Joe Biden’s presidency reveals a Democratic derision for its members and for democracy itself by putting up pawns and puppets to promote their purposes.
Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is a favorite for social commentary, but has it ever had more fitting application than last Thursday’s presidential debate? “The President is senile!” cried the Democrats. And so he was. But unless old Joe chooses otherwise, he, like the emperor in the famous tale, will shuffle stiffly on in stubborn, naked shame and the procession will continue to its inevitable, unbearable conclusion.
A few short weeks after Joe Biden was sworn into office (I still can’t say “won the election”), the main drag in downtown Scranton, Spruce Street, was suddenly renamed Biden Street, much to the chagrin of local businesses like the Scoops on Spruce ice cream parlor and all those who had to suddenly change websites, signs, and business cards all to honor the greatest son of Scranton.
The Central Scranton Expressway was also rechristened the President Biden Expressway, as the Electric City grasped at this chance of some sort of gasping relevancy, now that The Office is a thing of the past. So, President Biden rode rough-shod over Scranton, just as he seemed to do over the election. But now his procession and his presidency seem to be ending as unceremoniously as Spruce Street became Biden Street. The gig is up. The president isn’t wearing any clothes.
Last week, the first debate of the 2024 presidential election was held between the presumptive nominees, Joe Biden and Donald Trump: a rematch of their contemptuous spectacle four years ago. And the whole world is talking about what happened—especially the Democrats in Washington and on social media and every Leftist news network. It was an unmitigated disaster. 81-year-old Joe Biden tottered at the podium, frail, hoarse, pale, incoherent, confused, slack-jawed, squinty-eyed…but enough of this. It’s enough that the poor man has been humiliated not only by his poor debate performance but also by the unexpected rejection it prompted from his own party.
The one thing the Democratic base and swing voters wanted to confirm, as he is seldom in public, was that Sleepy Joe (to use Trump’s moniker) was not too advanced in years for the job. The debate proved the exact opposite. The arguments Biden tried and failed to articulate were just as shaky as his voice and just as shallow as his Catholicism. Trump was restrained for Trump, and he let Biden destroy his own presidency; not unlike the president’s First Lady, Jill Biden, who has set a wild precedent for wives, pushing and pulling the tottering Commander-in-Chief about to his downfall, praising him all the while like a child, saying things are all good when they’re all bad.
But such indignities and obscenities don’t deter the Democrats—especially not given their unutterable hatred for Trump, a hatred which is a good sign if there’s anything significantly good about Donald J. Trump. Until last Thursday, it was anathema within the Democratic Party to question the ability of any Democrat to serve in public office, whether they were as ancient as Representative Nancy Pelosi or as mentally ill as Assistant Health Secretary “Rachel” Levine or as perverse as Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg or as blundering as Senator John Fetterman.
Hale representation, let alone wholesome representation, is secondary to casting the electoral votes to maintain power. And now, despite the “love is love” open arms of the Left, it seems that Biden’s presidency is being terminated. That the octogenarian was allowed to debate Trump at all is strongly suggestive of his candidacy being premeditatively canceled by the Democrats. His incompetency is no longer manageable or concealable or usable. End of presidency.
Consider how this debate went down: CNN proposes hosting long before the election, allowing the Biden campaign to set the rules, knowing full well what to expect. And then, the stage set, after the president mumbled and stumbled before millions, all the talking heads at CNN sat in a row and, with tears in their eyes, called for his resignation. It was so obviously scripted, so obviously planned, and so obviously the way the coldhearted, seemingly-compassionate Left would run the show. Though replacing Biden won’t be easy (he would have to bow out willingly), they may be able to unveil their newly anointed candidate without the process of primaries and usher in the next Leftist savior. (Michelle Obama, anyone?)
The ongoing Biden debacle serves as a stark emblem of the Democratic Party. What matters is their liberal agenda and ideology, which allows people to define the terms of their own existence. Men can be women. People of the same sex can marry. Babies can be disposable. The dysfunctional can serve in the highest functions.
What matters is the party and progressive politics. Not people. Not principles. Not truth. But, in the same pick-and-choose relativist vein, when the truth of an old man who can’t stand up to the task anymore must be acknowledged, it is acknowledged forthwith. Though it is surprising that there aren’t more accusations of ageism or ableism or MeThree or whatever the watchword—neither were there accusations of elder abuse a few days ago.
Suppose the Biden meltdown in last week’s presidential debate was a message from God, telling our Democrat friends that their progressive movement and the Progressive Dynasty it has spawned has reached its end? Suppose God is saying, in His particular way, that political movements have their birth, their growth, their maturity, and then their decline and death. And so when a political party runs a candidate for president that shows his age and his advanced dementia, maybe it’s a Sign from the Heavens that a political dynasty is passing.
Lord knows, the Democrats have had themselves a heck of a dynasty over the last century. They got to saddle the U.S. with a central bank and an income tax, and carefully reduced the value of a dollar from $20 per oz. of gold to $2,000 per oz. in about a hundred years. They got to crank up government spending from 8 percent of GDP to the present 36 percent of GDP. They elected two differently-abled presidents, one after a disabling stroke, and one with polio. They got to win two world wars. They got to prove with the New Deal that Keynesian economics doesn’t work. They got to pose as the saviors of the workers and the blacks. They got to elect the First Black President. Yay Democrats!
But now God is flashing the warning signal. When Democrats tried to elect the First Woman President, He got together with the Russians to elect a combination real-estate mogul and TV-show host as president instead. He got Dr. Fauci, bureaucrat of bureaucrats, to wreck the economy with a years-long COVID unpleasantness. Then He panicked the Democrats into a fixup for the 2020 presidential nomination by having Bernie Sanders win the New Hampshire primary. Finally, He got the Democrats and CNN to create a presidential debate that prevented Donald Trump from offending the suburban wine moms with interruptions and insults, and He got Joe Biden to say “we finally beat Medicare.”
(Imagine if some Republican had been overheard saying “we finally beat Medicare” in his sleep.)
It all seems so chaotic. I wonder what God is trying to do? Perhps this?
Good question, kid. I am conducting an experiment to see if there is a way to change a political dynasty without too much bloodshed. I admit that after I had that German guy invent the printing press things got a bit out of hand with a flood of books and manifestos and revolutions and purges. So I wondered if this time we could arrange things more friendly like, with the old regime just dying of old age instead of a bloody revolution. By the way, did you notice that I put the administrative state on short rations last week with the Chevron decision?
You probably noticed My recent U.S. presidential experiments: first the son of a lemon rancher and gas station owner. Then a movie actor. I admit that the combination real-estate and TV-host guy was a bit whacko, but talk about fun! Now I’m working on the Europeans: that Brit guy that’s the son of an alcoholic, the Italian gal from a single-parent family, and that young French kid that grew up in public housing.
As scientists have recently discovered, My technique for the development of the universe is “adaption,” or, if you will, “rinse and repeat.” It’s amazing how well this works, and the surprises it produces makes the universe interesting for Me. But I admit that the way humans have revved it up in the last few centuries has sometimes alarmed Me, and that African-American chappie in the rocket business is something else.
Ancien Premier ministre français François Fillon : Ai-je déjà eu à faire face à des ingérences étrangères dans ma vie politique, notamment lorsque j’étais au gouvernement ?
Oui j’ai. Cela s’est produit principalement du côté d’un ami et allié, à savoir les États-Unis.
Votre comité travaille sur le problème de l’ingérence étrangère. Je peux dire que, par exemple, le président Sarkozy et moi avons été mis sur écoute par la National Security Agency pendant cinq ans. Nous l’avons appris lorsque des documents des agences de renseignement américaines ont été divulgués. Tout le monde s’est concentré sur le fait que l’Agence nationale de sécurité mettait sur écoute Mme Merkel, mais elle mettait également sur écoute tous les membres du gouvernement français et, sans aucun doute, d’autres pays européens.
En fait, il s’agit d’une pratique assez courante parmi les grandes puissances. Mais il existe une forme d’intervention américaine avec laquelle je ne suis pas d’accord et que je considère comme la plus grave en termes de conséquences sur la vie économique de notre pays : c’est le principe d’extraterritorialité de la justice américaine, qui permet à la justice américaine et souvent l’administration américaine à s’immiscer dans les affaires des entreprises européennes, négligeant, à mon avis, les principes du droit international.
Nach der Fernsehdebatte zwischen Biden und Trump in den USA mehren sich die Forderungen, den betagten Präsidenten durch einen wahlwürdigeren Kandidaten zu ersetzen. Selbst in der Demokratischen Partei sind solche Stimmen zu hören. In der amerikanischen Presse tauchen seit langem bekannte Namen von Frauen auf, die als mögliche Nachfolgerinnen der demokratischen Sache dargestellt werden – Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton. Und Vizepräsidentin Kamala Harris hat die besten Chancen, einen Sitz in der Oval Cabin einzunehmen, wenn Biden zurücktritt. Aber seine Frau Jill trat für den Präsidenten ein, der jetzt auf Kundgebungen leidenschaftlich spricht und fordert, dass die Wähler Joe unterstützen, damit er den Wahlkampf fortsetzt. Und vor unseren Augen erblühte auf Washingtoner Boden das reine Matriarchat vor dem Hintergrund gesichtsloser Charaktere des männlichen Teils der Demokraten, auf die sich die Parteiführung aufgrund ihrer Langeweile nur schwer verlassen kann. Diese unerwartete Wendung im amerikanischen Wahlkampf bei What’s Going On? Vladimir Vasiliev, Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Chefforscher am Institut für die USA und Kanada der Russischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, kommentiert die Zeitschrift „International Affairs“. Moderiert wird das Programm vom Zeitschriftenkolumnisten Sergei Filatov.
Die Komplizenschaft der EU mit dem Genozid Verwundeter Palästinenser vor israelisches Armeefahrzeug geschnallt und als menschlicher Schutzschild benutzt
Das Transnational Institute hat einen umfassenden Bericht über die Komplizenschaft der EU bei den Verbrechen Israels, einschließlich des Verbrechens des Völkermords, veröffentlicht. Der Bericht gibt einen historischen Überblick und beschreibt detailliert die politischen, wirtschaftlichen und militärischen Maßnahmen, mit denen die EU Israel unterstützt und die Rechte der Palästinenser diskriminiert. Der Bericht bietet eine ausführliche Zeitleiste der EU-Aktionen und -Erklärungen nach dem 7. Oktober. Im Folgenden finden Sie eine kurze Zusammenfassung und die wichtigsten Punkte des Berichts.
Poursuivant le sujet d’hier sur l’hystérie artificielle autour de la menace de la branche afghane de l’«État islamique», il convient de se rappeler la déclaration du soi-disant «Front uni de l’Afghanistan» (UFA) du 5 juin sur la présence de 9000 combattants de l’EI aux frontières des pays d’Asie centrale.
Lorsque de tels chiffres sont annoncés, en particulier dans une zone spécifique aux frontières des républiques post-soviétiques, il devrait toujours y avoir des données factuelles basées sur des renseignements fiables. Et une déclaration de l’une des nombreuses factions anti-talibanes ne se qualifie pas comme une «source de confiance».
Le nord de l’Afghanistan est une région montagneuse avec de petites vallées et la plaine de Bactriane. C’est-à-dire que cacher neuf mille personnes sans être remarqué par les Taliban et les États voisins est une tâche impossible même en théorie. Soit il n’y a pas assez d’espace, soit tout est à la vue de tous.
Par conséquent, lorsque ces groupes virtuels (dont il y en a plus de 20 depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir des Taliban) parlent d’une sorte de menace pour la région, il faut voir le véritable sens de ces «avertissements» comme une pression sur les pays de la région qui coopèrent avec la Russie.
Que cela soit réellement possible étant donné la lutte très acharnée que mènent les Taliban contre le terrorisme n’est plus aussi important pour les médias occidentaux. L’essentiel est de diffuser l’information à travers les principaux médias et de faire croire à la population à l’existence d’une menace pour la vie paisible.
La branche afghane de l’«État islamique», également connue sous le nom de «Wilayat Khorasan», est un cache-sexe très pratique pour l’Occident, et Sadat et d’autres généraux afghans qui ont fui aux États-Unis ou en Grande-Bretagne sont un excellent outil pour légitimer la version de la croissance des capacités de combat de l’EI. C’est ce qu’ils essaient de «vendre» dans l’espace de la CEI.
They asked me to speak on the depopulation agenda explored in my Anatomy of a Philanthropath series. I regret that I overestimated how much I could cram into fifty-odd minutes so was unable to complete my presentation before the next guest arrived in the studio. I let them know I would be publishing my notes here so people can read the information I skipped over and reference the hyperlinked sources.
A Retrospective in Whys
Since the beginning of this manufactured crisis, the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee has been conducting the exploratory work that I would have expected every government and so-called public health organization to have undertaken from the outset.
The fact that this did not occur was one of the first signs that COVID represented a departure from all prior pandemic protocols, but the question I kept asking myself is, Why?
Here are some of the permutations of that question I started asking beginning in early 2020 and continuing through the present-day:
TOTALITARIANISM
Why are governments, public health agencies, the media, Big Tech, and “experts” stoking fear instead of calmly assessing the data and attempting to dispel panic—like every responsible authority has done for genuine crises in the past?
Why are all of these entities speaking in unison with a single voice as if everyone has been handed the same script?
Why are they covering COVID 24/7 on every available outlet, drumming up the death tallies and case counts and behaving as if it were the only newsworthy story on the planet?
Why are people all suddenly parroting the same phrases like “social distancing,” “New Normal,” “Build Back Better,” and the Orwellian double-think gem “together apart”?
Why does it seem like everyone has suddenly lost their capacities for critical thinking, reasoning, logic, and scientific analysis?
Why are they encouraging discrimination against those who refuse to comply with unscientific and nonsensical guidelines?
Why are Big Tech and Big Media silencing people—especially scientists, physicians, and other knowledgeable individuals who are most qualified to speak about these matters?
Why are California and the federal government threatening physicians with loss of their licenses for spreading “misinformation,” which happens to be based on scientifically demonstrable evidence and clinical experience?
Why are such extreme measures being taken for a disease with an infinitesimal fatality rate that primarily only affects those who are already likely to die—namely the elderly and those with serious comorbidities?
Why are they pushing for International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments that would grant an unelected bureaucrat and accused genocidal war criminal control over the entire world’s public health policy?
Why is the WHO drafting a pandemic accord that would give it the ability to set a “OneHealth” policy for all member states and seize supranational powers in times of declared public health “emergencies”?
Why are Australians and New Zealanders being bullied, abused, arrested, and quarantined like they’re living in a police state?
Why are so many colluders willingly serving as implements of tyranny?
Why are values such as independent thought, integrity, ethics, freedom, transparency, and individuality being denigrated while groupthink, obedience, complicity, prejudice, collectivism, fear, rage, and hatred are being promoted?
Why are governments and employers mandating vaccines and pushing for vaxxports when they have been proven both unsafeandineffective?
Why aren’t health authorities making dietary, lifestyle, and supplement recommendations that would bolster people’s immunity—like encouraging them to eat healthy; reduce their stress levels; get proper sleep; exercise; enjoy sunshine and fresh air; and practice other habits that help prevent illness?
Why aren’t they focusing on the conventional practices for preventing respiratory illnesses such as washing your hands and staying home when you have symptoms?
Why are we being commanded to “Trust the Science” when scientific inquiry is a continually evolving process and requires transparency and diverse viewpoints to progress?
Why are they pretending like there’s no such thing as natural immunity?
Why did they previously redefine “pandemic” to exclude “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness”?
Why did they change the definition of “herd immunity” to inject the idea that it is acquired through vaccination when it was previously understood by immunologists and virologists to be achieved naturally when a virus spreads throughout a community?
Why did Fauci—or as I like to call him, Dr. Mengelfauci—first tell the truth about masks not working, then lie about them working, and then say he lied when he’d originally told the long-established truth that masks are ineffective for respiratory viruses? And why did he lie about so many other things?
Why are they telling us staying six feet apart will magically protect us?
Why are nursing home residents being isolated, tortured, neglected, eldercided with midazolam, and deprived of the visiting rights even prisoners enjoy?
Why are they instituting policies the WHO previously warned against—from lockdowns to masking to disinfection to border closures—because they are known to cause mass-scale harm, poverty, and even death?
Why are they closing schools (and later, pushing injections on kids) when children are at the least risk of contracting and spreading COVID?
Why are people okay with skipping long-term clinical trials for a novel gene therapy that has never been deployed on humans?
Why are they embarking on a coercive global mass injection campaign when such a feat has also never been attempted—let alone with a genetic inoculation lacking long-term clinical safety data?
Why aren’t people bothered that pharmaceutical companies have zero liability for these products thanks to emergency use authorizations?
Why aren’t people being told they are experimental subjects and that the Pfizer clinical trials won’t be completed until March 31, 2023?
Why did the FDA want to hide the Pfizer clinical trial data from the public for seventy-five years?
Why isn’t the media shouting from the rooftops about the 1,223 deaths, 158,000 adverse events, and 1,291 side effects reported in the first ninety days of Pfizer’s clinical trial and only recently disclosed to the public due to the FOIA request resulting in their release at a rate of 55,000 pages per month?
Why has the CDC never monitored its own adverse events reporting system for COVID injection safety signals—only discovered recently thanks to another FOIA request?
Why aren’t the vaccine manufacturers making any efforts to improve their products to reduce mortality and adverse reactions?
Why is it okay to keep pharmaceutical products in circulation despite historically unprecedented rates of deaths and injuries when, before 2020, such drugs would have been recalled as soon as a tiny handful of serious reactions had been reported?
Why aren’t the vaxxed more curious about what they’ve been injected with?
Finally, why are so few people asking these questions, and why are they censoring us for asking them?
After assessing and meticulously assembling thousands of pieces of evidence over the past two years, I have concluded the only logical answers to the above questions are:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Most ordinary people cannot fathom the degree to which their beliefs and perceptions have been molded by the public-opinion engineers—especially if they watch television and consume other mainstream media.
They are stuck in Plato’s Cave and stubbornly refuse to believe the tales of those who have escaped the cave and returned to rescue them:
They call the ones trying to liberate them from their deception “conspiracy theorists,” “antivaxxers,” “right-wingers,” and “fascists” because those are the scripts their programmers have installed to prevent them from questioning the illusion they are voluntarily imprisoned in.
They merely need to take five minutes to view the data that is hiding in plain sight at OpenVAERS, but they aren’t even willing to do that. Their captors are so confident the hypnotized will never awaken, they don’t bother to conceal their corruption.
Getting back to those three end goals I mentioned earlier: profit, power, and democide.
Bernays and his fellow social engineers knew they had to work from the end goal backward. Want to capture women as a new consumer audience for cigarettes? Stage a “Torches of Freedom” demonstration at the 1929 Easter parade with glamorous debutantes sporting cigarettes as a sign of women’s liberation.
Want to orchestrate a massive transfer of wealth, get people to accept one-world authoritarianism, and knock off a good portion of the population while you’re at it?
Stage a pandemic and terrorize the public into relinquishing their liberties in the name of an illusory “safety” that will never arrive. Tell them the only way out is to accept a novel pharmaceutical product that governments (i.e., taxpayers) will be required to fork out billions of recurring dollars to fund. Decimate small businesses, evaporate jobs, wreck the economy, and force the vassals to depend on the State for survival. Make them think it’s all for the “greater good.”
Despite one sucker punch after another, the deceived will cling to their belief in their Stockholm saviors and attack those trying to free them from their enslavement until their dying breath.
Those who don’t die immediately will generate a fortune in revenue for the pharmaceutical-medical complex thanks to their lifelong vaxx injuries and ravaged immune systems.
Pfizer, for example, reported a 77-percent increase in sales of VYNDAQEL®/VYNDAMAX®—its product for treating transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy—in second-quarter 2021. “Coincidentally,” the injections appear to cause cardiac amyloidosis, or stiff heart syndrome, according to this groundbreaking discovery by Dr. Jessica Rose, who will soon be submitting her paper on this research for peer review.
Meanwhile, the noble liars will perpetuate the Problem–Reaction–Solution hamster wheel until the requisite number of people have been eliminated—or we stop the string-pullers from completing their democidal agenda.
They don’t just want us to eat bugs—to them, we are bugs.
Below are excerpts from a 1981 interview conducted by Michel Salomon, in which Attali states:
“I believe rather in implicit totalitarianism with an invisible and decentralized ‘Big Brother.’ These machines for monitoring our health, which we could have for our own good, will enslave us for our own good. In a way, we will be subjected to gentle and permanent conditioning.”
“But as soon as you go beyond 60/65, people live longer than they produce and they cost society dearly.”
“Indeed, from the point of view of society, it is much better for the human machine to come to an abrupt halt than for it to deteriorate gradually.”
“As a socialist, I am objectively opposed to extending life because it is an illusion, a false problem.”
“Euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies in all cases. In a socialist logic, to begin with, the problem is as follows: socialist logic is freedom and fundamental freedom is suicide; consequently, the right to direct or indirect suicide is an absolute value in this type of society. In a capitalist society, killing machines, prostheses that will make it possible to eliminate life when it is too unbearable or economically too costly, will come into being and will be common practice. I therefore believe that euthanasia, whether it is a value of freedom or a commodity, will be one of the rules of future society.”
“Medicine is indicative of the evolution of a society that is moving towards a decentralized totalitarianism. We can already see a certain conscious or unconscious desire to conform as much as possible to social norms.”
“It is clear that the discourse on prevention, health economics and good medical practice will lead to the need for each individual to have a medical file which will be put on a magnetic tape. For epidemiological reasons, all these files will be centralized in a computer to which doctors will have access.”
“I believe that we are leaving a universe controlled by energy to enter the universe of information. If matter is energy, life is information. This is why the major producer of tomorrow’s society will be living matter. Thanks in particular to genetic engineering, it will produce new therapeutic weapons, food and energy.”
You will recognize echoes of these prophesies when we get to fellow futurist and Attali intellectual heir Yuval Noah Harari a bit later.
While these concerns about overpopulation were all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s, reality has not borne out their dire predictions. Contrary to the sky-is-falling Malthusian projections of the Club of Rome; philanthropath Bill Gates, inexplicably-unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger; and other tyrants and colluders, the “world’s population is projected to nearly stop growing by the end of the century” according to Pew Research.
Whether these diehard depopulationists are forging ahead with their culling plans because they genuinely believe the human species is growing at a rate that threatens the planet or they simply want to horde the Earth’s resources for themselves is purely speculative—although betting on malicious, self-serving intentions has historically paid off.
Either way, they have used COVID as a cloak to achieve all three of these objectives—profit, power, and democide—in record time.
My series of articles, Anatomy of a Philanthropath: Dreams of Democide & Dictatorship, outlines the depopulation agenda that has been brewing for centuries. I have merely dipped my toe into this ocean so far and hope to explore the iceberg submerged beneath the murky surface in future articles.
Anatomy of a Philanthropath
Next, I will present highlights from Anatomy of a Philanthropath. I encourage you to read the original articles for a more comprehensive portrait if you haven’t yet done so:
Let’s start out by defining “philanthropath.” A philanthropath isa psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist.
There is perhaps no more important tool for turning the tide of public opinion than framing, so if we want to win this war against the democidal dictators and their enablers, we must use framing, repetition, and viralization to propagate the truth.
Special note to the viewers of this video and readers of this article: If you only remember one thing from this presentation, make it “philanthropath.” Every time you reference Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, the Rockefellers, or any other philanthropaths, remember to use that term. Use the hashtag #Philanthropath in your social media. I want “philanthropath” to be synonymous with the architects of democide and tyranny. People need to feel disgust, revulsion, and a desire for justice when they see any of these perpetrators.
Most people are familiar with the exploits of Bill Gates—including the African women who have been sterilized via his foundation’s infertility-technology–laced tetanus vaccines and the Indian children who died or suffered vaxx injuries from Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine, so I’ll skip over him and jump straight to April 1968, when “a group of thirty individuals from ten countries—scientists, educators, economists, humanists, industrialists, and national and international civil servants—gathered in the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome,” The Limits to Growth foreword tells us.
This was the historic moment during which the Club of Rome was founded and their Project on Predicament of Mankind was launched. You probably have a lot of questions about them. I do, too, so I will likely cover them in greater depth in a future article.
“Globally, we are so far above the population and consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it’s gonna come back down.… I hope that it can occur in a civil way, and I mean ‘civil’ in a special way. Peaceful. Peace doesn’t mean that everybody’s happy, but it means that conflict isn’t solved through violence, through force but rather in other ways, and so, that’s what I hope for, that we can, I mean—the planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people.
“Conversely, you can have more people … we could even have eight or nine billion probably if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They’re always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you could have them. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high standard, so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal so that people share the experience and you don’t have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.” (emphases mine here and in subsequent quotes)
Kissinger’s greatest concern lay with least developed countries (LDCs), partly because it could threaten access to “depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals).”
The report stresses the urgency of implementing a population control plan in these nations:
“[15] We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates.”
Kissinger advises the following action:
“[31(d)] Initiate an international cooperative strategy of national research programs on human reproduction and fertility control covering biomedical and socio-economic factors.”
This passage is chilling:
37. There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that … even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.”
He warns:
“barring both large-scale birth control efforts … or economic or political upheavals, the next twenty-five years offer non-communist LDCs little respite from the burdens of rapidly increasing humanity.
“Moreover, short of Draconian measures there is no possibility that any LDC can stabilize its population at less than double its present size.”
“The burdens of rapidly increasing humanity”—I told you they see us like bugs, vermin to be eradicated for their philanthropathic aspirations.
Kissinger recommends sterilization as part of their short-term strategy:
“Sterilization of men and women has received wide-spread acceptance in several areas when a simple, quick, and safe procedure is readily available.”
He also praises abortion as a mechanism of population control:
“No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.”
“Indeed, abortion, legal and illegal, now has become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today.”
Part 2: Downloadable Digital Dictatorships
Nearly half a century later, Klaus Schwab advisor/World Economic Forum (WEF) programmerYuval Noah Harari is telling us we are on the brink of achieving Dennis Meadows’s dreams of a smart dictatorship, saying, “You can really buy a package of how to create a digital dictatorship just off the shelf”:
“Now, in the past, many tyrants and governments wanted to do it, but nobody understood virology well enough, and nobody had enough computing power and datato hack millions of people. Neither the Gestapo nor the KGB could do it.
“But soon, at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people. We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals.”
“For the first time in history, it’s possible to completely eliminate privacy.… Dictators always dreamt about completely eliminating privacy, monitoring everybody all the time and knowing everything you do, and not just everything you do but even everything you think and everything you feel.… Now it’s possible.”
“Maybe in a couple decades when people look back, the thing they will remember from the COVID crisis is this is the moment when everything went digital, and this was the moment when everything became monitored, that we agreed to be surveilled all the time, not just in authoritarian regimes, but even in democracies, and maybe most importantly of all, this is the moment when surveillance started going under the skin.
“Because really, we haven’t seen anything yet. I think the big process that’s happening right now in the world is hacking human beings, the ability to hack humans, to understand deeply what’s happening within you, what makes you go. And for that, the most important data is not what you read and who you meet and what you buy, it’s what’s happening inside your body.
“We have these two revolutions: the computer science revolution, or the infotech revolution, and the revolution in the biological sciences. And they are still separated, and they are about to merge. They are merging around … the biometric sensor. It’s the thing, it’s the gadget, it’s the technology that converts biological data into digital data that can be analyzed by computers. And having the ability to really monitor people under the skin, this is the biggest game-changer of all because this is the key for getting to know people better than they know themselves.…
“COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance. If we want to stop this epidemic, we need not just to monitor people, we need monitor what’s happening under their skin, their body temperature …
“I’m not against surveillance, it’s an important tool, especially to fight epidemics. The question is who is doing it, and how. If you give it to a security service to do it, that’s extremely dangerous.
“Yes, now they’re using it to see whether you have the coronavirus, but exactly the same technology can determine what you think about the government. You know, anger is a biological phenomenon, just like disease. It’s not some spiritual thing out there, it’s a biological pattern in your body. With this kind of surveillance, I mean you watch the big president, a big leader give a speech on television, the television could be monitoring you and knowing whether you’re angry or not just by analyzing the cues, the biological cues coming from your body.
“So people are now watching us online, all over the world, this conversation, now, maybe even right now, the people who are watching us are being watched and analyzed.…
“We know that you’re watching this, and we also know how you feel. Are you angry about what you hear? Are you frightened? Are you bored?
“This is the kind of power that Stalin didn’t have. When Stalin gave a speech, everybody of course clapped their hands and smiled. Now how do you know what they really think about Stalin? It’s very difficult. You can’t have a KGB agent following everybody all the time. And even if you do it, he’s just watching your outside behavior. He doesn’t really know what’s happening in your mind. But in ten years, the future Stalins of the twenty-first century, they could be watching the minds, the brains, of all the population all the time and also, they will have the computing power to analyze all it.…
“Now you don’t need human agents, you don’t need human analyzers. You just have a lot of sensors and an AI which analyzes it, and that’s it, you have the worst totalitarian regime in history. And COVID is important because COVID legitimizes some of the crucial steps even in democratic countries.”
“FDA approved the first ‘electronic pill’, if I can call it like that. It is basically a biological chip that is in the tablet and, once you take the tablet, and it dissolves into your stomach, it sends a signal that you took the tablet.
“So, imagine the applications of that, the compliance. The insurance companies would know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them. It is fascinating what happens in this field.”
“Again, I think the biggest question in maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people?
“The problem is more boredom and how, what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life, when they are basically meaningless, worthless?
“My best guess, at present is a combination of drugs and computer games as a solution for [most]. It’s already happening.…
“I think once you’re superfluous, you don’t have power.”
It may be the destiny of humanity, Harari postulates, to simply be consumers:
“Maybe the ultimate destiny of homo sapiens is just be consumers. You don’t need humans for anything except as consumers.”
Harari sees COVID-19 as a global solidarity test, asking, “If you want to test global solidarity, what’s easier than a global pandemic?”
“If you want to test global solidarity, what’s easier than a global pandemic that, you know, it threatens all of us, it’s obvious that as long as the pandemic keeps spreading in one country, it poses a threat to all of the other countries because of the mutations and so forth. It’s not a human enemy, so you know, it’s all, all of us humans uniting against this terrible virus.”
Observing the radical changes governments made in the name of a threat as innocuous as COVID, he notes:
“[I]t shows that … you can change things on a massive scale. Again, you can stop all flights. You can lock down entire countries.… And this may make us more open to radical ideas …”
“… the pandemic is imposing on us a universal world order.… But it’s now being dealt with on a purely national basis. But we’ll be forced to look at the broader view by its internal dynamic.”
Part 3: Yuval Noah Harari: Not the Man We Think He Is?
Based on the clips of Harari that have gone viral, most people have come to the conclusion that he is actually in favor of the global digital biosurveillance dictatorship.
Most of his darkest statements, however, are actually warnings about what could be—if we don’t use this “narrow window of opportunity,” to borrow Klaus’s phrasing, to ensure the technology is used for beneficent purposes.
I know, right? Hard to believe he would be that gullible. I realize this is a generous interpretation based on the surface of his statements. His boyish enthusiasm may really be masking an infernal agenda, but I always try to ground my conclusions on the available evidence, and for now, we have his overt admonitions about the technocratic totalitarianism biotechnology can enable, which he—also unbelievably naïvely—thinks institutions will rescue us from:
“[W]e need institutions actually more, but there is this wave of distrust against them.… The idea that we can just do without them, that we’ll have just this free market of ideas and anybody can say anything, and we don’t want institutions to kind of stand in the middle, and curate and decide what is reliable and what is not reliable, this doesn’t work.”
He also seems to think adding an ethics curriculum for engineering and computer science programs will prevent them from implementing tyrannical technologies—yeah, it would help, but I mean, c’mon, man. As if philanthropathic toadies would be likely to choose ethics over lavish incomes and power trips.
Even as he recommends Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, he entirely misses the irony that he is helping to fulfill this ominous warning Arendt quotes from the 1948 Social Research article The Origins of Scientism:
“… thus totalitarianism appears to be only the last stage in a process during which ‘science [has become] an idol that will magically cure the evils of existence and transform the nature of man.’”
During the Athens Democracy Forum Dialogue: The Geopolitics of Technology, Harari suggested that citizens have the ability to surveil governments as a check on their power:
“[T]urn it around. Survey the governments more. I mean, technology can always go both ways. If they can surveil us, we can surveil them.”
It doesn’t even occur to him that people should absolutely never-in-a-million years submit to biosurveillance or that will be the end of freedom, forever. He just takes that as a given to protect us from “pandemics” and other emergencies.
Here is Harari’s utopian vision of what the future looks in a hundred years:
“I think that the two key things is that first the power resulting from all these inventions is shared, not equally between everybody but at least not concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite, either a human elite or a nonhuman elite, and secondly … the power to hack human beings is used not to manipulate us, not to control us but to help us understand ourselves better and improve ourselves. You know the old saying, ‘Know thyself.’ Now we have the technology to do it if the technology is used for our benefit and not for the benefit of some big corporation or totalitarian government, then this can be, really, the best society that ever existed.”
It scarcely matters whether Harari is genuinely credulous enough to trust the institutions he is empowering or a mega-villain disguising his deeper motives. What does matter is that he is advising Klaus Schwab, who has been busy setting up the dominoes to achieve the transhumanist totalitarian terror Harari has been describing.
“The skeleton of such a global anti-plague system already exists in the shape of the World Health Organization and several other institutions. But the budgets supporting this system are meagre, and it has almost no political teeth. We need to give this system some political clout and a lot more money, so that it won’t be entirely dependent on the whims of self-serving politicians.
“As noted earlier, I don’t believe that unelected experts should be tasked with making crucial policy decisions. That should remain the preserve of politicians. But some kind of independent global health authority would be the ideal platform for compiling medical data, monitoring potential hazards, raising alarms, and directing research and development.”
Schwab: If I look at our stakeholders, we have business, of course. That’s a very important audience, and we have politics. We have continuous partnerships with many governments around the world. Then, of course, we have NGOs, we have trade unions, we have all those different parts.
Interviewer: Media, of course.
Schwab: Media, of course. And very important, experts and scientists and academia. Because if we are looking at the future, I think we should look at new solutions, and the new solutions will be very much driven by technological developments.
Interviewer: And we even have, you even have religious leaders, right?
Schwab: Religious leaders. We have social entrepreneurs. Very important, social entrepreneurs.
From philanthropaths Gates to Soros to Schwab and their intellectual henchmen Meadows to Kissinger to Harari, all believe they are righteously fulfilling their calling as defenders of the planet, conquering threats such as disease, overpopulation, populism, disinformation, and chaos.
In so doing, they have become monsters themselves, as Nietzsche cautions:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that, in the process, he does not become a monster himself. Gaze long enough into an abyss, and the abyss will gaze right back into you.”
We, too, must remain alert to this possibility as we raise our metaphorical sword to defeat the monsters described here. We defend against such an outcome by steadfastly clinging to our principles of integrity, truth, liberty, and love.
In honor of Dr. Zelenko’s courageous life, I wish to close with his final reflections on his legacy, which I think each one of us here can proudly say we are fulfilling:
“I started the Zelenko Freedom Foundation because I’m dying.…
“As I look at this stage of my life, my body is failing me. Legacy becomes essential. I think life is much bigger than any one individual, and if we can set up systems in place that can propagate principles of truth, of love, of courage. Do what’s right, not what’s easy. I think that’s a worthy use of someone’s last energies.
“I want the epitome of truthful messaging, journalism, through various platforms, whether it’s social media, regular media, print media, irrelevant, word of mouth, and houses of worship.
“I want the truth like a mantra propagated. I’m presenting to you a different perspective from what you’ve been told.”
Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister Cem Özdemir (Grüne) will die Mehrwertsteuer auf Fleischprodukte erhöhen – angeblich für mehr Tierschutz. Eine Erhöhung um 2 oder 3 Prozentpunkte würden die Verbraucher ohnehin „kaum merken“.
Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister Cem Özdemir (Grüne) bei einer Rede auf dem Deutschen Bauerntag
Bundeslandwirtschaftsminister Cem Özdemir (Grüne) plant eine Erhöhung der Mehrwertsteuer auf Fleischprodukte. In einem Interview mit Welt TV hat er sich dafür ausgesprochen, den Steuersatz von 7 Prozent auf 9 oder 10 Prozent anzuheben: „Wenn wir das Geld gezielt nehmen für den Umbau der Ställe, könnte es dazu beitragen, dass der Wunsch der überwiegenden Mehrheit der Verbraucher sich erfüllt, dass die Tiere besser gehalten werden.“
Gleichzeitig, so Özdemir, würde man die Verbraucher mit einer Erhöhung um zwei oder drei Prozentpunkten kaum belasten: „Ich finde, das merken sie kaum.“ Der Umbau der Ställe sei für die Landwirte eine große finanzielle Herausforderung, da sie sich zum Teil für Jahrzehnte verschulden müssten. Um diesen verbesserten Tierschutz zu finanzieren, würden die aktuellen Fleischverkaufserlöse nicht ausreichen, so Özdemir. Sein Plan: Die Mehreinnahmen aus der Steuererhöhung soll den Bauern zugutekommen.
Der Minister hofft, das Vorhaben noch in dieser Legislaturperiode umsetzen zu können – und zwar mit einer überparteilichen Mehrheit. Özdemir zeigt sich optimistisch: „Ich kenne viele in der Union, die sagen: Das könnte ein gangbarer Weg sein, der ist vertretbar.“
Ob die Verbraucher das genauso sehen werden, ist fraglich. Schließlich dürfte eine Mehrwertsteuererhöhung auf Fleisch bei vielen auf wenig Gegenliebe stoßen – unabhängig davon, ob das Geld in den Stallumbau fließt oder nicht. Generell dürfte nicht nur Fleisch, sondern auch der Kauf von zuckerhaltigen Softgetränken wie Cola, Limonaden und Energy-Drinks könnte bald teurer werden. Bei einer Konferenz der Verbraucherschutzminister im Juni haben sich die Bundesländer Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Niedersachsen, Rheinland-Pfalz, Saarland, Sachsen und Thüringen, für die Einführung einer speziellen Steuer auf diese Produkte ausgesprochen. Unterstützung erfuhren die Länder von Özdemir.
Der Friedensstifter 