quarta-feira, 8 de abril de 2020

Technocratic Agenda Dominates COVID-19 Panic

Written by Jacob Nordangard

«(…) The plan — entitled Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 — would entrust the UN (or another globalist entity yet to be named) with approximately $8.7 trillion, which it would supposedly use to fight and eradicate the coronavirus and address other problems that have resulted from the virus.

The UN’s current budget is approximately $3 billion. The $8.7 trillion would be 2,900 times greater than its current budget.

The plan calls for a massive global stimulus in order to “restore confidence in the future.”

“The global nature of the economic shock we are facing, with simultaneous collapses in both supply and demand, calls for the first truly global fiscal stimulus in history,” the plan states.

Needless to say, it also calls for a massive redistribution of the planet’s wealth.

“To be effective, the stimulus package will need to focus on direct and targeted transfer of resources to the most vulnerable households and scaling up health emergency preparedness, social protection, tax abatement, low interest rates, access to credit, insurance and wage support schemes. Support must be provided to countries that lack capacity to implement these measures.”

Among the measures in the plan is to give approximately $100 billion to the World Health Organization, whose director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was complicit in the spread of the virus by continually repeating Communist Chinese talking points, including the farcical claim in January that COVID-19 was not transmissible to humans.

Money from the fund will also be used to pay specific “attention to continued delivery of sexual reproductive health services, such as access to contraceptives without prescription during the crisis.” As “reproductive health services” is a globalist euphemism for abortion, the folks at Planned Parenthood should be happy.

To Guterres, the Chinese virus represents a turning point in human history and a chance to truly implement the UN’s 2030 Agenda and also put some teeth in the Paris Climate Accord of 2015.

“And when we get past this crisis, we will face a choice — go back to the world we knew before or deal decisively with those issues that make us all unnecessarily vulnerable to this and future crises. Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal and inclusive societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change, and the many other challenges we face,” the plan states.

“We already know what we need to do. It is laid out in the global road map for the future — the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

The UN is not the only entity to take an interest in a globalist response to the coronavirus. The World Economic Forum has presented a strategic intelligence overview of the COVID-19 that is so layered, so intricate, and so complex that it is hard to believe it could have been created in the scant weeks since the pandemic was declared.

An interactive graph details COVID-19’s impact on financial markets, travel, trade, global workforces, and the various healthcare issues such as vaccinations and halting the spread of the disease.

It’s almost as if these plans preexisted the Chinese virus — as if the plans were waiting for the just the right crisis in order to be unveiled.

Guterres and the UN are asking for the entire solar system, perhaps in hopes of being granted the moon. We have to be vigilant and make certain that they are not granted that moon or even a small asteroid to rule over.

The best way to remove the criminal influence of the UN is to remove the United States from its membership roll.»

James Murphy («United Nations Wants 10 Percent of World's Income to Fight COVID-19», in The New American, 03 April 2020).

See here and here

See here

See here

«(...) In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document. They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government. The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19. Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership. Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

What is meant by the term “sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources. Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress.

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment. There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19. In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document.

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery. They never discuss incompetence and corruption, twin brothers in the family of venality. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity despite the daily evidence of the selfishness, corruption, murderous intents, devilish manipulations, thefts, personal immoralities, hatreds, and utter depravity of many governmental leaders in every country in the world, and among the leaders of business as well. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers...»

E. Jeffrey Ludwig («The UN Wants to be Our World Government By 2030», in American Thinker, October 27, 2018).

«Footage from a Walmart parking lot shows a surveillance tower fitted with speakers encouraging shoppers to follow the CDC guidelines and to observe social distancing.

In something out of 1984, a monotone male voice blares from the tower telling shoppers to wash their hands and remember to keep distance away from others.

“Please remember to wash your hands often, stay home if you are sick, and practice good social separation of at least 6 feet when possible,” the voice says.

“Loitering inside or outside of the store is strictly prohibited. Thank you for choosing Walmart.”

The social engineering practices emerging from the coronavirus outbreak is becoming ridiculous.

For example, a paddle boarder was arrested in California for flouting the coronavirus closure orders – despite the fact he was the only man in the water with no people anywhere around him.

And a woman was arrested in New York for failing to observe social distancing rules — and spent the next 36 hours packed in a cell with two dozen other women.

These lockdown rules are more about the exercise of power than about keeping the American people safe.»


«Despite leaving its economy open, Brazil has a lower mortality rate (deaths per million) than the United States, which completely shut down its economy under the advisement of the Center for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health to combat the coronavirus outbreak.

The U.S. has had over 8,500 deaths from coronavirus, and 6.6 million Americans have filed for unemployment benefits in the wake of the economic standstill.

Meanwhile, Brazil has had 405 deaths and is still economically viable.

According to the Worldometer, that means:

The U.S. has had 26 deaths per million people, while Brazil has had 2 deaths per million people.

Similarly, Sweden has also kept its economy open, and its mortality rate is only slightly higher than the U.S., with 37 deaths per million people.

This data suggests the U.S. could have kept its economy open while combating the coronavirus, as the mortality rate would likely been approximately the same, maybe even lower.

But shutting down the economy is exactly what the establishment wanted to create the maximum pain ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

President Trump repeatedly stressed that he wants to reopen the economy as soon as possible.

“We want to finish this war,” said Trump Saturday during a White House briefing. “We have to get back to work.”

“We have to open our country again,” he said. “We don’t want to be doing this for months and months and months.”»


«(...) Abolish privacy 

As coronavirus-related legislation peels back the privacy protections once enshrined in law, some activists believe we should dispense with this antiquated notion altogether and just embrace the microchip. Bill Gates has been an enthusiastic promoter of the idea, casually bringing it up during a Reddit ‘Ask Me Anything’ in response to an unrelated question. The Microsoft billionaire-turned-‘philanthropist’ responded to a question about how governments might decide what businesses are “essential” during a crisis by suggesting the use of “digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.” Whoa there, buddy. Gates has funded research into “quantum-dot tattoos” that simultaneously vaccinate and leave a record of the vaccination, allowing recipients of the shot to be identified as such after the fact. He also backs the ID2020 initiative, which late last year announced plans to implant biometric ID technology in babies born in Bangladesh and homeless people in Austin, Texas. Articles about the dystopian initiative recently had a disclaimer slapped on warning that the program is “not [intended] to track individuals, as claimed by some conspiracy theorists.” Gee, that’s a relief!

See here

Meanwhile, multiple tech companies, including Google, the surveillance state cheerleaders at Palantir, and (reportedly) the global mobile phone industry itself are at various stages of rolling out programs to track the spread of coronavirus using location data collected from people’s phones. The data is supposedly anonymized, but given tech companies’ abysmal history of paying lip service to privacy while feeding users’ data to government agencies – to say nothing of catastrophic leaks – I think we can be forgiven for urging caution before rushing headlong into this particular Brave New World.

Abolish the family 

The coronavirus crisis is unprecedented in the amount of disruption it has caused, and outlandish manifestos are to be expected. But the call to abolish the family ‘because coronavirus’, published by OpenDemocracy, is in a class by itself. The writer, Sophie Lewis, seems appalled at the idea of families self-isolating together, because family homes are “fundamentally unsafe” spaces rife with inequality. The existence of abusive relationships is held up as proof that the family itself is an oppressive structure, while housework is likened to psychological torture. Instead, she calls on society to fling open the doors of prisons and detention centers and house the inhabitants in their “private palaces.”

It may be easy to dismiss as extreme a view that “the private family qua mode of social reproduction still, frankly, sucks. It genders, nationalizes and races us. It norms us for productive work. It makes us believe we are ‘individuals.'” But this isn’t just a personal blog, or some antifa kid’s Tumblr – this is an outlet sponsored by some very influential organizations, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Clearly it had to go through some kind of editorial approval before being published.


«A video report by British media on coronavirus has gained attention after users noticed healthcare workers performing care on a mannequin instead of a real person.

The report by Channel 4 News, called “New York coronavirus cases surge – hospitals struggle to cope,” showed several clips of healthcare workers practicing on mannequins instead of using real-time footage, suggesting some hospitals may not be struggling to cope with the coronavirus as reported.

The main clip in question shows a healthcare worker adjusting a ventilator hooked up to a mannequin laying face up, with metallic joints and a large throat hole clearly visible.

You can watch the original Channel 4 News report here.

The footage begs the question: if hospitals truly are struggling with the influx of coronavirus patients, why would the media use footage of healthcare workers practicing on mannequins?

Notably, Infowars has also reported on numerous videos by curious individuals checking out their local hospitals, only to find them quiet and not at all overwhelmed like the media has been portraying, even in hotspots like New York City.

The phenomenon of empty or underwhelmed hospitals amid the COVID-19 pandemic has become so suspicious that “FilmYourHospital” began trending on social media last week.

Is it possible that the panic behind the coronavirus outbreak is manufactured by the media establishment, and if so, why?

Perhaps it’s about generating fear to make Americans more compliant with the erosion of civil liberties in the name of public health.»


«(…) Perhaps the most disgusting exposé of China’s profiteering was documented in a report by The Spectator, which found that Italy donated tons of Personal Protective Equipment to China to help the communist state protect its own population when the virus first hit. However, when Italy quickly became the worst hit country on the planet, China did not return the favour, instead SELLING the same equipment back to Italy at an inflated price.

The report notes:

After COVID-19 made its way to Italy, decimating the country’s significant elderly population, China told the world it would donate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to help Italy stop its spread. Reports later indicated that China had actually sold, not donated, the PPE to Italy. A senior Trump administration official tells The Spectator that it is much worse than that: China forced Italy to buy back the PPE supply that it gave to China during the initial coronavirus outbreak.

‘Before the virus hit Europe, Italy sent tons of PPE to China to help China protect its own population,’ the administration official explained. ‘China then has sent Italian PPE back to Italy — some of it, not even all of it … and charged them for it.’

See here

China’s behaviour has been reprehensible, with both the US and British governments warning that there will be a reckoning.

However, the UN has rewarded the communist state with a seat at the human rights council, and the World Health Organisation defended China’s actions, and parroted it’s propaganda about the virus spread for weeks.»


«The European Union’s Food Safety Authority has approved the sale of bugs as “novel food,” meaning that they are likely to be mass produced for human consumption throughout the continent by the end of the year.

Can’t wait.

“These have a good chance of being given the green light in the coming few weeks,” the secretary-general of the International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed, Christophe Derrien, told The Guardian.

Since 1997, the EU has required a “novel food” classification to allow the sale of products that had no history of being consumed by humans, meaning that the sale of bugs has been banned in countries like Spain, France and Italy for over two decades.

However, with the new approval, mass production of bug-based food is set to ramp up later this year. This means that locusts, crickets, grasshoppers, and mealworms may all appear on supermarket shelves by the autumn.

Christophe Derrien is looking forward to the sale of bugs as both a stand alone food and incorporated into existing products, arguing that they are a great source of protein and the production of bug food doesn’t harm the planet.

“The sort of foods ranges from whole insects as an aperitif or as snacks to processed insects in bars or pasta or burgers made out of insects,” he said.

As we have previously highlighted, eating bugs has been heavily promoted by cultural institutions and the media in recent years because people are being readied to accept drastically lower standards of living under disastrous global ‘Green New Deal’ programs.

This will be exacerbated by the expected economic recession, or even depression, caused by the coronavirus outbreak.

This is why globalist publications like the Economist have been promoting the idea of eating bugs despite the fact that the kind of elitists who read it would never consider for a second munching on crickets or mealworms.»


«Residents of a Louisiana Parish issued complaints last week after police signaled the start of a mandatory curfew by blasting a siren similar to one featured in the dystopian film franchise, “The Purge.”

Several residents recorded on their cell phones as police went up and down neighborhoods in Crowley blasting the eerie siren at full volume.

The unnerving sound, which sounds similar to an air raid siren, was used by the Crowley Police to signify the start of a curfew that goes from 9PM to 6AM.

Crowley Police Chief Jimmy Brousard told KATC.com he was unaware the siren originated from the film, and said the police had no plans to use the siren going forward.

(…) In the fictional film “The Purge,” the siren marks the start of a once-a-year 12-hour time period in which all crimes can be committed without fear of repercussion. “When the 12-hour period begins, sirens begin to blare and all emergency services are unavailable,” adds KATC».


See here

«(...) we should first understand that much of the hysteria is being generated by a mainstream media that has long prioritized sensationalism over investigating and reporting the truth. Government bureaucrats are also exaggerating the threat of this virus and appear to be enjoying the power and control that fearful people are willingly handing over to them. One “coronavirus” bureaucrat even told us that we can no longer go to the grocery store! So we should just starve?

It is certainly possible to believe that this virus can be dangerous while at the same time pointing out that radical steps are being taken in our society – stay-at-home orders, introduction of de facto martial law, etc. – with very little knowledge of just how deadly is this disease.

On March 24th, the CDC issued an alert stating that doctors should classify “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19” as Covid-19 deaths. Perhaps that explains the seeming drop-off of pneumonia deaths this year and the simultaneous spike in Covid-19 deaths as some researchers have reported.

The BBC reported last week that, “At present in the US, any death of a Covid-19 patient, no matter what the physician believes to be the direct cause, is counted for public reporting as a Covid-19 death.”

Does that sound like a scientifically sound way of determining how deadly Covid-19 really is?»


«(…) Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the task force, were relying on these models forecasting the spread of the virus, including particularly one prepared by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). It was released the day before Fauci’s announcement, and concluded that the spread of the virus was likely going to overwhelm the country’s healthcare system, particularly the need for hospital beds: Using a statistical model, we predict excess demand will be 64,175 total beds …

even with social distancing measures enacted and sustained, the peak demand for hospital services due to the COVID-19 pandemic is likely going to exceed [present available] capacity substantially…

The epidemic in the US will place a load well beyond the current capacity of hospitals to manage.

On Sunday, the IHME revised its estimate downward: The shortage in hospital beds is now 36,654, more than 40 percent less than previously estimated. It also substantially revised downward the need for ICU beds and ventilators:

• From 262,092 hospital beds initially, to 140,823 beds;

• From 39,727 ICU beds initially, to 29,210; and

• From 31,782 ventilators initially, to 24,828. No apology was forthcoming from Dr. Christopher Murray, the IHME’s director, who said, “As we obtain more data and more precise data, the forecasts we at IHME created have become more accurate.”

It’s like predicting the weather, said Caitlin Rivers, assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, but with a very important difference: “Unlike the weather, which we’re all accustomed to and incorporating forecasts into decision making, with pandemics we actually influence the outcome.”

The “outcome” from decisions based on faulty or incomplete modeling is already being felt: Hospitals are putting off “non-elective” surgical procedures to make room for the expected flood of patients infected with the virus. The National Guard is already building temporary hospitals on parking lots close to hospitals to house the expected overflow.

This is to say nothing about the economic damage already inflicted on the U.S. economy following decisions to shut it down in order to keep people from interacting with each other and spreading the virus. As The New American reported, up to 40 percent of small businesses are in danger of shutting their doors permanently within the next 30 days in light of those restrictions.

The good news is that it appears the models were inaccurate about the timing of the “peak” or the “flattening of the curve” of those dying from the virus. According to the Worldometer reference website, the number of new cases reported on April 4 was 34,196. One day later, on April 5, the number of new cases reported fell to 25,316.

And the number of new deaths being reported daily is slowing slightly as well, as seen on Worldometer’s logarithmic scale. This is confirmed by the New York Times’ Daily Tracker as well.»

Bob Adelmann («Flawed Coronavirus Models Overestimated Deaths, Need for Hospital beds», in The New American, 06 April 2020).

«Last week, the Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s Health Emergencies Program suggested forcibly removing members of a household who test positive for COVID-19.

The director, Dr. Michael Ryan, said, “In most parts of the world, due to lockdown, most of the transmission that’s actually happening in many countries now is happening in the household, at family level. In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units.”

Dr. Ryan

Continuing, Dr. Ryan stated, “Now, we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.”

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson covered the disturbing video clip, saying, “Just so you know, we’re coming to your house, seizing your children and ‘isolating’ them in a safe and dignified manner, whatever that means.”

“Now, that’s not something under normal circumstances, officials casually drop during briefings,” he continued. “It is the kind of statement that might trigger violence. People don’t respond well when you threaten to take their kids.”

Tucker added, “But Ryan said it like it was no big deal, and that’s how the media treated it. His threat didn’t make headlines in any of the major newspapers in this country. That’s the kind of moment we’re in.”

This is why so many Americans are standing up to globalism.

A group of foreigners is telling us that we or our families could soon be hauled out of our homes at gunpoint in the name of public safety.

President Trump is going to after WHO, tweeting Tuesday that the organization “really blew it.”

POTUS explained how the “China centric” globalist group advised him to keep America’s borders open to China at the beginning of the outbreak.

“Why did they give us such a faulty recommendation?” he asked.»


«President Trump tore into the World Health Organization on Tuesday over its apparent allegiance to Communist China and its “faulty” advice to the U.S. over how to handle the coronavirus outrbreak.

“The W.H.O. really blew it. For some reason, funded largely by the United States, yet very China centric,” Trump tweeted. “We will be giving that a good look. Fortunately I rejected their advice on keeping our borders open to China early on. Why did they give us such a faulty recommendation?”

When Trump imposed a travel ban to and from China in January, WHO came out against the move, calling it “unnecessary.”

“The WHO doesn’t recommend and actually opposes any restrictions for travel and trade or other measures against China,” said WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, while praising China’s response to the outbreak. “If anyone is thinking about taking measures, it’s going to be wrong.”

WHO frequently sided with China at the expense of the U.S. during the course of the coronavirus pandemic.

First, WHO covered for China’s release of the virus in January, claiming coronavirus was incapable of “human to human transmission.”

WHO then readily ran interference for China to help the communist nation deflect blame from releasing the virus, praising its “transparency” in handling the outbreak despite evidence showing China suppressing information about the virus.

WHO also parroted Chinese propaganda that Trump or any American referring to the coronavirus as the “Wuhan coronavirus” or the “Chinese virus” was racist.

“Viruses know no borders and they don’t care about your ethnicity, the color of your skin or how much money you have in the bank. So it’s really important we be careful in the language we use lest it lead to the profiling of individuals associated with the virus,” Dr. Mike Ryan, the executive director of WHO, said last month.»


«A Colorado man was handcuffed in front of his six-year-old daughter and wife for playing t-ball with them at an empty park.

Police claim the man was violating “social distancing” ordinances of Brighton, Colo., amid the coronavirus pandemic, despite a park sign stating that the park was open for “groups of no more than 4 persons, parks remain open for walking, hiking, biking, running and similar activities” – not to mention that the man was already with his family at home.

“During the contact, none of the officers had masks on, none of them had gloves on, and they’re in my face handcuffing me, they’re touching me,” the man said, emphasizing that it was the officers who were violating “social distancing” guidelines.

Ironically, the incident was caught on tape by a former city councilman:

The officers kept the man in the back of a patrol car for 10 minutes before letting him go, and the police department vaguely announced there was an internal investigation into the incident when asked by local media.

There’s been similar reports across the country of police arresting individuals in empty public places for supposedly not practicing “social distancing,” even though the arrested individuals were no where near anyone until confronted by police.

Most recently, a paddle boarder was arrested near the Malibu Pier in California for being out in the ocean, which violated Gov. Gavin Newsom’s stay-at-home order.

The irony of these situations, in which those arrested were actually socially distant from others under apprehended, serves as a scary reminder of how logic can be completely overshadowed by the letter of the law that’s only been recently enacted during a state of panic.

It also underscores how many localities have failed to consider basic constitutional safeguards when enacting ‘stay-at-home’ ordinances instead of making their guidelines more in tune with the First Amendment while also taking steps to stop the spread of the virus.

It’s unknown, for example, how exactly police expect to stop a virus by arresting a man who’s lawfully playing t-ball with his family in an empty park.

On the other hand, Texas, which hasn’t been as heavy-handed as other states in its response, backed away from closing churches statewide after public outcry, and Gov. Abbott deemed churches as ‘essential services’ that can remain open during the statewide lockdown as long as they practice “good hygiene, environmental cleanliness, and sanitation.”»


«Italy’s deputy health minister says there will be no more “hugs and kisses” until a vaccine for coronavirus is available.

Pierpaolo Sileri cautioned that life would only return to normal once Italians are inoculated against the disease.

“A tsunami that struck northern Italy is gradually receding, but hugs and kisses can only return to Italian life after a vaccine is found,” said Sileri.

The current quarantine Italians are living under ends on April 13, with Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte indicating that the measures may begin to be relaxed after that date.

The instruction will be particularly hard to take for Italians, who are notorious for their tactile nature.

However, Sileri’s words are laced with irony given that left-wing activists and the Mayor of Florence encouraged Italians to “hug a Chinese” in public as late as early February in order to combat racism.

Video footage of the stunt even showed Italians removing the face mask of a Chinese man.

As we previously highlighted, tens of thousands of Chinese migrants, many of them illegal, work in northern Italy and were traveling back and forth between Italy and China during the height of the pandemic in Wuhan.»


«Los Angeles, California’s Democrat Mayor Eric Garcetti is encouraging citizens to “snitch” on neighbors who disobey the state’s “safer at home” order by offering a “reward” for tattling.

“If any non-essential businesses continue to operate in violation of the stay at home order, we’re going to act to enforce the safer at home order and ensure their compliance,” Garcetti said Saturday.

“You know the old expression about snitches,” he continued. “Well, in this case, snitches get rewards.”

“We want to thank you for turning folks in and making sure we are all safe,” he concluded, oblivious to the insanity of the statement


«(…) Places like South Africa, where the military has enforced “unprecedented” Martial law-style lockdowns through mid-April, is an attempt to thwart social uprisings as 370,000 jobs have likely been lost.

For the 1.3 billion that inhabit the continent, widespread lockdowns are triggering vicious economic downturns, couple that with a public health crisis, and it could be a perfect storm that results in social unrest.

Eziakonwa said unless the virus spread can be controlled – then up to 50% of all estimated growth for Africa’s travel, services, mining, agriculture and the informal sectors could be lost. An extended period of subpar economic growth could be seen across the continent in the quarters ahead.

“We will see a complete collapse of economies and livelihoods. Livelihoods will be wiped out in a way we have never seen before,” she warned.

Top oil-exporting countries, such as Nigeria and Angola, could lose up to $65 billion in revenue with collapsed commodity prices – indicating that those governments will struggle to balance budgets, the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) said.»


«(…) The foreseeable plan for the future of the coronavirus hysteria has been hijacked as much as it has been engineered.

By creating a prison fueled by fear, the globalists aim to control the population and the economy indefinitely.

Essentially, they’re using order out of chaos to inject a mark of the Beast system through forced vaccinations

Jon Bowne («BEAST SYSTEM UNLEASHED», in INFOWARS, April 6, 2020).

See here

Technocratic Agenda Dominates COVID-19 Panic

The Corona Crisis has in a matter of weeks profoundly affected every aspect of life and become the perfect trigger event to kick-start the Great Digital Transformation with its “smart” solutions and stringent surveillance measures. In the wake of this crisis we now see rekindled calls for Global Government, a restructuring of the economic system, and an “opportunity” to include the European Green Deal in the stimulus package. This is a crisis which in record time can lead to a global Technocracy. To paraphrase Naomi Klein: this changes everything!

The Climate Change narrative, increasingly dominating the news in 2019 and a high priority at the 2020 World Economic Forum in January 2020, has now been replaced by another invisible threat, the Corona Crisis. The measures discussed to win the war against this new enemy are, however, eerily similar to the those proposed against the first. This coincidence may be explained by the fact that they both share a common origin as useful threats to usher in changes on a global scale.

With an early interest in medical research, the Rockefeller foundations and institutions have had a huge impact on the development concerning health and medicine. Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Studies Project from the late 1950s, resulting in the Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, can be seen as a starting point with the mission to shape a new international order in all its dimensions – spiritual, economic, political, and social. This report stated that global health issues, together with oceanography and meteorology, were important areas to support due to their international dimensions and being interconnected problems that span the globe. One of the main architects of the project was Henry Kissinger. The Rockefellers, who were also involved in the creation of World Health Organization (WHO) in 1948, have since been deeply involved in sounding alarms about global health and climate issues and building support for global solutions.

Another important player is the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the leading forum for Public-Private Partnerships, with membership comprising big corporations, banks and foundations. WEF’s Global Risk Programme was initiated in 2004. In 2006, WEF released the first Global Risks Report with warnings about global problems and suggestions on how to solve them with aid from Big Business. The purpose was to “advance the thinking around more effective mitigation of global risks”. Three main threats were identified in the first report: Terrorism, Climate Change, and Pandemics. The consequences of a lethal flu could be severe and in the end reshape the world.

A lethal flu, its spread facilitated by global travel patterns and uncontained by insufficient warning mechanisms, would present an acute threat. Short-term economic impacts would include severe impairment of travel, tourism and other service industries, as well as manufacturing and retail supply chains. Global trade, investor risk appetites and consumption demand could suffer for more extended periods. Deep shifts in social, economic and political relations are possible. (World Economic Forum, Global Risk Report, 2006) 

WEF concluded that “the impact on society might be as profound as that which followed the Black Death in Europe in 1348”. The advise was to develop a strategy to mitigate these risks:

- Top-down surveillance of threats at the global level (such as satellite monitoring of the environment);

- Effective dissemination of information from the bottom-up (such that transparency allows for the quick responses needed to contain, for example, SARS or avian flu);

- Early-warning mechanisms (for example, to provide early warning of future earthquake-induced tsunamis in the Indian Ocean);

- Appropriate mechanisms to inform the public about risk (such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to prevent “infodemics” and create appropriate expectations of risk;

- Exchanges on global best practice (including through trade associations), and advice that can be shared between governments and businesses on their risk assessments and mitigation strategies.

See here

Another recommendation was to harness expertise from the private sector as they were said to be “ahead of the public sector in its mitigation of risks”.

Soon after the release of the Global Risk Report, reports about the Bird Flu (H5N1) started to make headlines and scare the public. It did, however, soon blow over without making the profound impact on society that had first been indicated. What it did do was make governments take precautionary measures in cooperation with the business community.

This became obvious with the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic. A global drama that stirred some controversy when some governments bought large stocks of poorly tested vaccine from WEF-partner GlaxoSmithKlein with the aim to mass-vaccinate their citizens to prevent the flu from spreading. A unexpected side effect of the Pandemrix vaccine administered in Europe was that hundreds of children and adolescents developed narcolepsy. The experiment received criticism for how it was handled by authorities, especially in Sweden, and was an early example of the Public-Private Partnership which WEF believes to be the solution to all the world’s ills.

Just like now, the pandemic was top focus of the media.

In 2010, Rockefeller Foundation and the consulting firm Global Business Network released the report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. The report was written with the aim of investigating four future scenarios for the world (Lock Step, Clever Together, Hack Attack and Smart Scramble). One of the scenarios, Lock Step – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback, dealt with a severe Pandemic and had quite chilling similarities to the development and response to the ongoing Corona Crisis.

From the report:

The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

It made predictions of tight control over the citizens to contain the outbreak.

The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China was seen as a role model and other nations soon followed their example.

During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. 

Even the technological solutions somewhat coincide with the current situation.

• Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent.” 

• New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases. 

• Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lowerbandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted. 

• Driven by protectionism and national security concerns, nations create their own independent, regionally defined IT networks, mimicking China’s firewalls. Governments have varying degrees of success in policing internet traffic, but these efforts nevertheless fracture the “World Wide” Web. 

See here

The report did, however, predict that the tight regulations wouldn’t be accepted by the public in the long run.

The following year the film Contagion was released. The script was written in collaboration with experts on diseases and had been inspired by the Swine Flu outbreak. With A-list actors dying shortly after exposure only minutes into the film, it surely helped lay a solid foundation of fear about what might come.

In 2014, the ebola virus made headlines but was limited to West Africa. The ebola outbreak had, however, become a real concern for the World Economic Forum, resulting in a report called Managing the Risk and Impact of Future Epidemics: Options for Public-Private Cooperation (written with Boston Consulting Group in 2015). Work was initiated with the ambition of building up a response to how future outbreaks could be managed through the use of Public-Private Partnerships:

There is also momentum now behind an agenda for change regarding how the global community will respond to outbreaks and epidemics in the future. The challenge is to translate this passion and commitment into public-private collaboration models that are better prepared to engage collectively in the next crisis. 

That same year, WEF partner Bill Gates in a TED Talk also warned of a new pandemic and that we might not have the capacity to respond adequately to. But, on a more hopeful note, he also said that we now had technology that could make a difference. Smart phones and satellites that could be used to inform and track people’s movements and new specifically tailored vaccines. The only thing lacking, in his opinion, was a global health system and a better global coordination.

WEF continued the work at hand with advice from, among others, WHO, UNICEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Henry Schein, Inc., GlaxoSmithKlein, and Johnson & Johnson, with the aim “to start a dialogue between the private sector, the international community and the leaders who will form collaborations moving forward”. In 2019 they published the white paper: Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact: Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy. The paper concluded that:

…with increasing trade, travel, population density, human displacement, migration and deforestation, as well as climate change, a new era of the risk of epidemics has begun. The number and diversity of epidemic events has been increasing over the past 30 years, a trend that is only expected to intensify.

The call to action included:

1. Build connections between in-country operators and the public sector

2. Create expertise-based groups

3. Improve information flow and the ability of greater private-sector contributors to connect to the response

The time was now set for the business community to step up in order to protect the planet from diseases. World Economic Forum joined forces with Johns Hopkins University and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (and a wide range of other stakeholders like health care supplier Henry Schein ) for a live simulation of a pandemic in October of 2019. Both the American and Chinese centers for disease control attended. The result was shocking with a total shutdown of the society followed by an economic recession and closely resembled what would unfold the months that followed. The exercise, Event 201, was soon to become a reality. The first cases of COVID19 are reported to have started in China around the same time (although the Chinese Government did not publicly admit there was a crisis until December).

That was also the time then the Green Deal package was presented by the European Commission. An ambitious plan to implement a circular economy and transform the society with digital technology in order to fulfill United Nations Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals and reach carbon neutrality to 2050. The digital transformation was seen as a “key enabler for reaching the Green Deal objectives”.

In late November 2019 a climate emergency was declared by the European Parliament. The house was said to be on fire and the European Union would now lead the fight against “the existential threat”. There has, however, been some opposition and not all European countries have approved the policies. Sceptic voices have questioned the climate rhetoric that “we don’t have time” and “the time for action is now”.

But, like an intervention from the gods, things would change dramatically. The COVID19 crisis, which was declared a pandemic by WHO on March 11, has overnight introduced measures closely related to the criticized hard stance climate change policies. It has crippled the economy, put a break to consumption, and minimized travel and air traffic. People have been quarantined and many social meetings, jobs and schooling have been transferred to the digital realm. Control and tracking of everyone on a constant basis is now on the table. A new Digital Identification (seed-funded and supported by Rockefeller Foundation with partners like Bill Gates GAVI- the Vaccin Alliance and Microsoft) is being introduced worldwide. It could open up for a future where vaccinated people are allowed to move about more freely while the non-vaccinated will live with restrictions. It is a triumph for World Economic Forum, the tech-giants and their Fourth Industrial Revolution.

See here, here and here

See here, here and here

The backside of Coronavirus prevention is the totalitarian society that comes with it, i.e., the digital fascism that Professor Dirk Helbing has warned about:

- mass surveillance 

- unethical experiments with humans 

- social engineering 

- forced conformity (“Gleichschaltung”) 

- propaganda and censorship 

- benevolent” dictatorship 

- (predictive) policing 

- different valuation of people 

- relativity of human rights 

- and, it seems, possibly even euthanasia for the expected times of crisis in our unsustainable world. 

Few opposing voices have been heard as the solution combines the dreams from Right-wing nationalists about tighter border control and surveillance of refugees with Left-wing ambitions to control and tax the air we breathe. Some influential players, like UN General Secretary António Guterres and Swedish Climate Czar Johan Rockström, now view the corona crisis as a golden opportunity to reach their desired sustainable technocratic future. As Rockström just wrote in Svenska Dagbladet:

Here lies an opportunity to weld together the EU Green Deal with the work to save EU from the Corona Crisis. It is the same agenda. (Johan Rockström, 28 March 2020) 

In order to be saved from the economic constraints you have to adhere to the green agenda. It comes with strings attached. The crisis has also become a concern for the G20 – the leading global governance forum with close connections to World Economic Forum and the international organizations (this year led by Saudi-Arabia). Plans are now made to deliver a firm global response and coordination of the Corona Crisis (just like Bill Gates has called for).

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic is a powerful reminder of our interconnectedness and vulnerabilities. The virus respects no borders. Combatting this pandemic calls for a transparent, robust, coordinated, large-scale and science-based global response in the spirit of solidarity. We are strongly committed to presenting a united front against this common threat. 

G20 decided to develop some urgent actions.

1. Strengthen WHO’s mandate to coordinate the international fight against Corona.

2. On a voluntary basis commit resources to WHO’s COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance (created by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).

3. Increase research on vaccines and medicines, leverage digital technologies and strengthen scientific international cooperation.

4. Ask the Central Bank Governors to develop a G20 action plan in response to COVID-19. Work closely with international organizations to deliver international financial assistance.

5. Ask ILO and OECD to monitor the pandemic’s impact on the employment.

6. Enhance global cooperation through front-line organizations like WHO, IMF, World Bank Group and multilateral and regional banks.

7. Ask top relevant officials to coordinate the pandemic’s impact, including through border management measures and providing assistance to repatriate citizens (if necessary).

The world is at war against the virus. But nations act in a way that make things more chaotic. Former British P.M. Gordon Brown wants the G20 to get more muscles, include the UN Security Council and act as an executive council. The similar opinion is shared by Rockström which calls for a powerful world government, implementing the New International Economic Order and the 4TH Industrial Revolution.

This means that a real political–economic Technocracy might just be around the corner. Unless we peacefully but firmly say NO to these measures now. (in TECHNOCRACY NEWS & TRENDS, March 31, 2020).

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário