This one-hour documentary movie follows investigative reporter Simone Gao’s inquiry into critical questions about the pandemic: What did the Chinese Communist leadership do at the early stages of the outbreak? What significant truth have they concealed from the world, and why did they do that? The documentary also casts light on who has let the the CCP run rampant, and what can be learned from the western world’s history of dealing with Communist China.
Source: YouTube & The Epoch Times
Editor’s Note: What’s happening in America today is a clear and present danger to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Wake Up or lose your freedoms forever.
You’re being scammed by enemies of America who occupy powerful positions in government and the media. November 2020 is the way we, the people, can fight back. Know your enemy. Ditch the masks. Rise.
Source: YouTube
By Harley Price
Across Canada and the United States, the disappointingly small groups of peaceful protesters who have supplicated the authorities to be allowed to return to work have been mocked by their political nannies as reckless and selfish yahoos endangering the lives of the rest of us.
Even immediate family members—some of whom have been known to sleep in the same bed—have been officially shamed and fined for violating the protocols of social distancing while walking in the park or kneeling in the pews.
But that was—as our woke millennials are wont to put it—so yesterday. Today, these corona-villains might consider joining the rioters the next time they feel the need for a little physical or spiritual recreation.
Apparently, marching shoulder to shoulder with your revolutionary comrades, bloodying the faces of Asian, Latino, and black shopkeepers trying to defend their livelihood, or clutching looted big-screen TVs to your bosom—all without wearing nitrile gloves or first dousing the teeming, pathogenic surfaces of stolen merchandise or victims of your violence in disinfectant—is virologically riskless when it’s for the sake of equality and justice.
Did I miss the announcement from doctors Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx that massing in violent mobs has now been determined to foster the herd immunity that their unconstitutional lockdown forestalled? And does this mean that ordinary Canadians and Americans have finally been granted permission to leave their domestic prisons, resurrect their moribund businesses, and resume their foundational civil rights of freedom of assembly and worship?
Of course not. In fact, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio was careful to stipulate that the recent rise in COVID-19 cases likely has nothing to do with the massive nationwide demonstrations (after warning solemnly that back-to-work protests in Republican flyover country were socially irresponsible). Is anyone still sufficiently credulous as to believe that holy science is politically disinterested?
The tacit approval by politicians and medical “experts” of the rioters’ flouting of the urgent social-distancing edicts tells you something more generally about our rulers’—to be generous, let’s call it—philosophy of governance. It’s an open secret that for decades the perennially enraged left has been formally exempt from the cinching restrictions that apply only to bourgeois, law-abiding deplorables, and the authorities have always been petrified to acknowledge, let alone repeal, this reeking double standard.
So long as you affirm that you’re “for the poor and downtrodden” you have legal immunity to trash and burn the neighborhoods of the poor and downtrodden. Little old ladies who recite their rosaries in menacing proximity to an abortion clinic are sentenced to lengthy prison terms, but Indigenous and environmental pipeline protesters have official license to occupy and blockade public rail lines and bring national transportation networks to a halt for months. The double standard is the patriotic banner, flown with pride, of the progressive army, which preaches diversity and inclusion while everywhere denouncing and censoring non-conformist opinion and speech, and blighting the careers of the insufficiently zealous.
Naturally, progressives oppose “fascism” (about which they are too young and badly educated to know anything); and to show how much they hate it, they use the violent tactics of the SS.
The torching and demolition of America’s “racist” cities—almost every one presided over by Democratic governors, mayors, municipal councils, and police chiefs (many of whom are black, to compound the irony)—by the oxymoronically named Antifa, Black Lives Matter, believe-the-women-(unless-they-accuse-Democrats) feminists, gay and trans activists, queers for open borders, Indigenous national militants, evangelists of abortion, daughters of Gaea, Trump resisters, and all of the assorted victim groups of the intersectional left, reminds us that “racial injustice” is one of an interchangeable and ever-proliferating set of pretexts under which progressives can parade their moral superiority, while enjoying the smashing and pillaging that never seem to tarnish their lustrous reputations for compassion and probity with the beau monde.
The killing of George Floyd was immediately and universally denounced, his tormentors summarily fired from the police force and charged with second-degree murder or aiding and abetting second-degree murder, and political leaders at every level have agreed to enact police reforms.
Since their demands were preemptively met, there was no plausible reason for the “protesters” to have gone on burning and looting for another three weeks, besides the sheer nihilistic joy of it. Anyone not yet impressed by the exuberant illogic and morally indiscriminate devastation wrought by the rioters need only book an iconoclast’s tour of the hundreds of historical monuments they have defaced across the globe, including the effigy of Gandhi, the statue of Winston Churchill, and the Lincoln Memorial: the original anti-colonialists, anti-fascists, and anti-racists, or so it may seem to the un-woke.
But progressive crusaders have never required a credible casus belli. Since the sixties, the left has marched, demonstrated, occupied, blockaded, rioted, burned, and looted with the noxious predictability of black flies in June, all the while anticipating and responding to the next provocation with Pavlovian reflexivity. At least when the Goths and Vandals broke and pilfered stuff in Rome, they desisted once they’d reached satiety, and they didn’t pretend it was for a higher cause.
As of last weekend (the numbers increase daily and have probably doubled by now), thousands of businesses across the United States, most of them minority owned, have been destroyed—many of which, already on life-support from the coronavirus lockdown, will never be resuscitated—undoing the decades of hard work, obliterating the life-savings, and beggaring the future existences of their owners (whose black lives apparently don’t matter in the least).
During the past three weeks, in every American city in which significant “protests” occurred, the number of burglaries, shootings, and homicides has increased by between 150 and 500 percent. In the riots themselves, more than 700 police officers have been injured by projectiles (rocks, bricks, cinder blocks, bottles, or Molotov cocktails, often strategically placed by “peaceful” protesters), deliberately run over by vehicular assassins, slashed with machetes, or felled by gunfire, many of whom will be maimed for life. In St. Louis, a 77-year-old retired police captain was shot and killed by looters—another immaterial black life—while responding to an alarm at a pawn shop. The same day four other officers were shot by a “protester” aspiring to dispatch an entire police line to the other side of time.
So far, at least two dozen people have died in the riots. Ten of the dead were either innocent bystanders caught in the cross-fire, business owners vainly attempting to protect their livelihoods, onlookers deemed insufficiently enthusiastic, or local residents guilty of “privilege” and “systemic racism” because they owned property or had white skin, all executed—10 times, that is, the number of unarmed victims to die in the custody of Derek Chauvin, not a single one of whose lives will be eulogized in a nationally-televised state funeral, or whose unjust deaths will mobilize worldwide demonstrations, or soul-searching conversations about systemic leftist hate and depredation.
Predictably, at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, and the rest of the mainstream media, the canonical euphemism to describe the riots was “peaceful,” while the “rare” and “incidental” violence was attributed to a few nefarious “outside” groups who tried to “hijack” the movement. (Here the words “outside” and “hijack” can be understood in the sense that crime families from out of state sometimes hijacked Al Capone’s getaway car.)
Some officials have blamed the violence on “white supremacists,” of whose presence not even the race-baiting Southern Poverty Law Center could find evidence. According to historian Stuart Wexler, writing in Haaretz, white supremacists typically infiltrate movements such as Black Lives Matter in order to foment a race war in which they hope to “purify” America through “ethnic cleansing.” Indeed, social media, and all the usual established media echo-chambers, falsely claimed to be in possession of a photograph of Chauvin wearing a “Make Whites Great Again” cap at a Trump rally.
It is, of course, a dogma of racialist orthodoxy that resurgent ghosts from the Jim Crow era maraud daily throughout the streets of contemporary America, whereby white supremacist phantoms continue to haunt the imaginations of the likes of Al Sharpton, Jussie Smollett, and the other Masters of the Racial Revels, though they are almost never seen in the flesh. (Oh, and we mustn’t forget “the Russians,” who, according to Susan Rice, were the main instigators of the arson and vandalism. Rice later admitted that she had no evidence for her preposterous claim, but on this theme, when has evidence ever mattered?)
A few observers remained un-woke enough to accept that the trashing, burning, and looting that were taking place before their eyes had indeed been perpetrated by the protesters. But to say so is impious, and so, as the Yemeni owner of a demolished convenience store reasoned, the violence was “okay” and “understandable” in the context of black grievance. Innumerable small and large business owners have agreed that their pauperization was all worth it, leading one to wonder whether they should now restock their empty shelves so that looters can mount a second campaign of theft for racial equality.
By now, every major corporation, from Nike and Google to Walmart, has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, in direct donation and advertising, on the corporately responsible principle, one supposes, that if you trash our stores and steal our merchandise, we’ll pay you. All of this seems somewhat beyond mere masochism. What we are witnessing are the psychopathologies of a civilization that has been taught to despise itself, and is entreating its progressive masters for euthanasia.
And how have the brutal agents of oppression responded? As has so often been the case, the arson and looting by the mob has taken place in plain sight of the police, who assumed the posture of either neutral observers or comrades in arms.
Whenever the constabulary deigned to make arrests, the looters and vandals were ceremonially processed and released within minutes, so as not to be overly inconvenienced in their righteous struggle—policing on the sport fishing model, and a perfect reification of the “Big Rock Candy Mountain” hobo utopia, in which “the jails are made of tin,” so “you can walk right out again as soon as you are in.” In cities that imposed curfews, the violators were allowed to continue with their virtuous burning and looting until they were satisfied, as though to interrupt them were to interrupt a celebrant in mid-consecration of the mass (a sacrilege that the COVID-19 social-distancing police never shrank from).
The ritual “taking of the knee” by police chiefs, rank and file officers, and political leaders across the world is the perfect visual emblem of our rulers’ willing capitulation to extortion and mob rule, and more broadly, of our society’s suicidal complicity with the progressive thugs whose ideological imperative is to annihilate it. The only possible excuse for the congenitally tumescent, parasitical, self-serving, and duplicitous institution of government and its monopoly of force is to preserve the social order without which life is indeed nasty, brutish, and short, and guarantee the equal application of the law, without which might is right, and we may as well all emigrate to Mogadishu.
Like the police, America’s civilian rulers have also surrendered with unbidden zeal. In recognition of the justice of their cause, the mayor of Minneapolis peremptorily abandoned the police precinct to the rioters. Not to be outdone in demonstrations of piety, Mayor de Blasio ordered that streets in every one of the five boroughs be renamed after Black Lives Matter, just four days after Washington D.C.’s Mayor Muriel Bowser renamed Lafayette Park “Black Lives Matter Plaza,” marked by the words BLACK LIVES MATTER in 35-foot yellow capital letters (that color being a nice touch if you regard supine cowardice as a virtue).
It’s remarkable that in the blink of an eye Black Lives Matter has been exalted to the rank of sacrosanctity, as though it were the American chapter of Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity. Anyone who criticizes BLM (or its message of black persecution) is immediately censored, shunned, or fired.
Naturally, Black Lives Matters supports the entire panoply of progressive causes: unrestricted abortion, non-binary self-identified gender, transgenderism, “dismantl[ing] patriarchal practice,” the “disrupt[ion of] the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure,” the establishment of “a queer‐affirming network … with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,” “dismantle[ing] cisgender privilege,” and opposing “trans-antagonistic violence.” (After all, even today’s Vandals have been to college.) BLM’S official website is a pretty comprehensive manifesto for the overthrow all the moral norms and institutions of Western Civilization; but I guess we’re all revolutionaries now.
The most instructive symbol of the great surrender, however, is Seattle, one of the perennial spiritual capitals of the Big Rock Candy Mountain hobo utopia. Across from another abandoned police station, six city blocks in Seattle’s municipal center have been ceded by the mayor and governor to the rioters as a fully autonomous state: CHOP, as its rulers now call it, the world’s newest sovereign nation. Around the perimeter of the Republic of CHOP, its “government” has posted armed guards to prevent foreigners from getting in (will border walls be next?).
Pre-CHOP residents who don’t share the revolutionary ideals of their new overlords have had no say over the proceedings. CHOP, or what might be called the Protestor Occupied Territories (POT), is thus a land that has been seized from the original indigenous inhabitants and colonized by its occupiers, but one doubts that the left will denounce it as an apartheid state, demand full democratic rights for the occupied peoples, or the right of return.
CHOP also seems to have revived the great Stalinist tradition of propaganda art. Spray-painted on every available surface are inspiring revolutionary messages including “End America” and “Shoplift Your Future Back.” (When the owner of an auto repair shop and his son detained a CHOP citizen shoplifting his future back and trying to burn down the building, he was confronted by a mob of a hundred shoplifting causists who demanded they let the Good Thief go.)
In this “police-free” land of equality and justice, in what Seattle’s mayor has described as a “block party,” violence, break ins, and robberies have become commonplace. If well-intentioned liberal “idealists” are wondering what the New Progressive Order will look like once it’s been established, they ought to schedule their next holiday in CHOP, assuming its overlords will let them in.
All of this leaves the remnant of the sane with the insoluble question: Which is more nauseating? The images of protesters beating up septuagenarian female shop-owners, killing and maiming hundreds of innocent bystanders, torching or trashing whole city blocks, and demonstrating their grinding poverty/anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist bona fides by prioritizing top-of-the-line Nike runners and Gucci handbags on their cleptomaniacal wish lists? Or the contrite acquiescence of the soi-disant “power structure” to their rank criminality and lunatic demands?
The morally preening orgies of contrition and expressions of solidarity by our political, cultural, and corporate leaders, exacted to ensure ideological conformity with the same effectiveness as under Mao, have been rather too numerous and fulsome for optimistic conservatives to any longer discount as merely pandering, self-preservationist, or otherwise insincere.
For 50-odd years, nothing has been done to stop leftist “protesters;” the inescapable conclusion is that the ruling class doesn’t in fact want to stop them. The recent riots should at least have made it clear that the angry left’s heroic struggle against a “repressive authority” amounts to pushing against an open door. In genuinely repressive societies (China under Mao, China under Xi, the former Soviet Union) protesters get shot or dispatched smartly to re-education camps. In post-modernist America, the protesters re-educate their oppressors in the ever-more exquisite points of progressive dogma.
After almost every violent leftist “protest” of late, our political leaders have withdrawn to their own self-sentenced struggle sessions, and emerged from them wearing the nimbus of penitence and progressive enlightenment. The current legislative initiatives to defund the police and re-purpose their budgets to the same welfare programs that have, since the sixties, enslaved blacks a second time to their white Democrat masters, originated from the sober counsel of a screaming, criminal mob.
Many previous progressive desiderata have similarly silted up from the fever swamps of angry demonstrations and were thereafter ratified into law by political leaders, both Democrat and Republican. That’s not “anarchy,” as many on the right have soothingly called it, if anarchy still means unfettered license in the absence of central authority. On the contrary, its progressive theocracy, rule by the same heresy-hunters as have given us campus and media thought police, trigger warnings, censorship of conservative opinion by the Big Tech oligarchy, deplatforming, Maoist shamings and denunciations, and all the other coercive measures by which they punish the slightest deviation from orthodoxy, and in the process repeal the fustian individual liberties and rule of law upon which post-Enlightenment Western democracies were founded.
I said that the recidivist riots of the intersectional left have never required a coherent raison d’etre. But that’s not quite true. Their proudly proclaimed purpose is the shopworn utopian dream of abolishing the corrupt pre-revolutionary moral norms and institutions of the patriarchally oppressed, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Christian-bigoted, and white-privileged Eurocentric civilization they despise, and replacing it with—well, they’ve never deigned to tell us precisely what.
That the feral violence and criminality of the protesting armies never seem to impugn the righteousness of their cause in the media or the ruling class makes it plain that, as a society, we’ve not only accepted the old revolutionary lie that the benignant end justifies the malignant means, but have become oblivious to the fact that not all ends are desirable just because a braying mob says so.
The violence of the George Floyd protesters can hardly be incidental; it’s merely the objective correlative of their core beliefs and aspirations.
Harley Price has taught courses in religion, philosophy, literature, and history at the University of Toronto, U of T’s School of Continuing Studies, and Tyndale University College. He blogs at Priceton.org.
Source: The Epoch Times
By Raul Diego
Editor’s Note: COVI-PASS will determine whether you can go to a restaurant, if you need a medical test, or are due for a talking-to by authorities in a post-COVID world. Consent is voluntary, but enforcement will be compulsory.
Through the magic of Internet meme culture, most Millennials will be familiar with the famous opening scene of the 1942 film, “Casablanca,” where two policemen stop a civilian in the “old Moorish section” of Nazi-occupied French Morocco and ask him for his “papers.” The subject is taken away at once after failing to produce the required documents. The cinematic exchange has been used ever since as a popular reference to the ever-encroaching hand of the state, which is now on the verge of attaining a level of control over people’s movements that puts the crude Nazi methods to shame.
A British cybersecurity company, in partnership with several tech firms, is rolling out the COVI-PASS in 15 countries across the world; a “digital health passport” that will contain your COVID-19 test history and other “relevant health information.” According to the company website, the passport’s objective is “to safely return to work” and resume “social interactions” by providing authorities with “up-to-date and authenticated health information.”
These objectives mirror those that Bill Gates has been promoting since the start of the COVID-19 lockdown. In an essay written by Gates in April, the software geek-cum-philanthropist lays out his support for the draconian measures taken in response to the virus and, like an old-timey mob boss, suggests the solutions to this deliberately imposed problem. Ironically, Gates begins to make his case for the adoption of mass tracking and surveillance technology in the U.S. by saying that “For now, the United States can follow Germany’s example”; He then touts the advantages of the “voluntary adoption of digital tools” so we can “remember where [we] have been” and can “choose to share it with whoever comes to interview you about your contacts.”
Gates goes on to predict that the ability to attend public events in the near future will depend on the discovery of an effective treatment. But he remains pessimistic that any such cure will be good enough in the short term to make people “feel safe to go out again.” These warnings by the multi-billionaire dovetail perfectly with the stated purposes of the aforementioned COVI-PASS, whose development is also being carried out in partnership with Redstrike Group – a sports marketing consultancy firm that is working with England’s Premier League and their Project Restart to parse ticket sales and only make them available to people who have tested negative for the virus.
VST Enterprises Ltd (VSTE) is led by 31-year old entrepreneur, Louis-James Davis, who very recently stepped down from a “science & technology ambassadorship” in the African nation of Zimbabwe to focus on the company’s role in the UN’s SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) Collaboratory initiative, comprising a series of “cyber technology projects across all 193 member states of the United Nations.”
These will use the same proprietary VCode and VPlatform technologies underpinning the COVI-PASS that will reportedly tackle issues such as illegal mining and counterfeiting. This “third generation” barcode technology overcomes the limitations of older “second generation” versions like QR-codes, according to Davis. “Data and sensitive information scanned or stored in either a QR code and barcode can be hacked and are inherently insecure,” Davis claims, “leaving data and personal details to be compromised.” These, and other flaws of the prevailing “proximity apps” were exploited by VST Enterprises to position itself to land large government and private sector contracts.
By all measures, the strategy has proven wildly successful and VST now enjoys strong favor in the highest circles of the UK government as evidenced by the ringing endorsement of former Prime Minister Theresa May, prominently displayed on the COVI-PASS website. More practically, VST now has a direct partnership with the UK government and has secured contracts to deploy its technology in 15 countries, including Italy, Portugal, France, India, the US, Canada, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, Mexico, United Arab Emirates and the Netherlands.
In May, VST signed a deal with international digital health technology firm and owner of COVI-PASS, Circle Pass Enterprises (CPE) to integrate VST’s VCode into the biometric RFID-enabled “passports” which can be accessed via mobile phone or a key fob will flash colored lights to denote if an individual has tested negative, positive or is to be denied entry to public locations. Awarded the ‘Seal of Excellence’ by the EU, VCode® technology will ensure that all of our most sensitive personal and health information can be accessed by authorities at a distance, dispensing with messy and potentially dangerous face-to-face encounters with police or other enforcement personnel.
So far, the concerns over the digital health passport’s threat to freedom and privacy have been lukewarm at best and it seems as if the world has already accepted that full-fledged population control methods such as these will simply be a fact of life. While the coronavirus pandemic has certainly done much to bring the public over to this way of thinking, the campaign to normalize this sort of Orwellian power-grab has been ongoing for many years and Bill Gates – who many media outlets have whitewashed out of stories related to these measures – has been at the forefront of its promotion.
The Innovation for Uptake, Scale and Equity in Immunisation (INFUSE) project was launched in Davos, Switzerland in 2016. The program was developed by an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation called GAVI (The Vaccine Alliance), which has been calling for a digital health ID for children along with partners in the broader !D2020 initiative like the Rockefeller Foundation and Microsoft.
In a recent interview, the deputy director of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Hassan Damluji, derided the idea that the COVID-19 pandemic was in any way subsiding and even warned that, far from receding, the pandemic was “deep into wave three.” His remarks were specifically targeted to the very regions he oversees for the foundation, which include the Middle East and parts of Asia, which he stressed would be the focus of the next wave. Damluji was “most recently involved in a five-year fundraising cycle for GAVI,” an effort led by Saudi Arabia, whose investment he praised as a powerful “signal [that] others had an obligation to follow.”
Gates concludes his editorial with a comparison to World War II, stating that said conflict was a “defining moment of our parents’ generation” as the COVID-19 pandemic is to ours, implying that the changes taking place now are akin to the Allied forces’ defeat of the Third Reich. Except, of course, that immunity passports or digital health certificates sound exactly like what Hitler wished for the most. After all, wasn’t the idea of a superior race based on considerations of superior health and vitality over the ostensibly sick and unfit? Hard to argue against the idea that a universal health passport is nothing less than the ultimate fulfillment of that dystopian nightmare.
Feature photo | Salt Lake County Health Department public health nurse Lee Cherie Booth performs a coronavirus test outside the Salt Lake County Health Department in Salt Lake City, May 20, 2020. Rick Bowmer | AP
Raul Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher, writer and documentary filmmaker.
Source: Mint Press News
After the Senate blocked the Republican police reform bill, Just and Unifying Solutions To Invigorate Communities Everywhere Act of 2020, or the JUSTICE Act, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) spoke on the floor about his personal experiences and how they helped him write the JUSTICE Act.
Source: YouTube
If you’ve been looking for proof on whether this entire lock-down etc… is just one big lie, then this should open your mind! “How do you know the government/Big Media is lying? They’re moving their lips!”
Source: YouTube
By Patrick Wood
Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups or even entire societies.
Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet.
The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.
Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.” The Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.“
Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was most inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.
In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states that cloth face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”
But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated,
OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work.Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.
Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed most.
So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks.
The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period.
But, what about asymptomatic carriers?
On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of a number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated “From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.”
This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”
It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus.
In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” (Blaylock represents real science.)
Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face masks for preventing disease,
Face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available for inhaling.
Normal fresh air contains 20.95% oxygen. OSHA defines an oxygen deficient atmosphere as an “atmosphere with an oxygen content below 19.5% by volume.” The reason we breathe air is only for our lungs to harvest the oxygen it contains so that we don’t suffocate and die.
OSHA documents the effects of the first level of oxygen deficiency from 16% to 19.5%:
At concentrations of 16 to 19.5 percent, workers engaged in any form of exertion can rapidly become symptomatic as their tissues fail to obtain the oxygen necessary to function properly (Rom, W., Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2nd ed.; Little, Brown; Boston, 1992). Increased breathing rates, accelerated heartbeat, and impaired thinking or coordination occur more quickly in an oxygen-deficient environment. Even a momentary loss of coordination may be devastating to a worker if it occurs while the worker is performing a potentially dangerous activity, such as climbing a ladder.
This writer has already encountered several store employees, forced to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit one or more of these exact symptoms. When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.
Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks are required to do two things: first, they must provide atmospheric testing to each person to measure average oxygen levels inside the mask when it is being worn and second, if oxygen is below 19.5%, they must be provided with an oxygen enriched breathing system.
To this writer’s knowledge, there has been zero testing of oxygen levels anywhere in the country even though it is plainly clear that many people are experiencing symptoms of oxygen deficiency.
Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for all citizens in public places. That they have fallen prey to pseudo-science is now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.
Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way travel only.
Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph (UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule.
According to these scientists,
The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants do not remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies look back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they stood from others.
More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting Covid.
Heneghan and Jefferson further noted,
On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.
This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results.
What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences.
Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.
Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.
In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.
Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.
The Center for Disease Control website states that “Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”
Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,
Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.
If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now required to record the contact information of every patron, you might not have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway.
Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.
Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first, the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is bogus.
So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people.
The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.
Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.
This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed.
In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover, they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:
Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population…
It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack of real and verified science behind their actions and mandates. Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous to personal liberty.
This writer suggests that you print multiple copies of this report and deliver it to every political leader, every commercial establishment, all family and friends, etc.
Patrick Wood is editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.
He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order (2018), Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Professor Antony C. Sutton.
Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development and Technocracy on a global scale.
Source: Technocracy News
Chinese authorities in Tibet have ordered the destruction of prayer flags in many parts of the region in one of China’s most direct assaults to date on visible symbols of Tibetan culture and religious belief, sources in the region say.
The campaign, described as a program of “behavioral reform,” began in June in Qinghai’s Golog (in Chinese, Guoluo) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture and in Tengchen (Dingqing) county in the Chamdo municipality of the Tibet Autonomous Region, a local source told RFA this week.
“Government officials and police have summoned the local people to meetings, ordering them to take part in what they called an environmental cleanup drive and movement of behavioral reform,” RFA’s source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Led by the police, local Tibetans are now taking down prayer flags in their villages and on the hilltops,” where they are traditionally hung in the belief that they will ward off evil and bring good luck, the source said.
Whether old or new, the prayer flags bearing mantras are all being removed from their traditional locations, the source said, adding that even the poles on which the flags were hung are being dismantled.
“This is an act of contempt and utter disregard for local Tibetans’ customs and faith,” the source said, adding that he fears this new campaign will spread and encourage even more restrictions on traditional customs and religious practice.
“Chinese authorities in general have always vowed to eliminate any Tibetan behavior that they say will harm people’s productivity and adversely affect their livelihood,” he said.
“Thus, the authorities have now set out to root out this Tibetan tradition of hanging prayer flags everywhere, directing local officials, the heads of monasteries, and relevant authorities at the district and township level to carry out the order.”
The campaign against flags came as annual review by the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy found that Chinese policies systematically wear away and destroy Tibetans’ national and cultural identity, with a growing use of surveillance and online monitoring to suppress political dissent, and strengthened restrictions on Tibetan children’s right to classroom instruction in their own language.
Throughout the year, Chinese police forces and surveillance teams moved into monasteries and villages to monitor Tibetan residents for signs of opposition to China’s rule, the Dharamsala, India-based center said, adding, “facial-recognition software and careful monitoring of digital spaces [were] deployed to suppress political protests against the increased clampdowns on civil and political rights.”
Reported by Lhuboom for RFA’s Tibetan Service. Translated by Dorjee Damdul. Written in English by Richard Finney.
Source: RFA News
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s entire Russia investigation was nothing more than a two-long scam that failed to give Democrats their chance to remove President Donald Trump from office.
We have learned over time that top officials in the Obama administration played a big role in anti-Trump probe — and one lawmaker is vowing that justice will be served.
House Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Rep. Devin Nunes said he and his Republican colleagues will be sending more criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr and the Department of Justice, the Washington Examiner reported.
Nunes made the announcement during an interview on Fox Business, where he said Republicans have gathered enough evidence for “at least another five, possibly as many as 10” referrals to the DOJ in addition to the eight referrals made last spring.
“We now are looking at the overall Gen. Flynn investigation and how that was conducted and the rest of the Mueller team,” he said, according to the Examiner. “And then, of course, as new information has come to light from the information that was declassified by acting Director of National Intelligence [Richard] Grenell, that information has also shown that there are other people who have lied or misled Congress or have, I think in some cases, maybe, lied by omission, documents that were kept from Congress.”
Nunes said that he expects to send the referrals within days.
Last month, Nunes said criminal referrals are coming for members of Mueller’s team who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.
“We’re looking at doing criminal referrals on the Mueller team, the Mueller dossier team, the Mueller witch hunt, whatever you want to call it. That’s where we are now in our investigation,” Nunes said.
Now, in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop charges against former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn, Nunes is turning his attention to the conduct of Mueller and his team.
“We’ve also expanded our investigation into the Mueller team and everything that happened with Mueller and the people at DOJ and FBI that were above Mueller. And so, we will be making criminal referrals in the coming weeks against the Mueller team. We’re just now putting that together and, of course, as always, waiting on more documents that we really need to come out,” Nunes said.
Having examined witness reports and other new documents released by the FBI, Republicans now claim to have evidence that Mueller’s team misled the courts during their investigation.
This comes as the recently released FISA spy report found that FBI officials had falsified documents for the FISA court so they had a better chance of securing warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign, such as aide Carter Page.
In part, the IG report found that there was extreme bias against then-candidate Trump and that the FBI deliberately doctored evidence they presented to the nation’s top spy court in order to gain authority to spy on a key Trump affiliate.
Source: Trending Politics
By Jon Miltimore
In April 2005, Charles Duelfer, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq, admitted in the CIA’s final report that after an extensive search, no weapons of mass destruction could be found.
“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Duelfer, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group. “As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”
Today it’s generally accepted that the presence of WMD was the primary basis for the Iraq War. Naturally, the absence of such weapons shook the world. The media blamed the politicians, the politicians blamed US intel, and the intelligence actors involved mostly defended their work.
The official word, chronicled in the Robb-Silberman report, concluded that “the Intelligence Community didn’t adequately explain just how little good intelligence it had—or how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.”
The Iraq War WMD debacle is arguably the greatest expert “fail” in generations. The holy triumvirate—lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—all failed to sniff out the truth. If any of them had, a war that cost trillions of dollars and claimed the lives of 100,000-200,000 people likely could have been avoided.
It would be difficult to surpass the Iraq blunder, but emerging evidence on COVID-19 suggests the experts—again: lawmakers, bureaucrats, and media—may have subjected us to a blunder of equally disastrous proportions.
A new NPR report suggests the global response to COVID-19 may have been reached on a flawed premise.
Mounting evidence suggests the coronavirus is more common and less deadly than it first appeared.
The evidence comes from tests that detect antibodies to the coronavirus in a person’s blood rather than the virus itself.
The tests are finding large numbers of people in the US who were infected but never became seriously ill. And when these mild infections are included in coronavirus statistics, the virus appears less dangerous.
“The current best estimates for the infection fatality risk are between 0.5% and 1%,” says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
That’s in contrast with death rates of 5% or more based on calculations that included only people who got sick enough to be diagnosed with tests that detect the presence of virus in a person’s body.
Many people will recall the fatality risk debate that took place prior to and in the early stages of the lockdowns. There was much discussion over how deadly the virus was and what the collective response to the virus should be.
Some voices exercised caution.
“The public is behaving as if this epidemic is the next Spanish flu, which is frankly understandable given that initial reports have staked COVID-19 mortality at about 2–3 percent, quite similar to the 1918 pandemic that killed tens of millions of people,” Jeremy Samuel Faust an emergency medicine physician and an instructor at Harvard Medical School, wrote in Slate. “Allow me to be the bearer of good news. These frightening numbers are unlikely to hold.”
Similarly, on March 5 vaccine expert Paul A. Offit, who holds the Maurice R. Hilleman Chair of Vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania, told Factcheck.org that he believed that the World Health Organization’s 3.4 percent fatality rate figure was too high, suggesting it was well below 1 percent.
“We’re more the victim of fear than the virus,” Offit said, adding that the world was witnessing a “wild overreaction” to the disease.
Voices like those of Faust and Offit were quickly drowned out, however. The 24-hour news cycle fanned collective fear and outrage that more was not being done. Runs on toilet paper and masks ensued. Neil Ferguson, professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, predicted millions would die in the “best-case scenario.”
Following the example of China, one of the most authoritarian regimes in the world, most of the developed world was placed in indefinite lockdown by their own governments.
The social and economic costs of the lockdowns soon became apparent. The US alone has seen 40 million jobs lost, many of which aren’t coming back. Recession looms. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have already been wiped away. The federal debt has surged to $26 trillion.
Unfortunately, the COVID disaster and the aforementioned Iraq War fit a familiar pattern. As the historian Paul Johnson has observed, most of the worst events of the 20th century were perpetrated by experts who used collective power to shape world events in a direction they believed was beneficial.
“One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is—beware intellectuals,” Johnson wrote in The Intellectuals. “Not merely should they be kept away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”
Nobody denies the immense cost of the lockdowns, but what was gained by them remains a subject of contention.
A May report from JP Morgan, as well as other evidence, suggests the lockdowns had little to no impact on the spread of COVID-19.
Marko Kolanovic, a physicist and strategist for JP Morgan, pointed out that a majority of nations saw declines in infection rates after the lockdowns were lifted.
“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,” Kolanoviche said.
Similarly, a Bloomberg analysis in May found “little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.” Meanwhile, Norway’s top health official recently stated that lockdowns were not a necessary step to tame the virus.
On the other hand, the Washington Post this week cited studies claiming the lockdown orders prevented hundreds of millions of COVID-19 infections and saved millions of lives.
These findings come with caveats, however. First, one of the studies was submitted on March 22—well before the vast majority of COVID cases had even occurred. The other study was conducted by researchers at the Imperial College of London, the same school from which Ferguson hailed. (He has since resigned after it was discovered that he broke the lockdown protocol he helped design by allowing his married lover to come to his home.)
Ferguson, who in 2005 said up to 200 million might die from bird flu (about 100 did), was asked by The New York Times in March what the best-case scenario was for the US during the COVID pandemic.
“About 1.1 million deaths,” he responded.
As of June 10, Ferguson is off by about a factor of ten. Why we should continue to listen to schools that have already proven to be so disastrously wrong is anyone’s guess. The “chicken little” story comes to mind.
In 2003, state actors led the world into a bloody, years-long struggle in Iraq to protect the world from nuclear weapons that didn’t exist—only to eventually learn how little US intel experts actually knew about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities.
In 2020, central planners from around the world decided to shut down the global economy to protect people from an invisible, highly contagious virus that will result in no or mild symptoms for up to 90 percent of its carriers.
Some lessons, it seems, are hard to learn.
Liberty International News 