The TV commercials feature attractive, happy people speeding about in sleek electric vehicles, resembling dashing heroes sparing the globe from impending CO2-induced devastation.
On the other hand, many who bought these new electric cars under the false assumption that they were “saving the world” were duped.
They are the unfortunate victims of misleading legislative policies that are not at all environmentally friendly, as well as emotionally charged, well-crafted business marketing.
For example, massive mining operations are needed to obtain and process significant amounts of rare earth metals, such as cobalt, rhodium, and lithium, for the production of millions of electric vehicle batteries.
Moreover, in order to extract these metals from the earth, machinery must be driven by petrol or diesel-powered cars that emit carbon dioxide.
More crucially, as seen in rural China and Mongolia, the mining and refining operations have the potential to seriously and extensively pollute land, air, and water systems. 2.
Moreover, the supply of these rare earth elements is restricted. These are genuine environmental issues, as opposed to the fraudulent CO2/carbon agenda.
Moreover, electricity generated from fossil fuels is still used to power electric cars and probably always will. Even with decades of government support, solar energy produces only 1% of the world’s energy, and wind power less than 5%.
As per a research conducted by the European Association for Battery Electric Vehicles on behalf of the European Commission (EC), using electricity for charging vehicles and devices is a very inefficient use of energy.
“The ‘Well-to-Tank’ energy efficiency (from the primary energy source to the electrical plug), taking into account the energy consumed by the production and distribution of the electricity, is estimated at around 37%.”
Since energy is mostly generated from fossil fuels, the well-to-tank efficiency of an electric car may potentially result in a higher fuel consumption than that of a conventional diesel or petrol automobile!
Consequently, consumers who purchase electric vehicles under the mistaken impression that they are protecting the environment are the unfortunate targets of corporate greenwashing, corporate-owned media, corporate greenwashing, and greenwash politics.
Really, how many people care for God’s Earth?
How many people are genuinely crazed shoppers who are dependent on following social standards established by the multinational companies and political institutions of globalisation as well as the expectations of their neighbours?
While driving about self-righteously, how many members of the electric vehicle brigade consider the harm that rare earth metal mining causes to the environment?
Some of these narcissists, who live in a “la la land” where climate change and CO2 are real issues, even verbally assault anyone who disagree with their insane beliefs.
What actions are possible?
Moreover, it seems that some environmentalists have adopted the position that,
“even if climate change is not caused by CO2 emissions, the UN CO2 reduction agenda is still justified as it would bring an end to the environmentally destructive globalisation paradigm” .
This is obviously not the case, though, as the UN, governments, and mega-corporations are using the CO2 reduction agenda to push the sale of millions and millions of electric cars with enormous batteries, whose manufacture really pollutes the air, water, and land.
Since its founding, the UN has been a bulwark of environmentally damaging globalisation; as other observers have pointed out, this is now merely “globalisation painted green”.
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with ‘Climate Change’ Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.
New research has shed light on the importance of carbon dioxide (CO2) for human health.
CO2 is not only a byproduct of cellular respiration, but also an essential nutrient for proper body function. It is involved in maintaining the pH balance of blood and tissues, and its deficiency can lead to various health problems, including cancer.
Bicarbonate, a form of CO2, plays a key role in the body’s acid-base balance. When bicarbonate is ingested, the acid in the stomach converts it into CO2.
In the blood, there is a constant and rapid interaction between bicarbonate and CO2. Bicarbonate represents the largest fraction of CO2 in the blood, at around 88%.
Contrary to popular belief, CO2 is not waste, but rather necessary for life on Earth. Plants use CO2 for photosynthesis, and animals rely on plants for their oxygen supply. CO2 and bicarbonate also play a role in maintaining appropriate pH levels in and around living organisms and cells.
Bicarbonate is a valuable medicine based on solid physiology. It is important to understand the role of CO2 in the body in order to appreciate the power and importance of bicarbonate as a medicine. CO2 and bicarbonate are two forms of the same thing, and they work together to support proper metabolic function.
CO2 is essential for human life, and a lack of it can lead to acidosis. It is important to maintain adequate levels of CO2 in the body in order to support overall health and well-being.
He was worried that the scientific establishment, which he called the scientific-technical elite, would warp science to influence government policy for its own benefit.
Eisenhower was a greatly underestimated President.
His practical insight into human nature is illustrated by the fact that he made loads of money playing poker while in the Army.
He also graduated first in his class out of 240 senior officers at the Army War College.
Although President Eisenhower was usually depicted as a lightweight by the media, his insights were uncannily accurate.
Today’s ‘climate crisis’ is a modern example of public policy being ruined by the self-interested scientific-technological elite. World governments are spending trillions to avoid an imaginary climate crisis.
Bizarrely, the methods selected to avoid the crisis – windmills and solar panels – can’t possibly accomplish much, even if the crisis were real.
Climate scientists think they are engaged in one of the ‘hard’ sciences…
But climate science is actually a soft science because its conclusions depend on the statistical analysis of noisy and dubious data using complicated and opaque computerized models.
It is the perfect setup for confirmation bias, the tendency for scientists to arrive at conclusions that support their preconceived prejudices.
Worse than confirmation bias is lying and fakery in the pursuit of money and power, also not unknown.
They are employees of large institutions and they have families and mortgages.
The scientists that speak out are either retired or have impregnable positions due to exceptional scientific accomplishment.
Among professional climate scientists, public opposition to the climate doom theory is rare, but it does happen – I know of one climate scientist that forged a successful career as a denier, running over his opponents with raw courage and entrepreneurial talent.
Much of the opposition to the climate-doom narrative comes from amateur scientists [aka citizen scientists].
These are typically politically savvy individuals with scientific backgrounds.
Their credibility is limited by their lack of official professional qualifications, but they are immune to the establishment’s retaliations.
Usually, they are retired, have their own businesses, or are wealthy.
The Internet makes it possible for them to speak to the world.
They are reviving a tradition of amateur scientists that was dominant prior to the twentieth century.
Here are some examples of amateur scientists:
Stephen McIntyre a retired Canadian mining expert runs the website climateaudit.org.
The book is an accessible and powerful indictment of the climate crisis.
The MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist who made important discoveries, exposed the reality of climate science and environmentalism from an insider’s viewpoint in his profound essay:
Donna Laframboiseexposed the unbelievable corruption within the supposedly authoritative United Nations International Panel on Climate Change with her book:
Many dislike the term “climate denier” because it is intended as a smear against anyone who even questions the climate crisis.
My own feeling is that it is better to wear this label as a badge of honor and thus play jiu-jitsu with the climate establishment’s organs of propaganda.
We live in an age encapsulated by Romans 1:22:
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Formerly respectable medical institutions are trying to change boys into girls and vice versa with drugs and surgery.
Most big media present the climate crisis as if it is a solid scientific finding. They depict deniers as crackpots or paid spokesmen for oil companies. This is the arrogance of people who think they know everything but live in a sea of ignorance.
The real investigative reporters work for minor, independent mediawithout the vast money-laden resources of big media.
Establishment climate science has become infatuated by its own imagined expertise and importance. Like many things in human history, arrogance is nothing new.
We should remember the persecution of Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
The Team Bubba Podcast Episode 5 – Chat shit no shit Full house.
This week, all 4 of the team discuss the ongoing developments in canada and around the world, where are we and where do we see it going.
Mandates revoked, climate change, Ukraine, narrative changes, the world Economic Forum, artificial intelligence,the link between programmable digital currencies and the technology in kung flu vials etc etc.
In 2010, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Rockefeller Foundation, one of Our major “philanthropic” organs, convened what is called a “scenario planning exercise” where future events that we may or may not be planning are “gamed”.
Ostensibly, future and scenario planning is simply prudent, especially as regards public health, so it was not seen as any threat by the masses at large. Nevertheless, Our corollary organs did everything possible to keep this information from them, including high levels of increasing and creeping censorship, especially where health information is concerned.
The exercise was conducted in association with a group called the Global Business Network (GBN), a now-defunct group of very sophisticated and connected Silicon Valley influence peddlers described by Wikipedia as a “global strategy firm that specialized in helping organizations [including businesses, NGOs and governments] to adapt and grow in an increasingly uncertain and volatile world.”
Click Image for Details
These included “futurist” Peter Schwartz, Stewart Brand, both former members of Students for a Democratic Society, and Jay Ogilvy, an Esalen Institute–associated Statfor board member who has no Wikipedia page but whose family name is the same as one of the biggest names in advertising. (It is unclear if there is a connection.)
All are connected to SRI International, formerly Stanford Research International, and Royal Dutch/Shell. Stanford University’s science departments are well known to be connected with DARPA and US intelligence, and are creators of so-called “artificial intelligence”.
The Narrative: “Lock Step”
Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development
The “Lock Step” scenario is the first of four narratives presented in the Rockefeller Foundation’s summary document, “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development”. It deals with a zoonotic viral pandemic that wipes out millions across the globe. It’s not that long of a read, so let’s just take a quick walk through it, because it is indeed very eye-opening. The details are worth knowing.
“A new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems — from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty — leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy — to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
Across the developing world, however, the story was different — and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high-emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well — and in some cases tragically — in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider “best” for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own.
Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers — a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.
Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests — whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.
By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.
Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away — largely in developing countries — incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish.”
Here are our key take-aways from the “Lock Step” scenario, including a comparison to the coronavirus (COVID-19) event:
Did the Rockefeller Foundation and Silicon Valley agents really predict the current pandemic? Are antisocial behavior–sensing functional MRI scanners – which would likely be carcinogenic, mandatory health screenings (DNA collection?) and home imprisonment in our future? And is the dream of a World Wide Web of communication and consciousness doomed?
These questions are why determining whether the virus is real or not is important. It is not immaterial that the virus itself may be immaterial.There are a myriad of questions to be addressed with regard to how viruses have been scientifically assumed to exist and by whom. There is no doubt that the killer virus, the killer microbe, has ruling class strategic efficacy. Hollywood has been telegraphing this scenario for years in movies like 2011’s Contagion. (Check out the trailer if you have a moment. It’s unbelievably star-studded.) The movie’s star, Gwenyth Paltrow, has been seen wearing a mask to a farmer’s market.
It is further worth noting that Trump-in-law and close Bibi Netanyahu associate Jared Kushner stand to profit from COVID testing mania. As reported by Mint Press News, Kushner’s brother is “co-founder of Oscar Health, a huge medical company that this week launched a test center locator for COVID-19, where users input their data and are directed to one of many locations where they can receive a test.” Oscar Health has been criticized for selling nearly $16,000 Obamacare deductibles. And Bill Gates’s Microsoft will be putting machines in all schools to help with tele-schooling, according to his recent must-read Reddit AMA.
Mainstream Media Follows The Script
Appearing to follow the Rockefeller “narrative” or script, US corporate media, specifically MSNBC, has called for China-like “mitigation” measures for this alleged COVID-19 illness, which is mild and yet responsible for so many unverified deaths, because they were declared cases before testing was available. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow acknowledges the “testing fiasco,” which she then apologizes for, instead making a point of focus on “mitigation.” She suggests avoiding crowds, not flying (you can’t anyway) and “self-quarantining,” questioning whether there ‘needs to be’ “clear federal standards” on self-quarantining.
New York Times science and health writer Don McNiel ups the authoritarian ante, arguing for separation from families, which he claims was necessary in China due to 75% to 80% of infections being “in families”. McNiel also calls for “testing testing testing testing.” But he’s not just talking about going to a designated health clinic. He’s talking about Chinese measures such as body temperature checks:
“If you go into any building, your temperature is taken. I came into this building. Nobody took my temperature. They asked me some silly questions I could have lied about. [McNiel appears to have a senior moment as he tries to remember his script.] Your, your fever taken. You get into a bus, your temperature is taken. You walk into the train station, your temperature is taken. You walk into a building, you walk back to your apartment building, your temperature is taken.” [Note the repetition.]
Of course the real-life Chinese measures, particularly isolation, have resulted in a rise in post-traumatic stress disorder caused by enforced isolation, loss of livelihood and what We might call “viru-noia”. And since, as veteran investigative journalist Jon Rappoport has reported at nomorefakenews.com, China is well known to have a pneumonia epidemic and a sickening level of air pollution, about which its Wuhan residents have protested despite bans on protest in China, one must be suspicious about the number of deaths and causes of deaths in China. Is it not inconceivable those alleged corona isolations and deaths may have included undesirable types.
What we have is Our most prodigious and unheard-of conditioning of the herd yet, to a closed, controlled society, which in the name of public health protection exercises “medical martial law” and performs “syndromic surveillance,”a term you will hear much more of because it is a nearly-20-year official CDC program.
President Trump’s September 19, 2019 Executive Order on “Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health”, which very similarly asserts the essential need for a rapid rollout of vaccines in the event of a zoonotic viral pandemic; and
Event 201, the much-noticed planning event coordinated by the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Michael Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, also gamed a global “novel zoonotic coronavirus” pandemic “modeled on SARS” killing 65 million people, issuing recommendations on how corporations could “help” in such a crisis. Although the gamed Event 201 pandemic was to occur in South America, one of the players in this event was from the Chinese Centers for Disease Control with no South American representatives in attendance.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates’ statements and Gates Foundation activities throughout an extended period of time, including a 2013 Netflix documentary called “The Next Pandemic”. Is it not uncoincidental that Gates just “stepped down” from leadership of Microsoft to focus on his vaccine-focused “philanthropic initiatives”. Gates, together with help from Amazon, launched the Seattle Corona Assessment Network (SCAN), which is sending at-home corona tests to Seattle residents. SCAN is “an outgrowth of the Seattle Flu Study, which has been using genetic analysis to track the spread of infectious diseases for more than a year”, according to GeekWire. They are now “offering” nasal swabs to area residents, just as the Gates organization has taken human samples elsewhere in the world.
The origins of these developments in “syndromic surveillance” goes much further back, to the early post-911 days, which arguably ushered in Our ill-considered coup on Western democracy.
Notably, the Rockefeller Lock Step scenario does not mention the word “vaccination”. It appears a strange omission, as anti-vaccine censorship and mandatory vaccine legislation also preceded this unprecedented alleged pandemic event. In fact, Rep. Adam Schiff of Russiagate fame has been recently sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for “bullying tech companies into censoring information about vaccines.” Specifically, their complaint “points to letters Schiff sent to Google, Facebook, and Amazon in February and March of 2019 urging those companies to discredit or deplatform any content that suggests vaccines may be harmful.” Of course Amazon, Google and other Big Tech company have begun “disrupting healthcare” already.
Now the people are being told vaccines will shortly provide them with the immunity they apparently lack. This is an even greater threat, as the Moderna vaccines that may be used, as reported by the great Mint Press News, now Unlimited Hangout reporter Whitney Webb, are DNA tamperers. We like to call them GMO vaccines. The ruling class attack is thus genetic and species-genocidal.
Despite this omission, the Rockefeller “Lock Step” scenario is nonetheless a ruling class dream come true (but epically dire for the masses): the end of the sovereign individual in a cradle-to-grave system of behavioral, medical, digital surveillance and control. One wonders if the world’s leaders, celebrities and politicians who disproportionately seem to be afflicted with “novel corona” will be lining up for their biometric IDs. Also notable is the threat level attributed to encryption, which is blamed for the end of the global Internet and the free flow of information – and thus technological and economic innovation – among the world’s peoples. Consider this in the context of the EARN IT Act that has been heavily pushed by Attorney General Bill Barr, which calls for government backdoors ostensibly to fight online child abuse.
These “steps” constitute an evisceration of constitutional democracy, the sovereignty of the individual and the advent of neofeudal conditions, where the corporate state is lord and master over one’s person. We call this “Chinafication.” Investigative journalist Harry Vox, who broke this document back in 2014, calls it “authoritarian capitalism”.
Vox first warned the world about the Rockefeller pandemic “Lock Down” scenario on October 21, 2014 from New York City. His prescient and timely warning is highly suggested viewing.
The invasiveness that Harry Vox so incisively speaks about is a violation of our human persons, consciousnesses and beings. This is what makes it so unpleasant: it is rapist in character. As they say here, the “dragnet”, the “ultimate stop n frisk”. The ultimate power-over.
Stop The Cabal 