several studies and data to build a case based on a) the extremely low risk from COVID-19 in young children; b) the vaccine’s low efficacy; c) the potential harms of the vaccines, drawing data from Pfizer’s own study; d) the lack of informed consent which “borders on misinformation”; and e) the effect on public confidence when the government pushes a COVID-19 vaccine instead of those “against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles.”
“Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.”
Furthermore, the “poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer” risks undermining public confidence in regulators and the pharmaceutical industry.
The physicians also took a swipe at the vaccine for older children:
“In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.”
“For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses,” the letter concluded. “Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.”
Over the past several years, the testimony of a previously obscure Soviet defector has grown ever more potent as America unravels into chaos. Should we trust him?
The late Yuri Bezmenov (1939-1993), styled a man who turned his back on the KGB and a “fighter against totalitarianism,” has gained exalted status among independent media commentators and has even found currency in the mainstream. Bezmenov, the son of a Red Army officer and trained in oriental languages, was a journalist for the Soviet news agency Novosti and scored a posting to India in the late 1960s. In 1970 he vanished from the USSR embassy colony disguised as a hippy and made his way to the West, where he would rail against the Soviet system, writing pamphlets like Love Letter to America; No Novosti is Good News; World Thought Police; and Black is Beautiful, Communism is Not.
As a Soviet defector, Bezmenov was readily available to denounce Moscow and the communist menace in Western media outlets. His shining moment, now filtered through a multitude of memes and short clips on social networks, was a 1984 interview with author G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov sold himself to his audience as a former KGB operative and proclaimed that the Soviet Union was applying a Marxist strategy of subversion to undermine the United States from within. It consisted of four stages:
Bezmenov’s analysis and prognostications have since been seized upon by columnists and media personalities as proof of everything from a cultural Marxist drive to take over America to a specifically Russian plot with the same objective. He stars in a trailer for the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops – Cold War as a Cassandra warning of communist subversion. He has also featured in no less than the New York Times’ clumsy “Operation Infektion,” a 2018 video series informing us that Russian intelligence “hacked” the 2016 US presidential elections through disinformation operations.
Few, however, have called into question Bezmenov’s story and his claims, most tellingly his supposed status within the KGB’s First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence). This biographical detail is what made his story sensational, as the defection of a mere Soviet journalist would hardly arouse much interest in the reading public. Yet that’s the hard truth – Bezmenov never served in the KGB.
Yuri Bezmenov was never a KGB staff officer for the First Chief Directorate or any other unit of the Soviet intelligence service. Nor did he ever see the inside of School 101, where future intelligence officers trained, Lubyanka, or the KGB residency in India. Bezmenov was a low-ranking newsman for Novosti who wrote propaganda, and after he switched sides, he plied the same trade on behalf of the Western powers. The KGB may indeed have used him as an informant – to keep an eye on contacts of interest – and for participation in occasional “active measures,” disseminating Soviet narratives and piecemeal disinformation to foreign media. Bezmenov’s position would have allowed for such possibilities. While a certain number of KGB officers would have worked undercover as journalists at Novosti (not the inflated 75% Bezmenov gives), Bezmenov wasn’t one of them.[i]
Bezmenov was also never a wizard of Soviet psychological warfare – he had no entry to the KGB First Chief Directorate’s Service A or the Communist Party’s Central Committee that oversaw its activities. Nor did Bezmenov, self-identified expert on active measures, ever mention Service A’s chief Maj. Gen. Ivan Agayants, or his successor Lt. Gen. Sergei Kondrashev. He demonstrates zero understanding of the strategic purpose of real active measures as practiced by the KGB. His supposed training in tabletop wargames and interrogation would have been part of cursory reserve officer mobilization courses mandatory for Soviet university students throughout the Cold War, not a special program that made Bezmenov a hardened expert in subversion. Indeed, the four-step process of subversion he claimed as a covert Soviet strategy could be gleaned by anyone well-versed in Sun Tzu and practical psychology. Further, Bezmenov provides no evidence of Soviet infiltration of American culture and institutions to advance a complex, globe-spanning campaign to implode the United States, only coarse ideological invective.
What Bezmenov embodies in Cold War espionage history, in exaggerated fashion, is the tendency of defectors to inflate their self-worth through ever-wilder claims. Anatoly Golitsyn, an actual KGB officer who crossed the Iron Curtain a decade before Bezmenov, forged a similar path with tales of a “Monster Plot,” including a false Sino-Soviet split, to deceive America and leave her ripe for conquest. Golitsyn enjoyed the patronage of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence, and his theories were popular among suspicious cold warriors throughout the West.
Today Bezmenov is clearly useful to US media and political elites, and so his assertions of Soviet subversion are dusted off and given a new lease on life. It’s much easier to ascribe the failure and dysfunction of an entire political system to “Kremlin meddling,” or an even older KGB plan just now being realized, than to shine light on the predations of an oligarchic superclass that has misruled America into civilizational breakdown. Anti-communism is a sure hit with the right, and liberals are programmed into a newfound hatred of Russia; each side is manipulated via dialectics in order to further obfuscate the truth and obscure any viable resolution to real cultural, political and economic challenges.
There very well may be a resurrected Bolshevist spirit of subversion present in the current disorder, a phenomenon that infused the Frankfurt School’s transvaluation of all values in the West. In our twenty-first century that spirit animates neither communism, an ideological corpse long-buried, nor the SVR, modern Russia’s intelligence service. Rather, the ruling class itself, with its panoply of media organs, multinationals, academia and government agencies, seems possessed by a force spiraling towards destruction.
In the video game Call of Duty: Black Ops – Cold War, players, briefed by prophet Bezmenov on the Soviet threat to America, are able to choose three options for their character’s gender: male, female, and non-binary. Just who is subverting whom?
To get a handle on the CIA’s extensive use of journalistic cover and media outlets for covert action and psychological warfare, see Carl Bernstein’s 25,000-word 1977 Rolling Stone expose.
Source: Espionage History Archive
The mystery of Lord Victor Rothschild’s (1910-1990) connections to Soviet intelligence has vexed researchers for over a half century now. As the scion of an ultra-wealthy banking house and confidante to Winston Churchill, Rothschild was an influential figure in Britain’s power elite for decades, occupying key positions in counterintelligence, the energy sector and strategic policy planning. But was he also the notorious Cambridge Spy Ring’s “Fifth Man,” a spy for Moscow who could access the crown jewels of UK secrets?
The Cambridge network – consisting of Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Anthony Blunt, and John Cairncross – has gone down in history as one of Soviet secret service’s most successful penetrations, to the shame of the British establishment. Long after their exposure, Rothschild was well-situated as a grey cardinal of UK politics, seemingly untouchable.
In 1994 investigative author Roland Perry wrote The Fifth Man, implicating Rothschild as a Soviet asset based on interviews with anonymous KGB veterans in Moscow. Yet Perry couldn’t obtain the direct proof he needed to clinch the case. Now, new evidence has surfaced, suggesting that if not the Fifth Man, Rothschild was indeed working for Soviet foreign intelligence alongside the Cambridge Five from the 1930’s up to the initial stages of the Cold War. The source is none other than the first chairman of the KGB, General Ivan Aleksandrovich Serov (1905-1991).
Ivan Serov was a physically brave and ruthless NKVD officer who specialized in mass deportations and quelling internal unrest under Stalin. In 1954 he was chosen to head the newly reconstituted state security apparatus, the KGB, by Nikita Khrushchev, who considered Serov reliable from their time in pre-war Ukraine. “Ivan the Terrible,” as the Western press christened him, led the KGB until 1958, when the Politburo sent him to head the GRU, Soviet military intelligence. Ousted in 1963 after the exposure of GRU Colonel Oleg Penkovsky as a CIA-MI6 agent, Serov was soon lowered in rank, excluded from the Party, and forced into retirement. Though relegated to oblivion, the cashiered Kremlin enforcer kept a diary – a fact that was known to the KGB as early as 1971. Serov concealed his writings within the walls of his Moscow dacha’s garage, and they were only discovered in 2012, some two decades after his death.
Serov’s diaries, published in Russian as Notes from the Suitcase (Zapiski iz chemodana), reveal a myriad of details on NKVD wartime deportation operations, the treacherous games played amongst Stalin’s lieutenants, and a first-hand account of how the Red Army crushed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. While Serov was not a professional intelligence officer, some of the most fascinating entries concern the espionage operations that he oversaw as chief of the KGB and GRU. And the question of Lord Victor Rothschild – whether he acted as a Soviet asset – is finally put to rest.
Serov describes meeting Rothschild while accompanying Khrushchev on his April 1956 visit to London:
I met with Victor Rothschild only once, at the embassy. This person was well-known from very long ago as an “heir” to the Philby affair and others. He knew perfectly well that these people, having certain inclinations, were connected to us, and used them to pass on information to Moscow, including false information.
Overall, useful ties with him ended with the formation of Israel.
As you remember, the British government was always against the creation of Israel, while Rothschild, to the contrary, aided this.
All materials on the Palestinian problem in the 1940’s and on the British position were received by our intelligence service in the 1930’s-40’s. After Burgess and Maclean’s escape, he only appeared at official receptions at our embassies and met with the ambassador, Mikoyan or Malenkov.
In London he made an unpleasant impression on me. He didn’t inspire trust. I’ve met many such hustlers in Bessarabia and Romania, as well as in Germany after the war.
The contact, according to the program of the visit and issues for discussions with the British, was interesting, of course. But Rothschild always pursued only his own goals. In his own way, Rothschild also compromised Philby and others. Ties with him put the information passed on by them in doubt.
We were helped by such solid, serious, moral and non-mercenary people who shared our views, such as Bernal, Ivor Montagu, and major scientists. Rothschild was just a fellow traveler.
The ex-chairman of the KGB opens his passage with a stunning claim – Victor Rothschild not only knew of his school friends’ espionage, he actively supplied information to Moscow Center through their network. Back in their Cambridge days, Rothschild, Burgess, and Blunt had all been members of the Apostles, a campus society characterized by Marxist intellectual speculation and homosexual activity. But as Serov makes clear, Rothschild the ‘fellow traveler’ was not under Soviet control. Rather, it is implied he was pursuing another aim entirely – the creation of a Jewish state, a family dream fulfilled in the aftermath of the Second World War. The role of the Rothschilds in founding Israel is undisputed; the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was due largely to the energies of young Victor’s uncle, Lord Walter Rothschild. Secret diplomacy, double-dealing, the use of spies, and even terrorism all formed an indispensable part of the drama. And now Serov’s revelation would suggest that by the end of the 1940’s, the Soviet Union had outlived its utility in the eyes of the legendary financial dynasty.
Stalin had been among the first to support the fledgling State of Israel; after all, the political spectrum of the new nation-state leaned heavily socialist, and a large portion of its immigrants had come from the Eastern Bloc. Armaments from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia helped tip the balance in favor of the Zionist cause during Israel’s War for Independence, what Palestinian Arabs rather less enthusiastically have termed an Naqbah, “The Catastrophe.” At the time of Israel’s formation, the Kremlin believed Ashkenazi settlers, refugees and emigres – some of whom had fought in or alongside the Red Army against Nazi Germany – would deal a blow to Western imperialism in the Middle East. As Serov’s entry indicates, Rothschild and the Cambridge network helped inform the Soviet leadership and perhaps further undermine Britain’s weakening grip on the Palestine Mandate.
Soviet hopes for a red stronghold on the Levant, however, would evaporate quickly. Stalin was in firm command of international communism, but the Zionist movement proved well beyond his grasp. Events from the 1948 assassination of playwright and Jewish Antifascist Committee chair Solomon Mikhoels in Minsk to the Doctors’ Plot show that the “Father of All Nations” was unable to bring Zionism under his control. The postwar purge of prominent Jews in the Soviet Union conformed to Stalin’s standard practice of eliminating any and all perceived potential threats to his rule.
While Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion initially pursued a policy of balance between East and West, he came to steer his country toward the Atlantic alliance – Israel needed a dependable great-power patron with a wealthy and influential Jewish diaspora community, and the United States fit the bill. Less than a generation into Israel’s existence, under the Johnson Administration, Washington and Tel Aviv cemented extensive security cooperation (read: billions in arms contracts and economic aid) that continues to this day.
The Soviets would counter Israel’s westward shift by backing not only the dispossessed Palestinians, but also secular Arab states in the region such as Syria, Egypt, and eventually Iraq. In the context of the Cold War, it made sense for Israel to arrange intelligence sharing with Western powers, especially the United States. The CIA’s pointman for the Israeli relationship throughout the first half of the US-Soviet struggle was Company counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, who happened to be a longtime drinking friend and understudy of none other than Kim Philby.
The demise of the Cambridge Five, beginning with the flight of Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean to Moscow in 1951, roughly coincided with Israel’s gradual but steady integration into the Western camp. Working in Washington as the MI6 liaison, Philby knew from the freshly-decrypted Venona intercepts that Maclean’s career as a Soviet agent (codename “Homer”) was coming to an end. He sent the debauched Burgess, who was also serving at the British Embassy and living in his house at the time, to warn Maclean and facilitate his escape. As it turned out, both Cambridge school mates vanished behind the Iron Curtain, leaving Philby under a dark cloud of suspicion and forcing his resignation. The master spy played it cool, laid low, and eventually made his way to Beirut five years later as an MI6 asset under journalistic cover (additionally re-establishing contact with the KGB).
Philby’s final unmasking in Beirut during the winter of 1962-63 was the result of Rothschild action, a fact that most accounts have passed over without critical analysis. While Anatoly Golitsyn, the KGB major who defected to the CIA in 1961, is popularly attributed to have confirmed Philby’s identity as a Soviet agent, it was Victor Rothschild who sealed his fate. The ostensible reason for the legendary mole’s exposure was his unfavorable attitude toward Israel, as conveyed on the pages of The Observer and The Economist. Flora Solomon, an ardent Zionist whom Philby unsuccessfully had attempted to recruit in the 1930’s, became incensed at his pro-Arab, anti-Israel journalistic slant and decided to reveal what she had known for decades. Solomon, whose son would found Amnesty International, reported Philby to a figure perched high in the British security establishment: Lord Victor Rothschild.
If Serov’s diary is genuine, then Rothschild would have no interest in Philby being brought back to the Old Bailey to stand trial, risking his own exposure. Much better to have the Cambridge Five’s brightest star spirited away to Moscow than spilling secrets of high criminality in the establishment. As MI6 was about to close in with a group of officers headed by old friend Nicholas Elliott, Philby received a warning. Anthony Blunt, his spy days largely behind him and now ensconced as Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures, went to Beirut under the pretext of a botanical excursion in December of 1962, mere weeks before Philby’s escape. The documentary film maker George Carey notes he was ostensibly in search of the frog orchid, a flower that grows wild in England, yet nowhere in Lebanon. So who sent Blunt, the KGB’s London residency or his longtime associate Victor Rothschild?
Moscow Center wouldn’t need to send Anthony Blunt all the way to Beirut to tip his old school friend off to the oncoming danger. Philby was already in contact with his immediate handler, a certain Petukhov stationed nearby under Soviet diplomatic cover, and Yuri Modin, his longtime control officer. Modin had in fact warned him of Golitsyn’s defection in the summer of 1962, instructing him “not to return to Britain because of the danger of arrest, and to make contingency plans for his escape.” Modin himself thought that through its seeming incompetence, MI6 “had actively encouraged him to slip away.” The most powerful elements of the British ruling class, personified by Victor Rothschild, wanted Philby safe and silent behind the Iron Curtain so that higher-level elite treachery would remain hidden from public view.
During his lifetime, Lord Victor Rothschild threatened to sue anyone into penury for claiming he had worked for Soviet intelligence. Hardly would he believe that one day, from the grave, the former chief of the KGB would expose him as a spy.
 Leitch, David. “Rothschild ‘spied as the Fifth Man.’” The Independent, 22 October 1994, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rothschild-spied-as-the-fifth-man-1444440.html.
 Serov, Ivan. Zapiski iz chemodana. Ed. Aleksandr Khinshtein. Moscow: Olma Media Group, 2016, pp. 543-544.
 The late Stanislav Lekarev, a veteran of the KGB First Chief Directorate who had worked in London, claims that Rothschild was first contacted by Soviet intelligence in August of 1934 at a symphony. His recruiter was supposedly the illegal Theodore Mally (“Otto”). Lekarev posits that Rothschild was not an agent in the ordinary operational sense, but rather was handled as a high-level agent of influence.
Lekarev, Stanislav. “Baron Viktor Rotshil’d: Istoriia sponsora kembridzhskoi piaterki.” Argumenty nedeli, 1 Feb. 2007. http://argumenti.ru/espionage/n40/33679.
 Hines, Nico. “How Secret Russian Spy Kim Philby Helped Set Up Israel.” The Daily Beast, 6 May 2017, https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-russian-mole-and-the-fight-for-the-promised-land.
 Shlaim, Avi. “Israel between East and West, 1948-1956.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 36:4, November 2004, 657-673.
 Norton-Taylor, Richard. “Was Philby tipped off before defection to Moscow?” The Guardian, 14 Nov. 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/nov/14/mi6-mi5.
 McIntyre, Ben. A Spy Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal. London: Crown Publishers, 2014, p. 242.
 Ibid, p. 277.
Source: Espionage History Archive
What happens when 3 billion vaccinated people have undiagnosed myocarditis?
Emerald Robinson Jul 12
I went to the nail salon this week, and there was a young women working there who started weeping inconsolably in a corner. I asked the manager what was wrong. “She just lost her mother” was the reply. She had died in her sleep suddenly though she was perfectly healthy.
This last weekend, I had attended the funeral of an old friend. He was perfectly healthy too, and then he got late-stage pancreatic cancer — and he was gone a few months later.
That was the exact same story for another friend. He was healthy as a horse, until he wasn’t — because he too had suddenly developed late-stage pancreatic cancer.
Not to mention a young (and very fit) mother I know who just got a check-up, and was told that she too has suddenly developed aggressive cancer in her early 40s.
The perfectly healthy are getting bad cancers much too frequently now.
The perfectly healthy are dying suddenly.
What all of them shared was being vaccinated.
Steve Kirsch on Substack has conducted a survey (done by a third party) and the results are so disturbing that nobody in the corporate media will touch it.
Ten million Americans have heart injuries.
Ten million Americans had to be hospitalized after taking the vaccines.
Five million Americans can’t work after being vaccinated.
At least 600,000 Americans died after getting vaccinated.
More than 5 billion people have been injected with at least one dose of a COVID vaccine — so if we extrapolate a 6% heart injury/hospitalization rate from the survey, that would mean 300 million people have been effected.
If Dr. Malone is correct and a majority of vaccinated people have undiagnosed myocarditis, that would mean 3 billion people are at serious risk of sudden cardiac death.
You can’t imagine it (and I can’t imagine it ) but if that really happens to even a tenth of 3 billion people in the next few years, then we are talking about a world-altering event.
If you’ve being paying attention on social media — or, most of all, on Substack — then you already know that this man-made disaster was happening on a vast scale because you’ve seen far too many posts of soccer players suddenly collapsing on the field, or young people hooked up to machines at the hospital after getting their first clot shot, just like me.
In fact, mortality rates for young people across Europe are rising dramatically — in yet another sign that the use of the experimental COVID vaccines should be halted immediately.
in europe, many countries are now contra-indicating (or outright barring) covid vaccines for the young and healthy. this graph (with links to sources) from OS may give us a sense as to why…Read more6 days ago · 562 likes · 310 comments · el gato malo
Healthy people are now dying so frequently and suddenly from heart failure that the totally corrupt corporate media has invented names like Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (“SADS”) to account for these obviously vaccine-related deaths.
Suddenly, toddlers are now having seizures after getting vaccinated as well.
As for vaccinated women who are pregnant, they are experiencing miscarriages and still births at much higher rates than in the past.
What has the American medical community done about this catastrophe? They have aided and abetted it the entire way.
They have taken the Big Pharma blood money and the Federal government’s blood money — and they have stayed silent while they injected your friends and family with these deadly vaccines and watched them die.
You know it — and I know it.
When their patients asked for ivermectin to treat COVID, they denied them those prescriptions and treated them like deviants for asking — and they strongly recommended they get vaccinated instead.
When injured people had the audacity to complain about their vaccine injuries, our doctors and nurses gaslighted them, or told them to stay silent, or told them they had no clue why they were having problems.
It’s the most shameful episode in the history of American medicine.
Sudden deaths. Infant seizures. Blood clots. Miscarriages. Heart attacks. Skyrocketing mortality rates. Declining birth rates.
You might think that the COVID virus has gone away, but the global vaccine nightmare has just begun.
I Need Your Support!
Who held the Biden Administration to account for its corruption every day like me?
Independent and fearless journalists need your support like never before.
I need your support like never before.
The corporate media is completely corrupt. Just go down the list: the Russia Hoax, the stolen 2020 election, the deadly COVID vaccines. The corporate media is actively trying to hide the truth from the American people on a daily basis.
If we are going to survive the current regime then we must stand together.
I’ve got your back.
Do you have mine?
Source: Emerald Robinson’s The Right Way
THE DAVOS REVOLUTION AND THE RE-MAKING OF CIVILIZATION
BY CARL TEICHRIB, WITH AUDREY VANDERKLEY
The Great Reset dangles before us: a global public-private partnership that follows the mystic path of social feelings, the holy writ of consensus politics, and the self-anointed prophets of international finance… all watched over by the priests of digital technology. It’s the operating system of the collective New Age, an algorithmic-technocratic revolution – maximum efficiency for managed harmony – and of course, it’s all for the “greater good.”
“A crisis is a productive event.” – Guy Parmelin, President of the Swiss Confederation.
Since the 1970s, the ski-resort community of Davos, Switzerland, has frequently been a gathering place for global elites during the month of January. Hosted by the World Economic Forum, an organization granted special status by the Swiss government, the Davos conference brings together an array of selected power-brokers; governors of central banks, international financiers, heads-of-state, UN leaders, CEOs from the largest corporations, and well-placed media personalities. To be a “Davos Man” typically means you’ve embraced an international perspective, and have the ability to influence long-term shifts in political and economic culture. You’re part of an elite club with the self-anointed task of directing global change.
Because of Covid complications, this year’s WEF annual meeting was postponed, and has since been re-scheduled with the hope of gathering in Singapore later this August. Nevertheless, the last week of January 2021 still witnessed a significant WEF event; a virtual conference titled the Davos Agenda, which could be live-monitored by anyone willing to take the time.
What was front-and-center of this online meeting? The Great Reset.
Before we go further, it’s important to note that this article only scratches the surface of what transpired. And how could it do anything but? The Davos Agenda ran five days, each being 10-to-12 hours long, and with most time slots holding multiple and simultaneous panel discussions. To give you an idea of the schedule, the first day – Monday, January 25 – had a total of 29 individual sessions. It was information overload.
It also must be stated that not everybody who officially participated was on the same page as the World Economic Forum. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a talk outlining how he purposefully cut through the red tape to secure Covid vaccinations, making sure his nation had the supplies it needed. His approach didn’t fit with the WEF consensus of “vaccine solidarity,” to act globally before your national interests – after all, as another speaker explained, “the vaccine needs to be a public good.” The phrase “vaccine nationalism” was used throughout the week, a disparaging term for those who sought national health goals above global collaboration.
Another example was Brazil’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ernesto Araujo, who publicly encouraged the United States to stay the course as the “superpower of freedom.” Araujo went on to say that Brazil desired an open economy based on liberty, noting that this would challenge the global emergence of a rising “techno-totalitarianism.”
“I’m not a great fan of the concept of the Great Reset,” Araujo stated, explaining that while he generally supported ideas like sustainable development, there was a problem. The Great Reset was missing “freedom and democracy.”
Most others, however, were either on-board or otherwise playing the game.
President of China, Xi Jinping – introduced by Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF – stressed collaborative action; we must create a new and global economic model, we must “abandon ideological prejudice and jointly follow a path of peaceful coexistence,” and we must bring “prosperity for all.” A “shared future for mankind,” he explained, is necessary. This would include strengthening global economic governance, committing to the UN system of world law, and supporting the World Health Organization as they build “a global community of health for all.” But who will lead the way?
The rest of his speech focused on how China, as a “modern socialist country,” is blazing the trail, including the Belt and Road initiative, and the promotion of a “new type of international relations.” His speech wrapped up with words of solidarity,
“There is only one Earth and one shared future for humanity. As we cope with the current crisis and endeavor to make a better day for everyone, we need to stand united and work together. We have been shown time and again that to beggar thy neighbor, to go it alone, and to slip into arrogant isolation will always fail. Let us all join hands and let multilateralism light our way toward a community with a shared future for mankind.”
Klaus responded by thanking Xi Jinping for “such an important speech, which at this crucial movement in history, provides us with a truly comprehensive framework for shaping the future.”
China was often applauded during the Davos Agenda, being admired for its digital leap forward. But there were some concerns, albeit framed through a globalist worldview.
For example, a few hours after the Chinese leader spoke, the UN Secretary General pointed to the growing rift between China and the United States, noting that both countries were dividing the world with their separate agendas. What was needed, he said, was “one global economy with universal respect for international law.”
Another star performance was from Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission. It only took a few minutes before she slapped the former Trump administration, saying, “democracy itself might have been permanently damaged in the last four years.” And like others throughout the week, she linked Covid with climate change. Ursula was clear; “We must learn from this crisis. We have to change the way we live and do business.”
Her speech pointed to Europe’s very own Green New Deal, the EU’s push for carbon neutrality by 2050, and how private companies will face stronger regulatory diligence. Regarding digital governance – for it’s vital that online platforms curb fake news while affirming democracy – Ursula called for the United States to join the EU and, together, create a worldwide digital rulebook “based on our values.”
All of the above – like the early pandemic collaboration between the EU, the WEF and the Gates Foundation – represents how “Europe is determined to contribute to this global common good.” At the end of her prepared talk, she affirmed to Schwab that new alliances will be necessary: “This is what we will work for – and I know I can count on you and the World Economic Forum to help us build it.”
Schwab was excited, afterwards saying that this speech represented the practical meaning of the Great Reset. He paraphrased a take-away; what we need is a “values based, social governance system” connected through a digital web.
With the Reset in mind, the Davos Agenda focused on seven interlocking subjects: “How to Save the Planet,” “Fairer Economies,” “Tech for Good,” “Society & Future of Work,” “Better Business,” “Healthy Futures,” and “Beyond Geopolitics.” A mountain of talking points emerged from these encompassing themes. However, we will only highlight a few:
1. Covid: Speaking on the pandemic, Li Xin of China-based Caixin Media, told us this “crisis should not be wasted.” Nor was it. We were constantly reminded that Covid revealed our interdependence while pointing to the problem of nationalism. Old values and conventions no longer work; the global supply chain needs to be digitized, the World Health Organization must be empowered, we need a universal healthcare system, there must be a centralizing program to pool national health data, and economic recovery should be tied to vaccination criteria.
“You’re going to need the vaccine year-after-year-after-year,” we were told.
2. Climate: If Covid was our existential crisis, climate is our planetary emergency. And in order to meet this supposed planetary challenge, the world must pursue a significant reduction in carbon emissions, all the way to net zero by 2050 at the latest. This requires nothing less than a complete overhaul of energy production, the transportation sector, all industry and especially agriculture, and our personal behavior.
Net-zero isn’t an abstract exercise. New Zealand and the United Kingdom have already passed legislation binding them to net-zero by 2050, and similar proposals are on the table in Canada, South Korea, and the European Union. Moreover, the Group of Thirty – a high-level consultative body comprised of the most influential figures in central banking and international financing, many with WEF connections – is pushing for net-zero across the spectrum of global economic activity.  In the United States, just a few days after Davos, the National Academies released their decarbonization report – “a technical blueprint and policy manual” – thus creating a roadmap for net-zero by mid-century.  And yes, there are working links between the Academies and the WEF.
So it was no surprise that on January 27 – day three of the Davos Agenda – John Kerry, President Biden’s Special Envoy for Climate, reminded the WEF audience how his government is “making climate central to foreign policy planning and national security preparedness.” Kerry explained that “a zero emissions future” will bring new opportunities for green growth: “To use the President’s words, to ‘build back better’ from the global economic crisis.”
Kerry reinforced that climate is everybody’s responsibility: “The whole world has to come to this table to solve the problem.”
3. Social Justice: An inclusive world for all was the mantra – unless, of course, you’re not in agreement with the global consensus. Nevertheless, social justice themes are directly bolted to the framework of the Great Reset. From racial issues to gender claims, social justice leaves its mark. However, a range of other justices needs to be considered, such as eco-justice, climate justice, and vaccine justice. Each of these justice-issues were attached, in some measure, to the Reset structure that was unfolding.
In the panel on creating a New Social Contract, economic justice was front-and-center. A Global Social Protection Fund must come into play, pairing international debt relief to a universal social-economy of “Living Wages and Living Communities.” On the same panel, James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola, described how his company is addressing social justice by fashioning an internal, racial/social economic ecosystem. More than that, industry-leading corporations must influence smaller companies to follow suit, especially those in their supply chains. Entire sectors need to re-align their economic models to social justice priorities, and that’s the essence of Stakeholder Capitalism.
4. Stakeholder Capitalism: Unlike shareholder capitalism shaped by company owners and direct market forces, stakeholder capitalism takes a social approach. Since the early 1970s, Schwab has been an advocate of the stakeholder model. Back then it was mainly geared to incorporating labor, union, and government interests in corporate decision-making. Today, Schwab is aggressively pushing a grander vision – capitalism in service to the planet while supporting social causes.
In a WEF article released a few days before the Davos Agenda, Schwab wrote,
“The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.
The same interconnectedness can be observed for the people who live on the planet… it is incumbent on all of us as global citizens to optimize the well-being of all.”
In other words, capitalism bends to the demands of special interest groups and “green government.” Corporations, industries and sectors – including financial institutions – must shift their business models to appreciate and accelerate these new global norms.
How will this be ascertained?
In September 2020, the WEF released its White Paper, Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism, which envisioned a common standard for “sustainable value creation.” What emerged was a set of principles and benchmarks coalescing around three headings: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). As a whole, the ESG framework is to dovetail with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. To put it in acronym parlance, the ESG process is the WEF mechanism to achieve the SDGs.
Upholding the ESG are four pillars: Governance, Planet, People, and Prosperity. Supporting these four categories are 21 core metrics, along with 34 expanded metrics to enable a deeper audit – for that is essentially what’s happening, an audit to ensure compliance and cooperation. Hence, each metric acts as an information node in a detailed review process, and in using this tool, businesses and institutions can measure their purpose and behavior, taking into account environmental issues and social expectations.
Does the board have gender and minority representation? Has it taken climate risk into consideration, and what internal policies are being implemented to achieve net-zero? How much land does the company own, and what is its relationship to key biodiversity areas? Wage and age and gender employment categories, healthcare support, collective agreements, water consumption, community investment and taxation levels; the list is long, incorporating financial details, energy usage, supply chain relationships, waste disposal, lobbying efforts, social ethics and diversity indicators, and on and on.
The trajectory of corporate governance, therefore, will no longer be “business as usual.” Governance, rather, will need to solicit and incorporate input from approving stakeholders, including special interest groups, unions and labor associations, government departments, and international agencies. In other words, stakeholder capitalism is a planetary public-private partnership that hinges on social license.
After the ESG process is complete and satisfactory, your “purpose driven company” will be certified within a global ecosystem of regulators and industry associations. This status will be the key to unlocking investment funds, favorable insurance pricing, and positive consumer recognition. Without achieving ESG benchmarks, however, your business may be cut off from licensing, funding sources, supply chains, government contracts, or marketplace access. Presently, ESG exists as screening criteria used by some investors, but the WEF agenda extends into a wider and more permanent realm.
So long as your business is complying with the global narrative, your company can make money. Those who don’t play ball will be pushed out of the game.
Welcome to “corporate cancel culture.”
5. Digitization: Nothing short of a total, global commitment will suffice if we want to save the planet, or so the narrative goes. Therefore, we need powerful new tools to manage our way forward. Digitization becomes the tie that binds, and data the lifeblood of our new technocratic era.
In this not-too futuristic vision, the information collected from our lifestyle choices will be aggregated, analyzed, and used to modify behaviors for planetary outcomes. One of the Davos themes was “Smart Cities,” noting that urban zones are rich information ecosystems. Here’s an emerging possibility: In our “smart cities,” street-based sensors will talk to smart cars, and payment apps will be notified of your movement, automatically deducting carbon taxes or travel credits from your account. It’s hardly far-fetched.
The overall trajectory is deeper integration with Artificial Intelligence, Central Bank Digital Currencies, universal healthcare data networks, smart supply chains, and more automation. Even greater feats are before us: through blockchain technologies, everything that can be cataloged has the potential to become a numerically assigned asset. Therefore, the life-cycle of anything can be theoretically traced, from raw resource to manufacturer to point-of-consumption. You, too, can become a number in the age of “managed harmony.”
What is not harmonious, however, is contrary thinking and behavior – anything unaligned with approved global narratives. Conservative values, national determination and traditional notions of sovereignty, personal rights attached to private property: If such concepts and beliefs are antithetical to the Great Reset, then they are part of the great problem.
On the last day, US Senator Gillibrand called for accountability regarding right-wing news outlets. More than that, she stressed the need for oversight of social media platforms, holding them to account for allowing right-wing messages to proliferate. She then affirmed these positions by appealing to her faith; that we need to love one another.
For conservative Christians, the idea of the Great Reset strikes at something deeper than talking points. The real question becomes one of salvation. Who ultimately saves the world? Is Jesus Christ our messiah, or does collective humanity redeem itself by saving the planet? It appears we are at a Romans 1 crossroad, faced with the question of worshiping and serving the creation, or the Creator.
And thus, the Reset dangles before us: a global public-private partnership that follows the mystic path of social feelings, the holy writ of consensus politics, and the prophets of international finance… all watched over, and guided by, the priests of technology. It’s the operating system of the collective New Age, an algorithmic-technocratic revolution – maximum efficiency for managed harmony – and of course, it’s all for the “greater good.”
Maybe the concerns expressed by Brazil’s Foreign Minister – the looming dangers of a rising techno-totalitarianism – are worth considering.
Carl Teichrib is the author of Game of Gods: The Temple of Man in the Age of Re-Enchantment. Excerpts of his book may be read at http://www.gameofgods.ca, and his research reports can be found at http://www.forcingchange.org. Audrey Vanderkley is the admin at Remnant Online Fellowship, http://www.remnantonlinefellowship.org, which exists to connect people to relevant Christian resources on Bible prophecy and worldview issues.
1. Mainstreaming the Transition to a Net-Zero Economy (Group of Thirty, 2020).
2. Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System (National Academies of Sciences, Engineers, and Medicine, 2021).
3. Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism: Towards Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation (World Economic Forum, 2020).
DR. MICHAEL NEVRADAKIS JUNE 21ST, 2017
ATHENS (Analysis)– Day by day, we’re moving towards a brave new world where every transaction is tracked, every purchase is recorded, the habits and preferences of everyone noted and analyzed. What I am describing is the “cashless society,” where plastic and electronic money are king, while banknotes and coins are abolished.
“Progress” is, after all, deemed to be a great thing. In a recent discussion, I observed on an online message board regarding gentrification in my former neighborhood of residence in Queens, New York, the closure of yet another longtime local business was met by one user with a virtual shrug: “Who needs stores when you have Amazon?”
This last quote is, of course, indicative of the brick-and-mortar store, at least in its familiar form. In December 2016, Amazon launched a checkout-free convenience store in Seattle—largely free of employees, but also free of cash transactions, as purchases are automatically charged to one’s Amazon account. “Progress” is therefore cast as the abolition of currency, and the elimination of even more jobs, all in the name of technological progress and the “convenience” of saving a few minutes of waiting at the checkout counter.
Still insist on being old-fashioned and stuck behind the times, preferring to visit brick-and-mortar stores and paying in cash? You may very well be a terrorist! Pay for your coffee or your visit to an internet cafe with cash? Potential terrorist, according to the FBI. Indeed, insisting on paying with cash is, according to the United States Department of Homeland Security, “suspicious and weird.”
The European Union, ever a force for positive change and progress, also seems to agree. The non-elected European Commission’s “Inception Impact Assessment” warns that the anonymity of cash transactions facilitates “money laundering” and “terrorist financing activities.” This point of view is shared by such economists as the thoroughly discredited proponent of austerity Kenneth Rogoff, Lawrence Summer (a famed deregulator, as well as eulogizer of the “godfather” of austerity Milton Friedman), and supposed anti-austerity crusader Joseph Stiglitz, who told fawning participants at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year that the United States should do away with all currency.
Logically, of course, the next step is to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of a very small criminal population and for the failures of law enforcement to curb such activities. The EU plans to accomplish this through the exploration of upper limits on cash payments, while it has already taken the step of abolishing the 500-euro banknote.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which day after day is busy “saving” economically suffering countries such as Greece, also happens to agree with this brave new worldview. In a working paper titled “The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing,” which the IMF claims does not necessarily represent its official views, the fund nevertheless provides a blueprint with which governments around the world could begin to phase out cash. This process would commence with “initial and largely uncontested steps” (such as the phasing out of large-denomination bills or the placement of upper limits on cash transactions). This process would then be furthered largely by the private sector, providing cashless payment options for people’s “convenience,” rather than risk popular objections to policy-led decashing. The IMF, which certainly has a sterling track record of sticking up for the poor and vulnerable in society, comforts us by saying that these policies should be implemented in ways that would augment “economic and social benefits.”
THE IMF’S GREEK EXPERIMENT IN AUSTERITY
These suggestions, which of course the IMF does not necessarily officially agree with, have already begun to be implemented to a significant extent in the IMF debt colony known officially as Greece, where the IMF has been implementing “socially fair and just” austerity policies since 2010, which have resulted, during this period, in a GDP decline of over 25 percent, unemployment levels exceeding 28 percent, repeated cuts to what are now poverty-level salaries and pensions, and a “brain drain” of over 500,000 people—largely young and university-educated—migrating out of Greece.
Indeed, it could be said that Greece is being used as a guinea pig not just for a grand neoliberal experiment in both austerity, but de-cashing as well. The examples are many, and they have found fertile ground in a country whose populace remains shell-shocked by eight years of economic depression. A new law that came into effect on January 1 incentivizes going cashless by setting a minimum threshold of spending at least 10 percent of one’s income via credit, debit, or prepaid card in order to attain a somewhat higher tax-free threshold.
Beginning July 27, dozens of categories of businesses in Greece will be required to install aptly-acronymized “POS” (point-of-sale) card readers and to accept payments by card. Businesses are also required to post a notice, typically by the entrance or point of sale, stating whether card payments are accepted or not. Another new piece of legislation, in effect as of June 1, requires salaries to be paid via direct electronic transfers to bank accounts. Furthermore, cash transactions of over 500 euros have been outlawed.
In Greece, where in the eyes of the state citizens are guilty even if proven innocent, capital controls have been implemented preventing ATM cash withdrawals of over 840 euros every two weeks. These capital controls, in varying forms, have been in place for two years with no end in sight, choking small businesses that are already suffering.
Citizens have, at various times, been asked to collect every last receipt of their expenditures, in order to prove their income and expenses—otherwise, tax evasion is assumed, just as ownership of a car (even if purchased a decade or two ago) or an apartment (even if inherited) is considered proof of wealth and a “hidden income” that is not being declared. The “heroic” former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis had previously proposed a cap of cash transactions at 50 or 70 euros on Greek islands that are popular tourist destinations, while also putting forth an asinine plan to hire tourists to work as “tax snitches,” reporting businesses that “evade taxes” by not providing receipts even for the smallest transactions.
All of these measures, of course, are for the Greeks’ own good and are in the best interest of the country and its economy, combating supposedly rampant “tax evasion” (while letting the biggest tax evaders off the hook), fighting the “black market” (over selling cheese pies without issuing a receipt, apparently), and of course, nipping “terrorism” in the bud.
As with the previous discussion I observed about Amazon being a satisfactory replacement for the endangered brick-and-mortar business, one learns a lot from observing everyday conversations amongst ordinary citizens. A recent conversation I personally overheard while paying a bill at a public utility revealed just how successful the initial and largely uncontested steps enacted in Greece have been.
In the line ahead of me, an elderly man announced that he was paying his water bill by debit card, “in order to build towards the tax-free threshold.” When it was suggested to him that the true purpose of encouraging cashless payments was to track every transaction, even for a stick of gum, and to transfer all money into the banking system, he and one other elderly gentleman threw a fit, claiming “there is no other way to combat tax evasion.”
The irony that they were paying by card to avoid taxation themselves was lost on them—as is the fact that the otherwise fiscally responsible Germany, whose government never misses an opportunity to lecture the “spendthrift” and “irresponsible” Greeks, has the largest black market in Europe (exceeding 100 billion euros annually), ranks first in Europe in financial fraud, is the eighth-largest tax haven worldwide, and one of the top tax-evading countries in Europe.
Also lost on these otherwise elderly gentlemen was a fact not included in the official propaganda campaign: Germans happen to love their cash, as evidenced by the fierce opposition that met a government plan to outlaw cash payments of 5,000 euros or more. In addition, about 80 percent of transactions in Germany are still conducted in cash. The German tabloid Bild went as far as to publish an op-ed titled “Hands off our cash” in response to the proposed measure.
GLOBAL POWERS JUMPING ON CASHLESS BANDWAGON
Nevertheless, a host of other countries across Europe and worldwide have shunned Germany’s example, instead siding with the IMF and Stiglitz. India, one of the most cash-reliant countries on earth, recently eliminated 86 percent of its currency practically overnight, with the claimed goal, of course, of targeting terrorism and the “black market.” The real objective of this secretly planned measure, however, was to starve the economy of cash and to drive citizens to electronic payments by default.
Other examples of cashlessness abound in Europe. Cash transactions in Sweden represent just 3 percent of the national economy, and most banks no longer hold banknotes. Similarly, many Norwegian banks no longer issue cash, while the country’s largest bank, DNB, has called upon the public to cease using cash. Denmark has announced a goal of eliminating banknotes by 2030. Belgium has introduced a 3,000-euro limit on cash transactions and 93 percent of transactions are cashless. In France, the respective percentage is 92 percent, and cash transactions have been limited to 1,000 euros, just as in Spain. Outside of Europe, cash is being eliminated even in countries such as Somalia and Kenya, while South Korea—itself no stranger to IMF intervention in its economy—has, similarly to Greece, implemented preferential tax policies for consumers who make payments using cards.
Aside from policy changes, practical everyday examples also exist in abundance. Just try to purchase an airline ticket with cash, for instance. It remains possible—but is also said to raise red flags. In many cases, renting an automobile or booking a hotel room with cash is simply not possible. The aforementioned Department of Homeland Security manual considers any payment with cash to be “suspicious behavior”—as one clearly has something to hide if they do not wish to be tracked via electronic payment methods. Ownership of gold makes the list of suspicious activities as well.
Just as the irony of Germany being a largely cash-based society while pushing cashless policies in its Greek protectorate is lost on many Greeks, what is lost on seemingly almost everyone is this: something that is new doesn’t necessarily represent progress, nor does something different. Something that is seemingly easier, or more convenient, is not necessarily progress either. But for many, “technological progress,” just like “scientific innovation” in all its forms and without exception, has attained an aura of infallibility, revered with religious-like fervor.
This is evident, for instance, in the case of “LuxLeaks,” which revealed the names of dozens of corporations benefiting from favorable tax rulings and tax avoidance schemes in Luxembourg, one of the original founding members of the EU. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, formerly the prime minister of Luxembourg, has faced repeated accusations of impeding EU investigations into corporate tax avoidance scandals during his 18-year term as prime minister. Juncker has defended Luxembourg’s tax arrangements as legal.
At the same time, Juncker has shown no qualms in criticizing Apple’s tax avoidance deal in Ireland as “illegal,” while having been accused himself of helping large multinationals such as Amazon and Pepsi avoid taxes. Moreover, he has openly claimed that Greece’s Ottoman roots are responsible for modern-day tax evasion in the country. He has not hesitated to unabashedly intervene in Greek electoral contests, calling on Greeks to avoid the “wrong outcome” in the January 2015 elections (where the supposedly anti-austerity SYRIZA, which has since proven to be boldly pro-austerity, were elected).
He also urged the Greek electorate to vote “yes” (in favor of more EU-proposed austerity) in the July 2015 referendum—where the overwhelming result in favor of “no” was itself overturned by SYRIZA within a matter of days. In the European Union today, if there’s something that can be counted on, it’s the blatant hypocrisy of its leaders. Nevertheless, proving that old habits of collaborationism die hard in Greece, the rector of the law school of the state-owned Aristotle University in Thessaloniki awarded Juncker with an honorary doctorate for his contribution to European political and legal values.
CASHLESS POLICIES BODE POORLY FOR THE FUTURE
Where does all this lead though? What does a cashless economy actually mean and why are global elites pushing so fervently for it? Consider the following: in a cashless economy without coins or banknotes, every transaction is tracked. Buying and spending habits are monitored, and it is not unheard of for credit card companies to cancel an individual’s credit or to lower their credit rating based on real or perceived risks ranging from shopping at discount stores to purchasing alcoholic beverages. Indeed, this is understood to be common practice. Other players are entering the game too: in late May, Google announced plans to track credit and debit card transactions.
More to the point though, a cashless economy doesn’t just mean that financial institutions, large corporations, or the state itself can monitor all transactions that are occurring. It also means that the entirety of the money supply—itself now existing only in “virtual” form—will belong to the banking system. Not one cent will exist outside of the banking system, as physical currency will simply not be in circulation. The banking system—and others—will be aware not just of every transaction, but will be in possession of all of our society’s money supply, and will even have the ability to receive a percentage of every transaction that is taking place.
So what happens if your spending habits or your choice of travel destinations raises “red flags”? What happens if you run into hard times economically and miss a few payments? What happens if you are deemed to be a political dissident or liability – perhaps an “enemy of the state”? Freezing a bank account or confiscating funds from accounts can take place almost instantaneously. Users of eBay and PayPal, for instance, are quite aware of the ease with which PayPal can confiscate funds from a user’s account based simply on a claim filed against that individual.
Simply forgetting one’s password to an online account can set off an aggravating flurry of calls in order to prove that your money is your own—and that’s without considering the risks of phishing and of online databases being compromised. Many responsible credit card holders found that their credit cards were suddenly canceled in the aftermath of the “Great Recession” simply due to perceived risk. And if you happen to be an individual deemed to be “dangerous,” you can be effectively and easily frozen out of the economy.
Those thinking that the “cashless revolution” will also herald the return of old-style bartering and other communal economic schemes might also wish to reconsider that line of thinking. In the United States, for instance, bartering transactions are considered taxable by the Internal Revenue Service. As more and more economic activity of all sorts takes place online, the tax collector will have an easier time detecting such activity. Thinking of teaching your child to be responsible with finances? That too will have a cost, as even lemonade stands have been targeted for “operating without a permit.” It’s not far-fetched to imagine that particularly overzealous government authorities could also target such activity for “tax evasion.”
In Greece, while oligarchs get to shift their money to offshore tax havens without repercussion and former Finance Minister Gikas Hardouvelis has been acquitted for failure to submit a declaration of assets, where major television and radio stations operate with impunity without a valid license while no new players can enter the marketplace and where ordinary households and small businesses are literally being taxed to death, police in August 2016 arrested a father of three with an unemployed spouse for selling donuts without a license and fined him 5,000 euros. In another incident, an elderly man selling roasted chestnuts in Thessaloniki was surrounded by 15 police officers and arrested for operating without a license.
Amidst this blatant hypocrisy, governments and financial institutions love electronic money for another reason, aside from the sheer control that it affords them. Studies, including one conducted by the American Psychological Association, have shown that paying with plastic (or, by extension, other non-physical forms of payment) encourage greater spending, as the psychological sensation of a loss when making a payment is disconnected from the actual act of purchasing or conducting a transaction.
But ultimately, the elephant in the room is whether the banking system even should be entrusted with the entirety of the monetary supply. The past decade has seen the financial collapse of 2008, the crumbling of financial institutions such as Lehman Brothers in the United States and a continent-wide banking crisis in Europe, which was the true objective behind the “bailouts” of countries such as Greece—saving European and American banks exposed to “toxic” bonds from these nations. Italy’s banking system is currently teetering on dangerous ground, while the Greek banking system, already recapitalized three times since the onset of the country’s economic crisis, may need yet another taxpayer-funded recapitalization. Even the virtual elimination of cash in Iceland did not prevent the country’s banking meltdown in 2008.
Should we entrust the entirety of the money supply to these institutions? What happens if the banking system experiences another systemic failure? Who do you trust more: yourself or institutions that have proven to be wholly irresponsible and unaccountable in their actions? The answer to that question should help guide the debate as to whether society should go cashless.
By Cassandra Fairbanks July 5, 2022
The taxpayer watchdog organization American Transparency has revealed that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases spent nearly $500,000 to try and turn monkeys transgender.
According to the report, “Fauci’s agency awarded grants totaling $478,188 in Fiscal Years 2021 and 2022 to inject hormones into male monkeys to make them female.”
The experiments were said to be an effort to understand why transgender “women” experience higher rates of HIV.
“Scientists planned to evaluate how the injected hormones altered the males’ immune systems to determine if feminizing hormones had an adverse effect on the strength of immune systems. If so, researchers believed this weakening of the immune system could be responsible for their increased likelihood of becoming HIV positive,” the National Pulse reported.
According to a report from the Daily Telegraph, Fauci has been linked to research injecting monkeys with HIV dating back to the mid-1980s.
The National Institutes of Health spends millions breeding monkeys for experimentation on an island in South Carolina.
As this reporter previously wrote for Timcast, approximately 600 monkeys are taken from Morgan Island per year and shipped to some of the federal government’s most painful and cruel laboratories for animal research.
As of June 30, 2019, there were 3,044 primates living on Morgan Island, with 77% of the population being females, according to documents obtained by White Coat Waste Project through a Freedom of Information Act request. It is estimated that approximately 750 newborn monkeys are born on the island to await their potential use for vivisection each year.
“The island is currently owned by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and leased by Charles River Laboratories, Inc., as part of a contract with NIAID. The nonhuman primates raised on Morgan Island are owned by NIAID,” NIAID confirmed in their email to Timcast.
According to federal spending databases, a total of $13.5 million of a potential $27.5 million contract has been given to Charles River Laboratories to maintain the monkey island colony since March 2018. A sizable chunk of those funds, $8.9 million, was paid by Dr. Fauci’s division (NIAID) of the NIH.
“Primate experimentation is a cruel and notoriously unreliable way to develop drugs and treatments for humans, and it doesn’t deserve taxpayers’ support,” Stacy Lopresti-Goodman, PhD., primate expert, Marymount University psychology professor and WCW scientific adviser told Timcast.
Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948
© ICCforum.com, 2010–2022. All rights reserved.
The Contracting Parties,
Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world;
Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity; and
Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,
Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religions group, as such:
(a)Killing members of the group;
(b)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d)Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e)Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The following acts shall be punishable:
(b)Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c)Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d)Attempt to commit genocide;
(e)Complicity in genocide.
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
The present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9 December 1948.
The present Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for signature on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign bas been addressed by the General Assembly.
The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
After 1 January 1950 the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State which bas received an invitation as aforesaid.
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, extend the application of the present Convention to all or any of the territories for the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.
On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the Secretary-General shall draw up a proces-verbal and transmit a copy thereof to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in article XI.
The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the ninetieth day following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession.
The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force.
It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such Contracting Parties as have not denounced it at least six months before the expiration of the current period.
Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations shall become effective.
A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General.
The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the non-member States contemplated in article XI of the following:
(a)Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with article XI;
(b)Notifications received in accordance with article XII;
(c)The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with article XIII;
(d)Denunciations received in accordance with article XIV;
(e)The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with article XV;
(f)Notifications received in accordance with article XVI.
The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to each Member of the United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in article XI.
The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the date of its coming into force.
Source : ICCforum © ICCforum.com, 2010–2022. All rights reserved.