domingo, 31 de maio de 2020

Should I Wear a Face Mask?

Written by Cathy A. Spigarelli

«Coronavirus lockdowns have failed to alter the course of the pandemic but have instead ‘destroyed millions of livelihoods’, a JP Morgan study has claimed.

Falling infection rates since lockdowns were lifted suggest that the virus ‘likely has its own dynamics’ which are ‘unrelated to often inconsistent lockdown measures’, a report published by the financial services giant said.

Denmark is among the countries which has seen its R rate continue to fall after schools and shopping malls re-opened, while Germany’s rate has mostly remained below 1.0 after the lockdown was eased.

The report also shows many US states including Alabama, Wisconsin and Colorado enjoying lower R rates after lockdown measures were lifted.

Author Marko Kolanovic, a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan, said governments had been spooked by ‘flawed scientific papers’ into imposing lockdowns which were ‘inefficient or late’ and had little effect.

‘Unlike rigorous testing of new drugs, lockdowns were administered with little consideration that they might not only cause economic devastation but potentially more deaths than Covid-19 itself,’ he claimed.»


«Lock down those who are supposed to be free — and free those supposed to be locked up. That’s the formula being applied, and it’s leading to rising crime, suffering innocents, and murder.

Americans have been arrested for opening their hair salon, working out in a gym, and sitting alone in a lifeguard chair and reading, as officials enforce rules such as you can go to the beach but will be forcibly yanked from the ocean if you swim (huh?!). Apparently, jail-borne Wuhan coronavirus spares the puerilely persecuted but, having a better moral sense than many politicians, not those rightly punished.

Many might thus quip, anyway, pondering how governors have released 67,000 criminals — many dangerous — under the pretext of wanting to protect them and prison workers from COVID-19.

(…) Yet despite efforts such as the above, isn’t keeping convicts “quarantined” in prison the most effective way of preventing their infection? It’s not rocket science: Test the prisoners; separate out, isolate, and treat the sick; test any new convicts before incarceration; eliminate visitation during the outbreak; and test staff every two weeks. Voila!

And outside prison walls? Criminals aren’t exactly paragons of responsibility; they won’t likely “socially distance and wash ... hands as health officials direct, and use a mask — for anything other than a crime tool to protect against identification,” as American Thinker put it last month.

That leftists defy this common sense hints at an agenda, as American Thinker explained: “The far left, including the Soros front groups, Angela Davis, Chesa Boudin, and other extremists, have long advocated for getting rid of prisons and letting their denizens all out to prey upon us, under the tangled rubric of ‘social justice,’ a social justice that always finds itself devoid of [just] laws.”

The pandemic provides a perfect pretext to effect this mayhem. What’s the ultimate goal? Some would say attainment of power. After all, since people will generally sacrifice liberty for security, you can maximize the removal of liberty by first maximizing the removal of security. Yet there’s another factor, a deeper one rarely explained.

Devout leftists maintain that the “real” causes of crime are unaddressed deeper issues such as “systemic racism” and “white supremacy.” And I believe that many of these social engineers are thinking on some level, “You won’t take our sage counsel and implement our progressive prescriptions? Then you’re going to have to endure these problems until you eliminate them our way.”

It also may be a pleasing type of retribution for them. Remember that no one likes having his plans thwarted, and leftists believe it’s the “deplorable” resistance throwing a monkey wrench into theirs. Intensely angry about this, the attitude likely is, “If you won’t listen, you’ll just have to suffer till you toe the line!”

Whatever the thinking, it’s just another example of why the worst crimes being visited upon the American people are the lockdowns themselves. In fact, far more dangerous than 10 Joseph Edward Williamses on the street is one Gretchen Whitmer in office.»

Selwyn Duke («COVID Craziness: Lockdowns for Us but Not 67k Criminals - Now Killing Americans», in The New American, 23 May 2020).

«The Italian government announced intentions Sunday to create an army of social distancing snitches, saying it will recruit 60,000 people to monitor their friends and neighbours’ activities and make sure they are adhering to social distancing policies.

Reports indicate that the government will reach out especially to the unemployed for the roles, in particular those who have applied for benefits recently.

It wants them to become “civic assistants”, who will report infractions on the use of face masks and other state ordered rules in the wake of the coronavirus lockdown.

The informants will not be given uniforms or badges, and will simply be embedded within the population, meaning anyone could be a government snitch.

It’s not unprecedented in Italy, given that Rome mayor Virginia Raggi has employed a website where Italians can inform on their neighbors if they see them breaking social distancing rules.

The announcement was made by the Minister for Regional Affairs and Autonomies Francesco Boccia and the Mayor of Bari (Puglia), Antonio Decaro, who serves as the President of the National Association of Italian Municipalities.

“We are gradually entering a new normal where there is a gradual recovery of productive activities and citizens are returning to populate cities day after day,” a statement reads.

Municipalities “will be able to take advantage of the contribution of ‘civic assistants’ to enforce all the measures put in place to counter and contain the spread of the virus, beginning with social distancing.” the statement adds.

“Now is the time to recruit all those citizens who want to help the country, demonstrating a great civic sense,” the statement concludes.

Social distancing snitches, reminiscent of party informants in Orwell’s 1984, have also been employed by authorities in other countries.


- George Orwell, 1984»


«Video footage out of Staten Island shows a woman being driven out of a grocery store by an angry mob because she’s not wearing a mask.

The clip shows the woman surrounded by other shoppers as they yell and cuss at her.

“Get the fuck outta here” and “get out” the crowd screams at the woman while pointing towards the exit.

(…) As we highlighted earlier, in Italy the left-wing government has announced it will recruit 60,000 citizen snitches to enforce “social distancing.”

In the United States, it looks like that won’t be necessary, as an army of volunteer Karens are willing to perform the same role for free.»


«An MSNBC reporter complaining Americans weren’t wearing masks amid the re-opening of a Wisconsin town was put in check by a bystander, who exposed some in the reporter’s camera crew were also unmasked.

In a live shot with MSNBC host Katy Tur, a reporter who is wearing a mask tells her many in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, which reopened last week with minimal restrictions, aren’t wearing masks.

“It seems like you might be one of the only people wearing a mask,” Tur says.

“You can see here, nobody’s wearing them. Katy,” the reporter says.

“Including the cameraman,” a man interjects.

“Yeah, there you go, including the cameraman,” admits the reporter, before attempting to throw back to Tur.

“Half your crew’s not wearing them,” the man adds, before Tur ends the interview describing the footage as “striking images.”

This man should be hailed as a hero for exposing the mainstream media’s fake news mask scare propaganda.» («WATCH: MSNBC REPORTER PROMOTING MASKS BUSTED LIVE ON AIR WITH MASK-LESS CAMERAMAN», May 26, 2020).

«Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, proclaimed Wednesday that he is wearing a face mask in order to virtue signal ‘respect’ to other people, and that he wants it to be seen as ‘a symbol’ of what everyone else should be doing.

(...) The host Jim Sciutto asked if it helps when Americans “look at folks like you doing it, does that encourage its use to a positive degree?”

“It does, Jim.” Fauci replied, before going on to admit the mask is more of a symbol than an actual deterrent from the virus.»


«In the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its media accomplices waged a relentless propaganda campaign to win political support for what turned out to be one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history.

Nearly two decades later, with perhaps a million dead Iraqis and thousands of dead American soldiers, we are still paying for that mistake.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were key players behind the propaganda—which we can define as purposeful use of information and misinformation to manipulate public opinion in favor of state action. Iraq and its president Saddam Hussein were the ostensible focus, but their greater goal was to make the case for a broader and open-ended “War on Terror.”

So they created a narrative using a mélange of half-truths, faintly plausible fabrications, and outright lies:

- Iraq and the nefarious Saddam Hussein were “behind,” i.e., backing, the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9-11 attacks on the US;

- Hussein and his government were stockpiling yellowcake uranium in an effort to develop nuclear capability;

- Hussein was connected with al-Qaeda;

- Iran was lurking in the background as a state sponsor of terrorism, coordinating and facilitating attacks against the US in coordination with Hamas;

- Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and other terror groups were working against the US across the Middle East in some kind of murky but coordinated effort;

- We have to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”;

- The Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators.

And so forth.

But the propaganda “worked” in the most meaningful sense: Congress voted nearly 3–1 in favor of military action against Iraq, and Gallup showed 72 percent of Americans supporting the invasion as it commenced in 2003. Media outlets across the spectrum such as the Washington Post cheered the war. National Review dutifully did its part, labeling Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, and other outspoken opponents of the invasion as “unpatriotic conservatives.”

Tragically, the American people never placed the burden of proof squarely with the war cheerleaders to justify their absolutely crazed effort to remake the Middle East. In hindsight, this is obvious, but at the time propaganda did its job. Disinformation is part and parcel of the fog of war.

What will hindsight make clear about our reaction to COVID-19 propaganda? Will we regret shutting down the economy as much as we ought to regret invading Iraq?

The cast of characters is different, of course: Trump, desperately seeking “wartime president” status; Dr. Anthony Fauci; epidemiologist Neil Ferguson; state governors such as Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom; and a host of media acolytes just itching to force a new normal down our throats. Like the Iraq War architects, they use COVID-19 as justification to advance a preexisting agenda, namely, greater state control over our lives and our economy. Yet because too many Americans remain stubbornly attached to the old normal, a propaganda campaign is required.

- So we are faced with a blizzard of new “facts” almost every day, most of which turn out to be only mildly true, extremely dubious, or plainly false:

- The virus aerosolizes and floats around, so we all need to be six feet apart (But why not twenty feet? Why not one mile?);

- The virus lives on surfaces everywhere, for days;

- Asymptomatic people can spread it unknowingly;

- Antibodies may or may not develop naturally;

- People may become infected more than once;

- Young healthy people are at great risk not only themselves, but also pose a risk to their elderly family members;

- Thin, permeable paper masks somehow prevent microscopic viral spores from being inhaled or exhaled toward others;

- People are safer inside;

- The rate of new infected “cases” in the first few weeks of the virus reaching America would continue or even grow exponentially;

- Social distancing and quarantines do indeed “save” lives;

- Testing is key (But what if an individual visits a crowded grocery an hour after testing negative?);

- A second wave of infections is nigh;

- and Our personal and work lives cannot continue without a vaccine, which, by the way, may be two years away.

Again, much of this is not true and not even intended to be true—but rather to influence public behavior and opinions. And again, the overwhelming burden of proof should lie squarely with those advocating a lockdown of society, who would risk a modern Great Depression in response to a simple virus.

How much damage will the lockdown cause? Economics aside, the sheer toll of this self-inflicted wound will be a matter for historians to document. That toll includes all the things Americans would have done without the shutdown in their personal and professional lives, representing a diminution of life itself. Can that be measured, or distilled into numerical terms? Probably not, but this group of researchers and academics argues that we have already suffered more than one million “lost years of life” due to the ravages of unemployment, missed healthcare, and general malaise.

By the same token, how do we measure the blood and treasure lost in Iraq? How much PTSD will soldiers suffer? How many billions of dollars in future VA medical care will be required? How many children will grow up without fathers? And how many millions of lives are forever shattered in that cobbled-together political artifice in the Middle East?

Propaganda kills, but it also works. Politicians of all stripes will benefit from the coronavirus; the American people will suffer. Perversely, one of the worst COVID propagandists—the aforementioned Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York—yesterday rang the bell as the New York Stock Exchange reopened to floor trading. He now admits that the models were wrong and that his lockdown did nothing to prevent the Empire State from suffering the highest per capita deaths from COVID. Like the architects of the Iraq War, he belongs on a criminal docket. But thanks to propaganda, he is hailed as presidential.»


See here

See here

See here

See here

Should I Wear a Face Mask?

Awkward. This is how it feels to be in public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some faces are masked; others are not. This polarity has led the public to judgment, anger, and hostile interaction. We all want to do the right thing and stop the spread of disease, but is a face mask really protecting you and those around you? We have all wondered, “Should I wear a face mask?”

As an environmental, health, and safety manager responsible for respiratory protection, I understand that face masks can play a supportive role in protecting the wearer from airborne hazards if the proper mask is chosen under the right circumstances. I also know that face masks can be ineffective, can create new hazards, and should not be the first or only line of defense. Face masks should be relegated to those in an industrial, emergency services, or healthcare work setting where proper mask selection, training, fit testing, and mask inadequacies can be addressed. The general public, in community settings, should not be wearing face masks to lessen viral transmission, as the data and potential drawbacks do not support their use. Instead, the focus should be on the more-effective ways you can protect yourself and those around you.

Face Mask Basics 

Face masks can be used as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to protect the wearer or used as Source Control to protect those around an infected wearer. But critical to a mask’s performance is filter efficiency and fit. Filter efficiency is the ability to capture contaminants. Design and materials of construction determine filter efficiency. A tight fit is also critical, preventing air leakage out of the mask. Both are necessary for high-level protection.

The most common masks worn are cloth face masks, surgical masks, and N-95 respirators. However, these masks are not all created equal.

A cloth face mask is loose-fitting and made from a variety of materials; it has limited filter efficiency, doesn’t adhere to any design or filter efficiency standard, and lacks a test standard that confirms performance.

See here

See here

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recommended that the public wear cloth face masks as a form of Source Control and has encouraged the public to make their own masks. And some are wearing cloth masks mistakenly thinking that they will protect them from disease.

Homemade and commercial cloth masks are being worn by the public. The materials of construction vary greatly, which directly impacts their effectiveness. In a 2010 study funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a range of potential cloth mask fabrics (t-shirt, sweatshirt, towel, scarf, and commercial cloth mask) were tested for filter efficiency. The study found, “The use of fabric materials may provide only minimal levels of respiratory protection to a wearer against virus-size submicron aerosol particles (e.g. droplet nuclei). This is partly because fabric materials show only marginal filtration performance against virus-size particles when sealed around the edges. Face seal leakage will further decrease the respiratory protection offered by fabric materials.”

Couple the inadequate filter efficiency with the unstructured, loose fit of these masks, and it should be no surprise that studies have found cloth masks are not effective. In a 2015 study by MacIntyre, et al., they concluded, “In the interest of providing safe, low-cost options in low income countries, there is scope for research into more effectively designed cloth masks, but until such research is carried out, cloth masks should not be recommended.” Also, in a commentary entitled “Masks-For-All For CoVID-19 Not Based on Sound Data,” the authors concluded, “Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.”

Cloth face masks are not a form of res-piratory protection and should be thought of as merely symbolic, giving the appearance of doing “something.”

Surgical masks also are loose-fitting masks, ones designed to trap airborne droplets emitted from the mouth or nose of the wearer, preventing droplets from being expelled into the surrounding space. Although regulated by the FDA, surgical masks are not required to form a seal with the face, nor do they have a minimum level of performance to meet.

Surgical masks were initially designed for Source Control to decrease the spread of bacteria or virus from an infected wearer to a vulnerable patient (think open wounds). These were not designed to protect the wearer from disease, and there is much evidence that they do not.

Surgical mask efficacy varies widely. Experimental results are mixed and vary with mask type and manufacturer, experimental setting (clinical, household, lab), and type of disease assessed. So the ability of a surgical mask to function as Source Control is variable. That said, in a recent review by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, it was concluded: “These data suggest that surgical masks worn by the public will have no or very low impact on disease transmission during a pandemic.” This makes sense since, even if the coronavirus is expelled from the body in larger droplets of water that should be caught by the mask, these masks are not fitted and air takes the path of least resistance, so basically through the unsealed edges and openings of the mask.

As PPE, many studies have confirmed that surgical masks do not prevent inhalation of particles due to poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety states that the filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles and is not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges. A 2008 study by Tara Oberg, M.S., and Lisa M. Brosseau, S.D., concluded, after testing several surgical masks, “None of these surgical masks exhibited adequate filter performance and facial fit characteristics to be considered respiratory protection devices.”

N-95 respirators have a tight-fitting design and are engineered to protect the wearer by removing 95 percent of particles, at least .3 microns and greater, from the air moving through it. They are of intricate design, are capable of high filter efficiency, and remove a wide range of particle sizes. N-95 respirators conform to the NIOSH 42 CFR 84 performance standard, and fit testing is required to ensure a protective fit.

The N-95 respirator was designed to function as PPE. A 2006 study by Anna Balazy, et al., published by the American Journal of Infection Control, concluded that N-95 respirators don’t provide complete protection against small virions. Even with a perfect fit — but with less than 100-percent efficiency and particle size-capture constraints — an N-95 respirator is not fully protective. Yet the N-95 provides better protection than a surgical or cloth mask. The N-95 respirator (without an exhalation valve) performs well for Source Control, although one study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene indicated that Source Control efficacy could be improved by sealing the mask further.

Face Mask Problems and Hazards 

Personal Protective Equipment, such as a face mask, is the last choice for hazard mitigation, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s Hierarchy of Controls. One reason for this is PPE ineffectiveness! Factors such as non-compliance, lack of training, and design limitations all contribute to face mask ineffectiveness.

One of the reasons that PPE is the lowest control strategy for hazard mitigation is because people are human: We make mistakes. We not only forget to wear them, we might take the mask off at lunch, but then do not put it back on when we re-enter the hazardous situation. And face masks can be hot and sweaty, and fog up eyeglasses, causing us to lower them on the face to get relief. They’re also lowered because they make verbal communication and breathing a bit harder. As soon as one does this, the mask is not working to protect you or those around you.

Even observational studies of healthcare professionals have shown that they often incorrectly put on and take off their respirators. Compliance is even more difficult for the untrained public. Training is required for effective PPE use. Face masks become ineffective when a wearer does not know how to examine a mask for flaws or damage prior to use; how to properly clean and store it; when to replace a mask; and how to properly position it on the face. An ill-fitting or damaged mask does little good.

As well, wearing a mask has the potential to create new hazards and even illness.

It has been shown that viruses can collect and hang out on the outside of a mask. This is a source of self-contamination or surface contamination, and leads to spreading the virus if you are not careful handling, removing, and disposing of the mask. Moreover, frequently touching your face to adjust an ill-fitting or uncomfortable mask increases the risk of viral exposure by transferring the virus from mask to fingers to common surfaces — or your face.

Others can then pick up the virus from the contaminated surface and, in a moment of poor hygiene, infect the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth, or eyes. This happened to a woman from Charlotte, North Carolina, even though she claimed to follow quarantining perfectly and wore a mask and gloves regularly. One trip to the pharmacy (gloved and masked) and contact with a virus-contaminated credit card reader was all it took (according to contact tracers), and she became sick with the coronavirus.

Studies point to other detrimental health effects of wearing a face mask, especially the tighter-fitting N-95 respirator, if worn for extended periods of time:

• Headaches are a frequent complaint with N-95 use and attributed to impaired breathing.

• One study showed that mask users had a blood oxygen level reduction of 20 percent. Low oxygen levels can cause impaired immunity. According to Dr. Dipankar Saha, scientist and director at the Central Pollution Control Board, this can lead to “oxygen shortage, suffocation, respiratory trouble and heart attacks.”

• In addition, a tight-fitting N-95 can increase viral load. If you are infected, you will constantly be rebreathing the virus and effectively increasing its concentration in the lungs and nasal passages. High viral load early on is associated with worse outcomes for the sick.

• Masks are a potential source of bacteria and viruses. “The moisture from exhalation inside the mask, when in constant contact with the 37 degrees Celsius warm human body, becomes [an] ideal place for virus and bacteria to thrive,” said Dr. Saha.

And simply covering one’s nose and mouth doesn’t stop pathogens from entering your body. According to the American Optometric Association, it is possible that the coronavirus can enter through the conjunctiva of the eye and spread through the body via blood vessels.

Dr. Joseph Fair, a prominent virologist, contracted COVID even though he stated he was using “max precautions,” indicating he was wearing a face mask and gloves while in public. He suggests the possibility that he became infected through eye contact. He states, “Even people like me that do this for a living” can make mistakes (although he does not recall making one).

So in answer to the question, “Should I wear face mask?” the answer is generally “No.” Even WHO, which has taken an alarmist position regarding COVID-19, said on April 6, 2020, “The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risk.” This thinking is supported in a commentary by Dr. Russell Blaylock, a nationally recognized, board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer, who stated in a recent article for the online site Technocracy News & Trends, “It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” He very strongly warns that the healthy should not wear face masks.

For the general population, wearing a face mask is a distractor, taking focus away from the more effective mitigation strategies an individual should take. Yes, an N-95 respiratory and surgical mask might have some utility, but due to the problems and risks of their use by the untrained and unsupervised, these should be reserved for work settings where there is oversight. In the case of a cloth mask or covering, the data do not support their use. Add the issues of wearing one (difficulty breathing, discomfort, communication hurdles, the potential to cross contaminate, and the increased risk of infection), and the answer becomes clear, as said Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been elevated by the mainstream media to near god-like status for his views on the pandemic, on a 60 Minutes Overtime interview: “In America, people should not be walking around with a mask!” (March 8, 2020).

Instead of reliance on a face mask for protection, impeccable personal hygiene, isolation of the sick and high risk, social distancing, and decontamination of common surfaces should be emphasized.

Immaculate personal hygiene includes often and carefully washing your hands, using hand sanitizer when hand washing is not possible, and keeping your hands away your face. These sound like a “duh” to most people, but they are critical to disease-transmission prevention.

Stay healthy.

(in The New American, 22 May 2020).

See here, here, here, here, here and here

quarta-feira, 27 de maio de 2020

Forced Vaccines and Digital IDs

Written by Dennis Behreandt

See here

See here

«(...) Coronavirus vaccine to use synthetic DNA created by computers

The New York Times reported on the developing vaccine technology in 2015. As the Times reported, animal tests on the synthetic DNA vaccine “are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.” 

Now, research-backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will use genetic code created by computers in a potential coronavirus vaccine.

As reported, the Gates-funded synthetic biologists believe that they can “do better” than nature with self-assembling nanoparticles that will be injected into your body:

“With all due respect to nature, synthetic biologists believe they can do better. Using computers, they are designing new, self-assembling protein nanoparticles studded with viral proteins, called antigens: these porcupine-like particles would be the guts of a vaccine.” 

Another Gates-funded Malaria vaccine technology from Inovio aims to use electrical current to open cells and deliver synthetic DNA...»


«IKEA is set to employ “social distance wardens” who tell people how to behave in stores as a whole new jobs market for Karens is created.

The Swedish furniture giant announced today that it would open 19 of its stores across the UK on June 1st.

However, families hoping to make a day of visiting the store can forget about it – only one adult and one child per household is allowed.

“Other measures to ensure safer trading during the coronavirus outbreak include “social distance wardens” to help shoppers navigate a new one-way system,” reports the Guardian.

Get ready; Our whole society is about to be patrolled by a new breed of busy-bodies telling you how to behave, where to stand, where to sit, where you can walk.

Karens all over the world are rejoicing at the prospect of getting paid for what they love the most – interfering in other people’s business.

All this in response to a virus which, according to the CDC, has a fatality rate of 0.26%, making it no more deadly than a bad bout of seasonal flu.

We’re pedantically re-arranging our entire society around social distancing cringe and empowering an army of new enforcers to make our lives miserable.

All in the name of transitioning out of a lockdown which, according to innumerable experts, will be responsible for more deaths than coronavirus itself.



«The lockdown measures implemented across the US – and failing to save us from either Covid-19 or economic ruin – have roots in a 2006 schoolgirl’s science project. They became law despite several academics’ resistance.

Now begins the grand effort, on display in thousands of articles and news broadcasts daily, somehow to normalize the lockdown and all its destruction of the last two months. We didn’t lock down almost the entire country in 1968/69, 1957, or 1949-1952, or even during 1918. But in a terrifying few days in March 2020, it happened to all of us, causing an avalanche of social, cultural, and economic destruction that will ring through the ages.

There was nothing normal about it all. We’ll be trying to figure out what happened to us for decades hence.

How did a temporary plan to preserve hospital capacity turn into two-to-three months of near-universal house arrest that ended up causing worker furloughs at 256 hospitals, a stoppage of international travel, a 40 percent job loss among people earning less than $40,000 per year, devastation of every economic sector, mass confusion and demoralization, a complete ignoring of all fundamental rights and liberties, not to mention the mass confiscation of private property with forced closures of millions of businesses?

Whatever the answer, it’s got to be a bizarre tale. What’s truly surprising is just how recent the theory behind lockdown and forced distancing actually is. So far as anyone can tell, the intellectual machinery that made this mess was invented 14 years ago, and not by epidemiologists but by computer-simulation modelers. It was adopted not by experienced doctors – they warned ferociously against it – but by politicians.

Let’s start with the phrase social distancing, which has mutated into forced human separation. The first I had heard it was in the 2011 movie ‘Contagion.’ The first time it appeared in the New York Times was February 12, 2006:

“If the avian flu goes pandemic while Tamiflu and vaccines are still in short supply, experts say, the only protection most Americans will have is ‘social distancing,’ which is the new politically correct way of saying ‘quarantine.’” 

But distancing also encompasses less drastic measures, like wearing face masks, staying out of elevators – and the [elbow] bump. Such stratagems, those experts say, will rewrite the ways we interact, at least during the weeks when the waves of influenza are washing over us.”»


«(…) “The distance may be a non-scientific estimate that just caught on in countries around the world, as top researchers say there is not solid evidence to back it up,” reports the Daily Mail


«The US is planning a “massive testing effort” that will involve more than 100,000 volunteers and six of the most promising COVID-19 vaccines, sources told Reuters on Friday afternoon.

The scientist in charge said the effort would hopefully narrow down vaccine candidates to one by the end of the year.

The push to fast-track a vaccine is condensing at least “10 years of vaccine development and testing into a matter of months,” Reuters said.

The scientist said vaccine makers have “agreed to share data and lend the use of their clinical trial networks to competitors should their own candidate fail.”

Each vaccine that demonstrates promising preliminary data will be tested among 20,000 to 30,000 subjects starting in July.

Dr. Larry Corey, a vaccine expert at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, who is organizing the effort, said between 100,000 to 150,00 people could be enrolled in the studies.

“If you don’t see a safety problem, you just keep going,” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), told Reuters.

The effort to fast-track a vaccine is part of the public-private partnership called Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) announced last month.»


«How does one define an economic “reopening”? I think most people would say that a reopening means that everything goes back to the way it was before the crisis; or at least as close as possible. Most people would also say that a reopening is something that will last. Simply declaring “America has reopened” while keeping many restrictions in place in certain parts of the country is a bit of a farce. And, reopening with the intention of implementing lockdowns again in a matter of weeks without explaining the situation to the public is a scam of the highest order.

For example, states like New York, California, Illinois and New Jersey have extended their lockdowns; with LA’s extension remaining ambiguous after they initially declared restrictions for another 3 months. New York’s lockdown is extended to the end of May (so far). This is the case in many US states and cities, while rural areas are mostly open. This is being called a “partial reopening”, but is there a purpose behind the uneven approach?

As I predicted in my article ‘Pandemic And Economic Collapse: The Next 60 Days’, the restrictions will continue in major US population centers while rural areas have mostly opened with much fanfare. The end result of this will be a flood of city dwellers into rural towns looking for relief from more strict lockdown conditions. In about a month, we should expect new viral clusters in places where there was limited transmission. I suggest that before the 4th of July holiday, state governments and the Federal government will be talking about new lockdowns, using the predictable infection spike as an excuse.

This is happening in Northeast China right now – another resurgence has occurred and 100 million people are now subject to quarantine restrictions. China’s reopening is barely two weeks old, and concerns of infection “flare ups” were widespread when the announcement was made. Now the mainstream media seems to be confused; is China open, or locked down? Of course, we may never know how bad the problem is and was in China as their numbers have been shown to be utterly rigged and suppressed from the beginning, but the point is that the phrase “reopening” is meaningless there, just as it will be meaningless here in the US.

This is part of the plan. The farce of reopenings does indeed have a purpose. I discuss this in great detail in my article ‘Waves Of Mutilation: Medical Tyranny And The Cashless Society’ published in April. The globalists are clearly the only beneficiaries of this event; with a world-wide surveillance state now openly on the table along with an accelerated shift into digital currency systems, the globalists are either taking advantage of this crisis to push their agenda, or they ENGINEERED the virus and caused the crisis to push their agenda.

In white papers published by globalists at the Imperial College of London as well as MIT, the plan is openly admitted. They suggest using “waves” of economic openings and then lockdowns to control the spread of the virus. The timelines seem to vary, but in general the models call for a one month open, two months closed cycle. The goal is to deliberately increase infections every couple of months in specific regions of a country, then declare economic shutdown and quarantine measures once the spread reaches a certain level; this is meant to continue until a vaccine is developed, which could take years.

When the globalists at MIT say “We are not going back to normal”; this is what they mean. Right now, the general public (at least in some parts of the country) is cheering the reopenings, but what they don’t realize is that the reopenings are an illusion. Restrictions are going to remain in place in many states and cities, while they will be lifted and then re-instituted in others. In fact the situation is going to become much worse over time, by design.

The next lockdown, whenever it is announced, will be absolutely devastating to the US economy which is already in a downward spiral. The mitigating factors will be how effective central bank stimulus is at stalling the freefall (not very effective so far). Other factors include the percentage of small businesses that survive the first lockdown and how many jobs those businesses can bring back to the economy. The first lockdown may be survivable for a large percentage of Americans and businesses; the second lockdown will financially destroy all but the most prepared. And make no mistake, there WILL be many more lockdowns over the next couple years.

In the meantime, international banks like Wells Fargo and JP Morgan have seen to it that small businesses are hit hard by the crisis by funneling bailout money and paycheck loans to their larger clients over the smaller businesses that the money was intended to go to. Of the 300,000 clients of JP Morgan that applied for an emergency loan through the government bailout program, only 18,000 actually received one and many of these clients were NOT small businesses.

If the cycle of lockdowns continues, small businesses will be wiped off the map. The elites have rigged the economic game; they control where every dollar of the bailout money goes, and many of their corporations are the only institutions that are equipped to survive the onslaught. Some of these companies will go down, but in the long run the goal, in my view, is total centralization of production and distribution.

This is exactly what happened during the Great Depression when JP Morgan and other major banks devoured thousands of small local banks across the country and removed them as competitors from the system. After the depression, banking was completely centralized into the hands of a select few mega-companies. Today, they are attempting to erase all localized small business competition to international corporations.

Taking over the business infrastructure of entire nations and removing all independent competition is only one incentive for the lockdowns to continue. There is also the process of acclimating the public to the idea that lockdowns are the “new normal”. While I do see resistance in certain parts of the world, including the US, many countries in Asia and Europe have witnessed a rather sheepish response to the idea of medical tyranny. I also see an immense wildfire of unconstitutional legislation and illegal state measures being rolled out in the US while the public is distracted by financial circumstances and the virus threat.

Certainly, it appears that most Americans hate the lockdowns. But will they be fooled by the “reopening” into complacency for the next several weeks while the government gets ready to hit them with the next round of restrictions? Will they be so caught off guard they won’t know how to react? Imagine the economic devastation of just one more nationwide lockdown event? It will be carnage, and a lot of hope within the population will be lost.

This will lead to two possible paths: Submission, or rebellion. Either the majority of the American people will accept the lockdowns as a new fact of everyday life, or they will become so enraged by the destruction of their economy that they will revolt.

If the intent is to keep the cycle going until a vaccine is introduced as elitist publications assert, then we have a LONG way to go and this first lockdown was child’s play compared to what comes next.

The excuse for the wave model will be that they need to control and slow the spread of infection over time to avoid overwhelming our medical infrastructure. But this makes very little sense to me at this stage. Perhaps within the first month or two of the pandemic this was somewhat logical, so that we could gauge the threat of the virus. What we know right now is that the virus is at least three times more deadly that the average annual flu; which is something to be concerned about, but not something we should be destroying our economy over.

Frankly, there’s no logic to the wave model unless the agenda is to destroy the economy. If the goal is to continue infecting the population until everyone has developed an immunity or a vaccine is offered, then why not simply remove all the lockdowns permanently and get it over with now? This would result in far less deaths in the long run compared to economic collapse. If the goal is so-called “herd immunity”, then we can achieve that much faster through viral transmission than waiting years for a vaccine that may or may not work.

But the elites don’t care about “herd immunity”; what they care about is is control. The vaccine narrative itself is a form of control. You have to wait for the establishment to save you. You have to wait for them to allow the economy to be opened, even for a short period of time, so that you can then be allowed to work or run your business. You have to wait for permission to live your normal life. And, if the elites get their way, you won’t be given permission until you accept immunity passports, tracking apps and a vaccine.

I will be covering the vaccine issue in a future article, but the underlying message that the public is hearing daily is that you no longer have the power to make decisions for yourself, you must wait for instructions. While the coronavirus is something that should be taken seriously (to a point), the wave model is not an acceptable solution to the problem.

And while many conservatives are looking to Trump to obstruct lockdowns in the future, I would recommend they not hold their breath. Trump has flip-flopped many times on these issues, including his position on whether or not lockdowns should be left to the states. With a cabinet overflowing with globalists and banking elites, I would not put much hope in intervention from the White House.

Do not be fooled by the reopening. It is not real because it is not meant to last. It is a steam valve to calm public outrage and to condition us to periodic tyranny. The elites believe that we will eventually acclimate to lockdowns as long as we have a reopening to look forward to a couple months down the road. They believe that our tendency to rebel will be suppressed by false hopes that the next reopening will be a permanent reopening. They believe that after 18 months or more of the wave model we will be so desperate for normalcy that we will do anything to get it, including willingly giving up every last ounce of freedom we have left. This is the true purpose of the pandemic.»

Brandon Smith («The Economic "Reopening" Is A Fake Out», in ACTIVIST POST, May 23, 2020).

«A California hospital has reported an unsettling number of suicides and suicide attempts, with a year’s worth being recorded in only four weeks during the state’s extremely extensive coronavirus lockdown.

According to a report from ABC 7, a California hospital has recorded more deaths by suicide than from the coronavirus.

Further, medical professionals have experienced a dramatic rise in attempted suicides with a reported twelvefold spike.

Medical professionals at Walnut Creek’s John Muir Medical Center made the stunning claim and have advised for an easing up of lockdown restrictions to protect those afflicted by mental conditions.

Dr. Mike de Boisblanc, who is head of trauma at the medical center, alarmed by the unprecedented jump in attempted suicides, said: “I think, originally, this (the shelter-in-place order) was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients.

“We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”

“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” he added. “I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

The additional volume of attempted suicides has also stretched the hospital’s capability to save more patients.

A trauma nurse signaled that the number of patients with self-inflicted injuries has never been previously witnessed at the hospital…»


«People want to know: just how bad is the COVID-19 virus and is fighting it worth the destruction of the world’s economic and financial system while disrupting the lives of hundreds of millions of people? The story behind the story will make it clear that things are seldom as they seem.

In short and when seen through the lens of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, the whole world has just been punked and then panicked into destroying itself over COVID-19.

The culprit? A world-class Technocrat in Britain: Dr. Neil Ferguson, PhD is a professor at Imperial College in London that bills itself as a “global university”. It is thoroughly steeped in Sustainable Development and more dedicated to social causes than academic achievement. In fact, Imperial is very well-known for its alarmist research reports on climate change, carbon reduction, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, etc.

The problem with the global warming meme is that it is a tired, worn-out racehorse that much of the world simply ignores. Global warming alarmists have tried every trick in the book to stampede the world into Sustainable Development. They have knowingly falsified climate data, flooded the world with inaccurate academic reports, held world meetings like the Paris Accord in France, threatened and bullied their critics, created a global youth movement to shame leaders into action, etc. All of these strategies have failed to usher in the UN’s Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and show little promise of success in the future.

What the Sustainable Development crowd needed was to put their non-performing racehorse “Global Warming” out to pasture and find a brand new horse that could finally run and win the race to what the UN calls “deep transformation” of the entire global economic system. The new horse is named “COVID-19”. Different horse, same jockey, same race, same finish line...»

Patrick Wood («The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria», in TECHNOCRACY NEWS & TRENDS, March 29, 2020).

«Get ready for the “new normal.” Deep State globalists and environmentalists, along with their legions of followers, are literally celebrating the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to completely remake the world to suit their wishes. From Hollywood celebrities and United Nations bigwigs to government leaders and Big Business, elites around the globe are coming out of the closet and revealing their true agenda. In short, it means less freedom and less prosperity for you — and a lot more power for them. Think of the coronavirus lockdown as a test drive.

Leading the charge for weaponizing coronavirus to promote a global environmental regime has been the UN. In a screed demanding trillions of dollars from governments, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for nations to “recover better” from the pandemic by making sure that their development going forward is in line with the UN's vision on “climate” and sustainable development. The Socialist Party operative, who led the Socialist International before taking over the UN, has been banging the climate drums almost from the start of the coronavirus outbreak.

Just this week, writing in the New York Times, Guterres spelled out the agenda. “Addressing climate change and Covid-19 simultaneously and at enough scale requires a response stronger than any seen before to safeguard lives and livelihoods,” he said, proposing “six climate-positive actions” for governments to take while “building back” their economies and societies. “A recovery from the coronavirus crisis must not take us just back to where we were last summer. It is an opportunity to build more sustainable and inclusive economies and societies.”

He has been parroting that theme a lot lately. “We have a rare and short window of opportunity to rebuild our world for the better,” he said last week at a climate meeting in Berlin, calling for “brave” leadership to address the “looming existential threat” of global warming amid coronavirus. “Let us use the pandemic recovery to provide a foundation for a safe, healthy, inclusive and more resilient world for all people.” In particular, Guterres urged the European Union superstate to show “global leadership” on the green agenda. Already, many EU governments are forcing companies to become “green” in exchange for help surviving the shutdown they themselves mandated.

On the global economic front, the UN chief made clear that governments all over the world should also exploit the shutdown and the massive “stimulus” spending to bring about permanent changes to the economy, the energy sector, business, and more. “Where taxpayers’ money is used to rescue businesses, it must be creating green jobs and sustainable and inclusive growth,” he said. “It must not be bailing out outdated, polluting, carbon-intensive industries.”

“Like the coronavirus, greenhouse gases respect no boundaries,” he added, using typical globalist rhetoric about “global problems” supposedly requiring “global solutions.”

(...) Hollywood celebrities added their voices to the corona chorus, too. Just this week, a gaggle of some 200 celebrities and scientists issued an editorial in a major French newspaper demanding “radical transformation” of the world's economy and values in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Supposedly, this “profound overhaul of our goals, values, and economies” will help avoid “the massive extinction of life on Earth.” Among those signing the “No To A Return To Normal” were Madonna, Robert De Niro, Jane Fonda, and many more you have probably never heard of.

Media propaganda on the issue has been deafening. The U.K. Guardian, perhaps the world's main peddler of climate hysteria, but by no means unique, claimed there was “data” and “scientific research” supposedly showing that global-warming and coronavirus “are linked,” and apparently this is very “clear.” The paper did not bother to cite any data, instead writing a story around a 30-year-old climate activist named Emily Atkin. The activist claims those who reject her views are “just stupid” and that there is some sort of giant conspiracy of “climate denial” that also rejects what she considers to be the appropriate level of hysteria over coronavirus.

Anti-human extremists in the press have actually been celebrating the potential of coronavirus to advance their “climate” agenda for months. On March 5, for example, Times of London columnist Ed Conway wrote a piece celebrating the possibility that the virus would kill large numbers of “old” people, who, “let's face it, are more likely to be climate skeptics.” He also cheered on the economic collapse, arguing that it would help reduce human-released “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere by grounding planes and reducing economic activity.

Even Pope Francis has jumped on the bandwagon. Infuriating Catholics around the world, the left-wing pontiff even suggested that the coronavirus was Mother Earth's revenge for humanity's lack of environmental concern. “Is it possible that this is nature’s hour of reckoning with us?” he wondered, suggesting the Earth was “having a fit” in response to the supposed “ecological sin” and pollution of mankind. “There’s a saying that you surely know: God always forgives, we forgive sometimes, [but] nature never forgives.” editor Marc Morano, the world's most-quoted climate realist, commented on the growing extremism of climate alarmists celebrating coronavirus as an opportunity to re-shape the world. “If you like living under the coronavirus fears and government-mandated lockdowns, then you'll love living your life under a 'climate emergency',” Morano said in a special report compiling quotes from alarmists. Indeed, governments' ostensible responses to coronavirus have already enacted many long-sought goals of the climate movement, he explained, pointing to shutting down air travel, stopping economic growth, reduced energy consumption, and more.

Interestingly, technocracy expert Patrick Wood, author of two books on the subject, documented the links between coronavirus alarmists and the climate alarmists and sustainability zealots. Consider the self-styled “global university” known as Imperial College London, which was at the center of the fear-mongering operation used to trigger societal lock-downs and economic shutdowns worldwide, using now-debunked forecasts and projections. Aside from being funded by Bill Gates, the university specializes in promoting the UN's “sustainable development” agenda and climate hysteria. Wood also pointed out that phony models were used to drum up fear over coronavirus, just like on climate.»

Alex Newman («Green Globalists Exploit Coronavirus to Advance "Climate" Agenda», in The New American, 07 May 2020).

See here

«A new EU draft policy announced last week calls for “insect-based proteins” to be extensively promoted as a replacement for animal products, to save the environment.

The European Commission announced the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy, touting it as a “fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly” program that will focus on “increasing the availability and source of alternative proteins such as plant, microbial, marine, and insect-based proteins and meat substitutes.”

The draft noted that the program “will not happen without a shift in people’s diets”.

“Moving to a more plant-based diet with less red and processed meat and with more fruits and vegetables will reduce not only risks of life-threatening diseases, but also the environmental impact of the food system,” claims the strategy, revealed last Wednesday.

EU centric news site EURACTIV, noted that the policy is calling for eating bugs, and spoke to Constantin Muraru from the international platform of insects for food and feed (IPIFF), an EU non-profit organisation which represents the interests of the insect production sector.

Muraru lauded the idea of both humans and animals eating more bugs, saying that there is “enormous potential.”

“Currently, the EU is heavily reliant on the importation of feedstuffs, but the disruption in the past few months with the coronavirus outbreak has made it increasingly apparent that we must look to make our agriculture more self-sustainable,” he said.

“Insects can be produced locally and are a highly nutritious, protein-rich foodstuff that can be produced in high quantities in a small area,” he added.

The EU continues to push the idea of eating bugs, with its Food Safety Authority having approved the sale of bugs as “novel food” earlier this year, meaning that they are likely to be mass produced for human consumption throughout the continent by the end of the year.

“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.

The craze for eating insects stems from UN guidelines that “promote insects as a sustainable high-protein food.”

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.

Unsurprisingly, restaurants are not seeing a big uptake for worm burgers, otherwise known as ‘bug macs’, or cricket based cuisine.»


«The federal government is finally admitting what many observers have suspected all along: The average American’s chances of dying from COVID-19 are extremely small. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) latest best estimate of the death rate for individuals with COVID-19 symptoms is just 0.26 percent, slightly higher than that of the seasonal flu.

The CDC offers five estimates in its latest “COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios,” which are “designed to help inform decisions by modelers and public health officials who utilize mathematical modeling.” Its “current best estimate” is that the symptomatic case fatality ratio (CFR) for all Americans is 0.4 percent and that 35 percent of those who get the virus are asymptomatic. Thus, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is 0.4 percent of the 65 percent who actually have symptoms, which comes to just 0.26 percent.

This is, of course, considerably lower than the CDC’s March forecast, which, assuming an IFR of 0.8 percent, called for up to 1.7 million deaths from COVID-19 in the United States. The Imperial College estimate of Dr. Neil Ferguson — whose computer code experts have called “totally unreliable” — assumed an IFR of 0.9 percent, leading to a forecast of as many as 2.2 million American deaths. State and local officials, acting on these projections, issued shelter-in-place orders, shuttered “nonessential” businesses, and otherwise made life miserable for the people they serve.

Now that the CDC has actual case data, the outlook for coronavirus fatalities appears much less bleak. Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz observes:

Ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% — exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.

More importantly … the overall death rate is meaningless because the numbers are so lopsided. Given that at least half of the deaths were in nursing homes, a back-of-the-envelope estimate would show that the infection fatality rate for non-nursing home residents would only be 0.1% or 1 in 1,000. And that includes people of all ages and all health statuses outside of nursing homes…

The CDC estimates the death rate from COVID-19 for those under 50 is 1 in 5,000 for those with symptoms, which would be 1 in 6,725 overall, but again, almost all those who die have specific comorbidities or underlying conditions. Those without them are more likely to die in a car accident. And schoolchildren, whose lives, mental health, and education we are destroying, are more likely to get struck by lightning.

Skepticism of the CDC’s numbers is certainly warranted. The agency is known to have counted suspected COVID-19 deaths as actual COVID-19 deaths, and hospitals have a significant monetary incentive to do likewise. But given that most of the fudging seems to have made the pandemic appear worse than it actually is, when the CDC comes out with figures that seem anything but alarmist, they probably deserve some consideration.

CNN, for whom real or imagined crises are its bread and butter, found a skeptic of a different sort in Carl Bergstrom. “While most of these numbers are reasonable, the mortality rates shade far too low,” the University of Washington biologist told the news channel.

Bergstrom based his skepticism on the high COVID-19 death rate in New York City, and certainly if one were to examine solely the data from the Big Apple, the CDC’s estimate would look “far too low.” New York, however, is an outlier. It is a densely populated city with a very busy public-transportation system. It had some maxed-out hospitals — excellent places to transmit the virus to others — and, thanks to an order from Governor Andrew Cuomo, shoved many COVID-19 patients into nursing homes with predictably deadly results. Look at the rest of the country, particularly outside of nursing homes, and the CDC’s estimate seems quite plausible.

Whether correct or not, the CDC’s pronouncements are frequently treated as gospel by government officials and the mainstream media. This latest estimate, if received with the same reverence, should put an end to both the hysteria surrounding the virus and “lockdown nation."»

Michael Tennant («CDC: COVID-19 Death Rate Far Lower Than Previously Thought», in The New American, 25 May 2020).

«Democrat Washington governor Jay Inslee, whose daughter-in-law works for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, oversees a state government that has now admitted to counting gunshot deaths as Coronavirus deaths in official numbers pertaining to the virus, which sparked a draconian lockdown in Inslee’s state.

Freedom Foundation reports: “Today, officials at the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) confirmed that, as the Freedom Foundation reported on Monday, the state is counting in its COVID-19 death total the deaths of persons who tested positive for the virus but died from other causes.

In remarks made during a telephonic press briefing, DOH officials even acknowledged knowingly including multiple deaths caused by gunshot wounds in the state’s COVID-19 fatality count...»


«(...) Who, or what, exactly, is the Deep State? Steve Baldwin, a former California state assemblyman and former executive director for the Council for National Policy and Young Americans for Freedom, has part of the answer. In an op-ed published by the Western Journal two weeks ago, Baldwin said the term refers to “cabals of long-time government bureaucrats and officials who are part of the permanent political establishment.... Their ideology is on the left.... Those who hold this ideology typically favor subverting U.S. interests to international entities such as the United Nations.”»

Bob Adelmann («Trump Tells Journalist: "I have a Chance to Break the Deep State"», in The New American, 25 May 2020).

«The UK government is preparing to rollout a new “digital health passport” to monitor nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives in the name of strengthening public health management.

British cybersecurity firm VST Enterprises, in partnership with the UK government, developed an application called “COVI-PASS” to track “your Covid-19 test history and immunoresponse and other relevant health information” using a proprietary matrix code called a “VCode.”

The COVI-PASS website bills the tech as “the World’s most secure Digital Health Passport, built on patented technology, awarded the ‘Seal of Excellence’ by the European Commission and being used by various United Nations Projects.”

The “VCode” itself is described as an end-all tech that can store every sensitive detail about your life using military-grade encryption software.

“Assign any form of information to your own VCode® securely. Your VCode® can store anything from identity details, in case of emergency information, health records, payment methods, car registration numbers, business card details, social media links and much more all from the same code.”

The company states that the technology will “allow” people to go back to work “safely,” suggesting the technology could be mandatory in order to return to work.

“As a secure Digital Health Passport, COVI-PASS™ links and displays a certified Covid-19 test result to the user’s Health and Immunoresponse, using a secure biometric gateway, allowing individuals to return to work and life safely,” the website states.

“COVI-PASS™, biometrically accessed on a mobile phone, or held on a key fob or RFID, provides a unique authenticated gateway for Government / Health Services and Businesses to ensure a safe work environment.”

A sports marketing company called Redstrike Group is partnering with VST Enterprises to introduce the tech for group sporting events, saying that people will only be able to return to daily life after they’ve been “officially tested.”

“Redstrike Group and its partner, Manchester-based cyber-security firm VST Enterprises, is delivering ground-breaking digital passport solution to governments, healthcare organizations, sports federations, leagues and clubs around the world. The VCode Digital Health Passport enables individuals who have been officially tested to start returning to work and daily activities in a safe and secure environment.”

As we reported last month, depopulation czar Bill Gates touted “immunity passports” as a means of contact tracing the U.S. population in order to reopen the economy.

“An even better solution would be the broad, voluntary adoption of digital tools,” wrote in the Washington Post. “For example, there are apps that will help you remember where you have been; if you ever test positive, you can review the history or choose to share it with whoever comes to interview you about your contacts.”

“And some people have proposed allowing phones to detect other phones that are near them by using Bluetooth and emitting sounds that humans can’t hear. If someone tested positive, their phone would send a message to the other phones, and their owners could get tested. If most people chose to install this kind of application, it would probably help some.”»


«(…) There can be no doubt that nanotechnology is, indeed, very much involved in cutting-edge vaccine research.

Now let’s shift into another use of nanotech.

Here are astonishing quotes from the journal Nano Today, from a 2019 paper titled: “Nanowire probes could drive high-resolution brain-machine interfaces.” Its authors are Chinese and American:

“…advances can enable investigations of dynamics in the brain [through nano-sensor-implants] and drive the development of new brain-machine interfaces with unprecedented resolution and precision.”

“…output electrical signals of brain activity or input electrical stimuli to modulate brain activity in concert with external machines, including computer processors and prosthetics, for human enhancement…”

Aside from research into prosthetics and, perhaps, the reversal of certain paralyses, this avenue of investigation also suggests “modulation” of the brain remotely connected to machines, for the purpose of control.

Modulation…such as control of basic thought-impulses, sensations, emotions?

ONE: Nano-sensors, implanted in the body and brain, would issue real time data-reports on body/brain functioning to ops centers.

TWO: And from those ops centers, data—including instructions—would be sent back to the nano-sensors, which would impose those instructions on the brain and body.

If this seems impossible, consider nanotech research aimed at improving the use of prosthetics. In that field, imposing instructions on the body/brain appears to be the whole point.

The question is: how far along the road of development is this technology? I can only say we are seeing the public published face of nanotech. What lies behind it, in secret research, is a matter for estimation and speculation.

I offer one speculation: the “promotion” of the social agenda of collectivist thought, through nanotech. Utilizing the Internet of Things, an attempt would be made to hook up and “harmonize” many, many brains with one another. Same basic feelings, same impulses—shared.

Who would be interested in such a program? Think Chinese government, DARPA (the technology arm of the Pentagon), and numerous other international actors. Think Rockefeller medical researchers. Think technocracy and Brave New World.



See here and here

Forced Vaccines and Digital IDs

Over the last decade, major component agencies of the international Deep State have been working to design an all-encompassing digital ID system that would allow the tracking and control of the population of the entire world. 

Here’s what they are planning: a national health ID. This has been under development by international agencies along with the Gates Foundation for several years. Planning for this is being done by ID2020, an organization supported by Accenture, the Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft Corp., the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others. Of note, among the others is an entity named “Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance,” whose support of ID2020 demonstrates the interest of would-be globalist regulators in tying vaccination to identification. This is all being built as part of an ongoing effort to force all of the world’s peoples, Americans not excluded, into a thoroughgoing digital ID scheme.

Of course, this sounds crazy. First, vaccines are always good, aren’t they? Second, there has to be some means of tracking who has and has not been vaccinated, right? Third, naturally, there needs to be some means of proving who you are. Finally, there can’t be some worldwide coordination on all of this, centralizing it and imposing it on everyone without Americans having come to know about it. That would be impossible, right?

Wrong. Far removed from the day-to-day concerns of average Americans, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national and international government agencies work together to craft policies without notice being given to citizens, without mainstream media reporting, and without legislative oversight. In this case, for more than a decade these groups have collaborated on two tracks of tracking and control: a general-purpose digital ID to track each of the world’s inhabitants, and vaccination-based health IDs to allow governments and NGOs to track the health of citizens. In the age of COVID-19, the world’s would-be technocrat controllers and oligarchs are working to merge this pair of efforts into a single, foundational ID that would be used to constrain and control human activity.

Conditioning, Then Control 

A first step toward implementing a vaccine-based ID scheme is conditioning people to accept the idea that they will need to prove their vaccination and health status before being allowed by government to engage in any activities that, heretofore, were exercised without restriction by a free people. This is perfect for the age of COVID-19, when mainstream media organs and government “experts” have worked overtime to instill extreme levels of fear into the American people, forcing them into what amounts to house arrest to fight the “war” on the virus. Now, to regain freedom, it has been suggested that people will need to prove that they have gained immunity to the virus. To this end, Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and a key member of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, admitted that the federal government is considering forcing citizens to use coronavirus immunity cards.

“You know, that’s possible,” Fauci told CNN. “I mean, it’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and [are] not,” he continued. “This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.”

Importantly, the idea was also floated by Bill Gates, former head of Microsoft and current international supporter of digital ID schemes tied to vaccination. During an “Ask Me Anything” session on the social-media site Reddit, Gates said he supported using immunity IDs. “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it,” Gates remarked. This is significant, as Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, have been among the key players in the decade-old effort to develop both general-purpose digital IDs and vaccine/immunity tracking.

The constellation of efforts Gates has been making around digital identity and vaccination includes funding research at MIT on encoding health and identity data into a quantum-dot based system that can be embedded in the skin. Described by researchers in the journal Science Translational Medicine, the researchers said they had developed an “approach to encode medical history on a patient using the spatial distribution of biocompatible, near-infrared quantum dots (NIR QDs) in the dermis. QDs are invisible to the naked eye yet detectable when exposed to NIR light.”

The journal translated this into less technical terminology: “McHugh et al. developed dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin. Particle patterns are invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones. By codelivering a vaccine, the pattern of particles in the skin could serve as an on-person vaccination record.… These results demonstrate proof of concept for intradermal on-person vaccination recordkeeping.”

Records in scientific journal research databases reveal sources of funding for studies such as this one. In this case, funding was provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Health here in the United States. Funding sources also included the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

WHO Is the Vaccine ID Granddaddy 

Fauci and the NIAID have a history of working with the Gates Foundation on worldwide vaccination programs. In 2010, the World Health Organization launched the “Global Vaccine Action Plan to guide discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines.”

“The World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced a collaboration to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan,” said the WHO press release announcing the plan.

It continued: “The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups — national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.”

The leadership council for this initiative included:

• Margaret Chan, director general of WHO;

• Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health;

• Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF;

• Joy Phumaphi, chair of the International Advisory Committee and executive secretary of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance; and

• Tachi Yamada, president of global health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Among these names, readers of The New American may be familiar with Anthony Lake, who previously served as national security advisor to President Bill Clinton. Lake, who had been nominated by Clinton to head the Central Intelligence Agency, infamously wasn’t sure if notorious Soviet spy Alger Hiss was actually a spy.

Also noteworthy is Margaret Chan, former longtime leader of the World Health Organization. Before taking the reins of WHO, Chan served as director of public health for Hong Kong. There, in 2004, she came under criticism from the city’s Legislative Council for her handling of the original SARS outbreak that led to 299 deaths and considerable economic turmoil for the city. Reporting in 2004, the Hong Kong Standard noted that Chan was “unanimously condemned” by the council for what was described as “dereliction of duty before and during the early stage of the Sars outbreak,” said Tim Pang from the group Society for Community Organisation, a group representing the interests of SARS victims in the city. Chan’s inaction “had a serious impact on public health and global health, which should disqualify her from working for the WHO,” Pang concluded, according the Standard.

Her record at WHO, where she gained the top job after being boosted by Communist China, as reported by Politico, was also not without controversy. In 2009, under her leadership, WHO promoted the idea that the H1N1 swine flu pandemic would be a worldwide catastrophe. In fact, it proved to be much milder than the WHO health bureaucrats promised, prompting noted German physician and one-time member of the German Parliament Wolfgang Wodarg to note in response, “WHO in cooperation with some big pharmaceutical companies and their re-defined pandemics … lowered the alarm threshold.” The organization pushed a mass vaccination program for the swine flu, and these vaccines proved dangerous in some cases, causing narcolepsy in some, according to Politico. Though judged safe by the likes of the CDC, the swine flu vaccine was viewed with increasing suspicion.

Chan was also known for her deferential treatment of communism. She appeared particularly fond of North Korea, where she noted, according to Reuters, that there were no signs of obesity and that “nutrition is an area that the government has to pay attention [to] and especially for pregnant women and for young children.” This in a country where at least 40 percent of the population teeters on the verge of starvation. She also praised the communist dictatorship’s vaccination programs, Reuters reported. “They have something which most other developing countries would envy,” she said of North Korean healthcare.

Most recently, Chan has worked with Mike Bloomberg’s Task Force on Fiscal Policy for Health. That effort resulted in an April 2019 “study” calling for all nations to raise taxes by 50 percent on sugary soft drinks, alcohol, and tobacco. She is now part of the Council of Advisors for the China-based globalist organization the Boao Forum for Asia, run by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Zhou Xiaochuan, former governor of the People’s Bank of China, the communist nation’s answer to the Federal Reserve. At the Boao Forum, she is president of the organization’s Global Health Forum (GHF). The GHF’s first annual conference was held in June 2019, and among the organization’s stated goals was to “advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Among a broad menu of other things, that UN program promises by 2030 to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” This UN program is the framework on which all other world government organizations and NGOs are basing their efforts to build health, vaccination, and digital ID plans and programs.

In its documentation, the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, led by Chan and Fauci, called for numerous steps, including the use of ID technologies to track those vaccinated. According to the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 summary available as a PDF from WHO: “Reaching every community will call for an understanding of the barriers to access and use of immunization; it will also require the underserved to be identified, and micro-plans at the district and community levels to be reviewed and revised in order to ensure that these barriers can be overcome. The rapid expansion of information technology should be leveraged to establish immunization registries and electronic databases that will allow each individual’s immunization status to be tracked, timely reminders to be sent when immunization is due and data to be accessed easily to inform actions. The introduction of unique identification numbers could be a catalyst for the establishment of such systems.”

Schemes for Global ID 

Control Tying vaccine and health data to identification documentation is a twist on an already elaborate, emerging constellation of efforts to subjugate the population of the entire world using a universal digital ID.

In a 2019 paper, the McKinsey Global Institute (McKinsey) described how a digital ID would take the place of traditional paper IDs. The organization worked with all of the leading players in the development of these ID schemes. “Our understanding of good ID was informed by extensive consultations with our research collaboration partners Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations, and the Rockefeller Foundation,” said the McKinsey report. “We also conducted in-depth discussions on the opportunities and challenges associated with digital ID with experts from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Global Development, iSPIRT, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank Group’s ID4D initiative, and the World Economic Forum.”

This is a rogues’ gallery of NGOs if there ever was one. The Omidyar Network, for instance, thinks capitalism should be “reimagined,” which is code for being “managed” by planners to “rebalance power,” shifting it from markets to the state and from businesses to workers’ groups in such a way as to explicitly undermine free market economics, which the organization identifies with its bogeyman, the “Milton Friedman-Friedrich Hayek paradigm.”

In addition to the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations from internationalist mastermind George Soros is the chief NGO involved in the disruption of national sovereignty worldwide, while the Rockefeller Foundation has a deep history of dangerous subversion of individual dignity and rights. The latter organization, to point to just one disturbing example, played a key role in the perpetuation of the eugenics scheme worldwide, including in Nazi Germany. This, of course, sounds preposterous to those unfamiliar with this bit of hidden history. But as pioneering journalist Edwin Black, author of several books on the eugenics movement and Nazi Germany, points out, “The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”

These are some of the key organizations that now want to be trusted to guide the creation of a world scheme of digital identification.

Based on their discussions with these and other organizations behind the scheme, McKinsey reported that a “good ID” (a euphemism preferred by the Omidyar Network) would be authenticated digitally, and could be issued by “a national or local government, by a consortium of private or nonprofit organizations, or by an individual entity.” Technologies used for authentication, McKinsey wrote, could include everything from “biometric data to passwords, PINs, or smart devices and security tokens.”

Building a digital ID platform, McKinsey notes, is needed in order to reach the goals outlined by the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the same program guiding the efforts of Margaret Chan’s Global Health Forum.

Describing digital ID as an opportunity — the main theme of the report — Mc-Kinsey pointed directly to the UN program, arguing that the world body’s “Sustainable Development Goals promote legal identity for all, especially birth registration, by 2030. Furthermore, digital ID is increasingly seen as a prerequisite to participate in the digital economy, for example in digital finance. Digital inclusion is considered so important to promote economic development that the United Nations has highlighted digital inclusion as a key enabler for 13 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”

That last bit is promoted by those behind the digital ID schemes as a benefit. People provided with these new digital talismans will be able to get financing, secure jobs, purchase products, participate in democracy, and so forth, according to the prevailing propaganda.

But the reverse is also true. Without the digital ID, freedom will be revoked. There will be no freedom to work for a living, to purchase property, to move about freely, or to trade for goods or services. The digital ID is, in fact, a scheme to restrict or eliminate individual freedom outright and to provide it only on the authority of some NGO or government agency.

Turn over enough rocks and you’ll find some of those behind the push for a digital ID admitting that the scheme is actually about controlling people and behavior. While pushing for adoption of digital IDs, McKinsey admits: “Without proper controls, digital ID system administrators with nefarious aims, whether they work for private-sector firms or governments, would gain access to and control over data. History provides ugly examples of misuse of traditional identification programs, including tracking or persecuting ethnic and religious groups. Digital ID, if improperly designed, could be used in yet more targeted ways against the interests of individuals or groups by government or the private sector. Potential motivations could include financial profit from the collection and storage of personal data, political manipulation of an electorate, and social control of particular groups through surveillance and restriction of access to uses such as payments, travel, and social media.”

One of the companies building the technological infrastructure for digital ID schemes is arms manufacturer and security firm Thales Group. Partially owned by the French government, the key division of Thales working on Digital ID is Gemalto, a formerly independent company that Thales acquired in 2017 for $5.4 billion.

As with every other participant in the digital ID scheme, Gemalto points to its alignment with the UN’s goals in its literature on building a digital ID. And it admits that a future digital identity will be necessary for individuals to engage in activities that, today, don’t require an ID. “Without a robust means of proving one’s identity, exercising one’s basic rights, claiming entitlements, accessing a range of governmental services, and conducting many daily activities could be hampered,” Gemalto warns.

It should be noted that this is not something coming in the distant, far-off future. Digital IDs are already being implemented. For just one example, in July 2019, Thales launched the Gemalto Digital ID Wallet. In a press release the company described the function of this technology:

"With Thales’s new Gemalto Digital ID Wallet, governments will issue a secure digital version of official documents including identity cards, health cards and drivers licenses, available to all citizens on their smartphones. Citizens will therefore be able to prove who they are, both online and in the “real world,” and access their rights and services at the touch of a button. The solution uses multi-layered security techniques and sophisticated encryption to achieve robust protection of personal data, whilst offering users complete control over what information they choose to share, with whom, and when."

Solutions such as this would invariably be tied to various databases housing information about each person. It is a trivial matter to include in such databases information about credit scores, consumer behavior, and more. In China, the population is increasingly controlled by the communist regime’s “social credit score.” Writing for Digital Trends in 2018, Luke Dormehl pointed out that the West is closer to China’s system than many think. Of China’s Orwellian plan, he wrote: “In addition to more mundane areas like whether you pay your community charge on time, the system’s reputational algorithm will also factor in your choice of online friends. That person who complains about how the government is doing its job could suddenly cost you some serious social cred. Befriend too many wrongthinkers and you could quickly find yourself classed as a wrongthinker too.”

It’s disturbing, and it’s not going to be confined to China. “It’s an idea straight out of the oft-invoked George Orwell dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four,” Dormehl continued. “But it’s also not wholly unique to China. True, the U.S. government isn’t publicly instituting a Social Credit System, but the idea that digital reputation analysis isn’t something that affects us all in 2018 is patently untrue.”

While somewhat informal and dispersed today in America, a worldwide digital ID would offer the planet’s would-be ruling class — the international “Deep State” if you will — the opportunity to roll out a communist China-like system for everyone, offering a level of control over people never before possible, or even dreamed of by tyrants of the past.

See here

The Health ID Scheme 

One of the key international organizations working to integrate digital ID and health ID is the World Bank, through its Identification for Development (ID4D) scheme. In 2018, the world financial body revealed in a report on its ID4D initiatives that it was receiving key support from certain governments and from a pair of the internationalist and subversive NGOs that are prominent throughout the movement to shackle the world’s people to an ID control scheme. “The work of ID4D is made possible through support from the World Bank Group, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Government, the Australian Government and the Omidyar Network,” the World Bank report notes.

The World Bank calls for the linking of a health ID with existing national IDs into a resulting, all-encompassing digital ID called a “foundational identification.”

“Integration between foundational identification and healthcare systems has the potential to not only improve the delivery of health services and public health management, but also to strengthen identification systems themselves,” the World Bank report notes. “This is particularly the case where there are strong linkages between identification and civil registration systems, the latter of which already relies on the health sector for birth and death registration. Incorporating foundational systems into healthcare can strengthen and streamline these processes and create further demand for identity documents and civil registration.”

On the latter point, generating citizen demand for more ID documents, the World Bank report is slyly admitting that demand for IDs will be driven by restricting services to only those who already have the ID required. “Where a unique foundational identifier is required to enroll in or access health services, it may increase incentives to obtain the ID, as in Estonia and India,” the report notes. Again, that’s because without the new ID, citizens would be prevented from accessing services.

Of course, the World Bank’s 2018 report also pointed out that a “foundational identification” scheme that incorporates health ID would be “useful” during health emergencies. “Stronger vital statistics generated by CR [civil registration] systems also benefit public health by improving the accuracy and timeliness of important indicators — e.g., mortality, morbidity, maternal and child health, etc. — used in health policy and planning and emergency response to disease outbreaks,” the organization says.

Population Control

As if tracking and controlling people isn’t bad enough, there may be a more sinister population-control plan afoot. Speaking at a TED conference in 2010 on the subject of cutting carbon emissions to prevent global warming, Bill Gates pointed to population control as one area where an impact could be made. Among other things, he singled out vaccination as having a role in population control.

“First we’ve got population,” Gates began. “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Now, most people make the reasonable conclusion that vaccines, making people less prone to disease and, therefore, healthier, promote population stability, if not outright growth. But Gates, quite curiously, tied vaccines to population control in this talk.

Subsequently, Melinda Gates attempted to explain his counterintuitive philosophy on vaccines for population control. In the couple’s 2017 Annual Letter, she wrote: “Saving children’s lives is the goal that launched our global work. It’s an end in itself. But then we learned it has all these other benefits as well. If parents believe their children will survive — and if they have the power to time and space their pregnancies — they choose to have fewer children.”

Credible but also creditably disputed claims, especially in Kenya, that some Gates-related vaccines intervened in human reproduction aside, Gates and his organization are interested in population control. Their work for a decade or more on tying vaccination to identification is clearly part of this agenda. Even taking the generous position of assigning to Gates the possibility that he is attempting to simply improve childhood health and reduce poverty does not remove or make illegitimate concerns about using vaccination and health IDs to track the world’s population, as such a scheme creates a system of control for population technocrats to direct the lives of billions of people in a power grab of unimaginable proportions — and consequences.

At least not everyone in the Trump administration is simply going along with the internationalist plan for the implementation of health IDs.

Speaking to Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Attorney General Bill Barr said he didn’t like the idea of vaccine IDs and certificates to prove immunity to COVID-19.

“I’m very concerned about the slippery slope in terms of continuing encroachments on personal liberty. I do think during the emergency, appropriate, reasonable steps are fine,” Barr said when asked about vaccine certificates. Asked for more specifics, he continued: “I’d be a little concerned about that, the tracking of people and so forth, generally, especially going forward over a long period of time.”

Opposition aside, if technocrats such as Gates achieve their aims, Americans will not be able to shop, work, travel, or do anything else without their vaccine/health ID, which will almost certainly end up in some sort of technological and possibly injectable form. This likely would then be combined in the future with your credit score and other social scores, becoming an all-encompassing tracking and management technology for the world’s population.

Keep in mind, too, the very important point that plans for a digital ID imposed worldwide are not schemes for the far-distant future. The UN development goals motivating the construction of the ID scheme call for implementation by 2030, just a decade away. But already, much of the infrastructure is in place. From Thales and Gemalto already launching digital ID wallets, to pilot projects in places such as Bangladesh and early digital ID operations in Estonia and India, to name just two of many, the electronic control trap is ready to spring.

“The technology sector is on a mission to equip everyone on the planet with a digital and online presence,” wrote Gavi Vaccine Alliance CEO Seth Berkely in Nature in 2017. “One of the biggest needs is for affordable, secure digital identification systems that can store a child’s medical history, and that can be accessed even in places without reliable electricity. That might seem a tall order, but it is both achievable and necessary,” he concluded.

Again, Berkely was writing in 2017. The scheme has made great strides since then, and a pandemic is just what is needed to scare a fearful populace into submission.

See here

Contrary to what the Deep State schemers and planners claim, people receive neither legitimacy nor identity from an NGO- or government-administered database or tracking system. Each person’s natural rights are inherent in their humanity and cannot be subjected in any legitimate way to control, management, and regulation by some oligarchic international bureaucracy.

A digital ID scheme is nothing more than a means of tracking personal activity and limiting and regulating access and behavior. It is antithetical to a free people. That the plans for this have been and continue to be made at international conferences and behind the closed doors of international agencies and NGOs, unreported by the media and without citizen knowledge or assent, tells you much about their essential nature.

Technocrat oligarchs and planners are not looking to emancipate the peoples of the world, but to enslave and control them.

Don’t let them. Live free — oppose the ID!

(in The New American, 18 May 2020).