Margaret Anna Alice, A Mostly Peaceful Depopulation
I had the great honor of being interviewed by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Viviane Fischer, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg during Session 111: “Reconstellation” of the Corona Investigative Committee, whose heroic fact-finding discussions with hundreds of physicians, scientists, and other experts since July 2020 have formed a crucial part of my own education.
They asked me to speak on the depopulation agenda explored in my Anatomy of a Philanthropath series. I regret that I overestimated how much I could cram into fifty-odd minutes so was unable to complete my presentation before the next guest arrived in the studio. I let them know I would be publishing my notes here so people can read the information I skipped over and reference the hyperlinked sources.
A Retrospective in Whys
Since the beginning of this manufactured crisis, the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee has been conducting the exploratory work that I would have expected every government and so-called public health organization to have undertaken from the outset.
The fact that this did not occur was one of the first signs that COVID represented a departure from all prior pandemic protocols, but the question I kept asking myself is, Why?
Here are some of the permutations of that question I started asking beginning in early 2020 and continuing through the present-day:
TOTALITARIANISM
- Why are governments, public health agencies, the media, Big Tech, and “experts” stoking fear instead of calmly assessing the data and attempting to dispel panic—like every responsible authority has done for genuine crises in the past?
- Why are all of these entities speaking in unison with a single voice as if everyone has been handed the same script?
- Why are they covering COVID 24/7 on every available outlet, drumming up the death tallies and case counts and behaving as if it were the only newsworthy story on the planet?
- Why are people all suddenly parroting the same phrases like “social distancing,” “New Normal,” “Build Back Better,” and the Orwellian double-think gem “together apart”?
- Why does it seem like everyone has suddenly lost their capacities for critical thinking, reasoning, logic, and scientific analysis?
- Why are they encouraging discrimination against those who refuse to comply with unscientific and nonsensical guidelines?
- Why did they turn the world into an open-air prison?
- Why are governments patterning their policies after Biderman’s Chart of Coercion?
- Why does it feel like we’re being subjected to a permanent Milgram Obedience–Stanford Prison–Asch Conformity experiment?
- Why are Big Tech and Big Media silencing people—especially scientists, physicians, and other knowledgeable individuals who are most qualified to speak about these matters?
- Why are California and the federal government threatening physicians with loss of their licenses for spreading “misinformation,” which happens to be based on scientifically demonstrable evidence and clinical experience?
- Why are such extreme measures being taken for a disease with an infinitesimal fatality rate that primarily only affects those who are already likely to die—namely the elderly and those with serious comorbidities?
- Why are governments rewriting human rights policies and revising statutes to allow the forced quarantining of healthy individuals?
- Why are ordinary, working-class Canadians who are bravely protesting authoritarian policies being vilified by the media and their leaders?
- Why are they pushing for International Health Regulations (IHR) amendments that would grant an unelected bureaucrat and accused genocidal war criminal control over the entire world’s public health policy?
- Why is the WHO drafting a pandemic accord that would give it the ability to set a “OneHealth” policy for all member states and seize supranational powers in times of declared public health “emergencies”?
- Why are Australians and New Zealanders being bullied, abused, arrested, and quarantined like they’re living in a police state?
- Why are so many colluders willingly serving as implements of tyranny?
- Why aren’t people worried that the ten stages of genocide are unfolding before our eyes?
- Why do people think relinquishing their liberties in exchange for “safety” is temporary when it has never been so in the past?
- Why are so many people belligerently bamboozled?
- Why are values such as independent thought, integrity, ethics, freedom, transparency, and individuality being denigrated while groupthink, obedience, complicity, prejudice, collectivism, fear, rage, and hatred are being promoted?
- Why are governments and employers mandating vaccines and pushing for vaxxports when they have been proven both unsafe and ineffective?
- Why does it feel like we’re living in a dystopian fairy tale?
HARMFUL & ILLOGICAL HEALTH POLICIES
- Why aren’t health authorities making dietary, lifestyle, and supplement recommendations that would bolster people’s immunity—like encouraging them to eat healthy; reduce their stress levels; get proper sleep; exercise; enjoy sunshine and fresh air; and practice other habits that help prevent illness?
- Why aren’t they focusing on the conventional practices for preventing respiratory illnesses such as washing your hands and staying home when you have symptoms?
- Why are we being commanded to “Trust the Science” when scientific inquiry is a continually evolving process and requires transparency and diverse viewpoints to progress?
- Why are they suddenly telling us asymptomatic spread exists, when there was no evidence for such transmission and no studies demonstrating that this has occurred with past coronaviruses?
- Why are they pretending like there’s no such thing as natural immunity?
- Why did they previously redefine “pandemic” to exclude “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness”?
- Why did they change the definition of “herd immunity” to inject the idea that it is acquired through vaccination when it was previously understood by immunologists and virologists to be achieved naturally when a virus spreads throughout a community?
- Why did they change the definitions of “vaccine,” “fully vaccinated,” “cause of death,” and “case,” for that matter?
- Why did they censor Bakersfield doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi when they provided sensible, experience-based, and reassuring textbook information about COVID transmission, treatment, and herd immunity at their April 22, 2020, press conference?
- Why are they using PCR tests to calculate case counts when their Nobel-Prize–winning creator said it “allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings and stuff like it is important”?
- Why did Fauci—or as I like to call him, Dr. Mengelfauci—first tell the truth about masks not working, then lie about them working, and then say he lied when he’d originally told the long-established truth that masks are ineffective for respiratory viruses? And why did he lie about so many other things?
- Why are they telling us staying six feet apart will magically protect us?
- Why are they counting deaths with and not just from COVID?
- Why are they putting infected patients in nursing homes, where the population is the most vulnerable?
- Why are nursing home residents being isolated, tortured, neglected, eldercided with midazolam, and deprived of the visiting rights even prisoners enjoy?
- Why are they instituting policies the WHO previously warned against—from lockdowns to masking to disinfection to border closures—because they are known to cause mass-scale harm, poverty, and even death?
- Why are they closing schools (and later, pushing injections on kids) when children are at the least risk of contracting and spreading COVID?
- Why are they requiring children to mask, social-distance, and follow other ineffective rules that impair their development, inflict psychological and emotional damage, and even cause physical harm?
- Why are they continuing to use ventilation for COVID patients when it was found early on to be causing deaths?
- Why is so much data not shared or being hidden from the public?
- Why are they financially incentivizing the administration of a drug found to cause multiple-organ failure and with no clinical efficacy for COVID?
- Why are hospital staff getting away with “bagging” COVID patients with plastic equipment covers to “protect” the workers?
THWARTING OF EARLY TREATMENT PROTOCOLS
- Why didn’t they immediately start searching for treatments and researching the effectiveness of repurposed drugs per standard operating procedure?
- Why aren’t they providing recommendations for at-home care and instead telling people to wait until their lips turn blue and then go to the hospital?
- Why are disinformation campaigns being launched against early-treatment protocols?
- Why are the doctors who prescribe these life-saving treatments being smeared and stripped of their licenses?
- Why is scientific fraud being committed to discredit a Nobel-Prize–winning medications?
GLOBAL MASS INJECTION EXPERIMENT
- Why are people okay with skipping long-term clinical trials for a novel gene therapy that has never been deployed on humans?
- Why are they embarking on a coercive global mass injection campaign when such a feat has also never been attempted—let alone with a genetic inoculation lacking long-term clinical safety data?
- Why aren’t people bothered that pharmaceutical companies have zero liability for these products thanks to emergency use authorizations?
- Why aren’t people being told they are experimental subjects and that the Pfizer clinical trials won’t be completed until March 31, 2023?
- Why are they advising pregnant women to get injected with an experimental product when they excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women from clinical trials?
- Why did Pfizer and the FDA ignore the devastating injuries suffered by twelve-year-old Maddie De Garay as a result of their clinical trial for adolescents?
- Why did the FDA want to hide the Pfizer clinical trial data from the public for seventy-five years?
- Why isn’t the media shouting from the rooftops about the 1,223 deaths, 158,000 adverse events, and 1,291 side effects reported in the first ninety days of Pfizer’s clinical trial and only recently disclosed to the public due to the FOIA request resulting in their release at a rate of 55,000 pages per month?
- Why, for that matter, aren’t the media, government, or regulatory agencies concerned about the 1,314,592 adverse event reports received by the CDC through June 24, 2022—including 29,031 deaths and 50,400 child reports?
- Why has the CDC never monitored its own adverse events reporting system for COVID injection safety signals—only discovered recently thanks to another FOIA request?
- Why isn’t anyone concerned that they keep moving the goalposts for the injection—first promising that it would set us free, then saying it’s not working because of the evil unvaxxed, then saying it loses efficacy after a few months and you need a booster shot, then saying you need second booster, then saying you need it every four months?
- Why are there so many breakthrough infections?
- Why are the boosted contracting COVID more than the uninjected?
- Why does the immune system appear to suffer progressive destruction with each additional shot?
- Why are cancers exploding in the injected?
- Why are birth rates dropping around the world?
- Why are there so many miscarriages, stillbirths, fertility problems, and disabilities in the babies of injected mothers?
- Why are so many people developing myocarditis and having heart attacks after injection?
- Why do they make it so difficult for medical staff to report adverse events?
- Why are children, millennials, athletes, and other healthy people suddenly dying and becoming disabled?
- Why are pathologists finding that 93 percent of people who died after injection were killed by it?
- Why are embalmers discovering mysterious wormlike strings in the corpses of the vaxxed?
- Why did such a cosmically unprecedented mass fatality rate start in 2021—so bad that they’ve had to make up SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) to cover for the reality that massive numbers of people are unexpectedly dropping dead?
- Why did life insurance companies pay out as much as 163 percent more for 18–64-year-olds and 258 percent more overall in 2021 over 2020?
- Why did a German insurance executive get fired for reporting alarming numbers of vaxx injuries?
- Why aren’t people being given informed consent about the risks of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE), blood clots, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, cardiac diseases, and the innumerable other debilitating and fatal side effects?
- Why aren’t the vaccine manufacturers making any efforts to improve their products to reduce mortality and adverse reactions?
- Why is it okay to keep pharmaceutical products in circulation despite historically unprecedented rates of deaths and injuries when, before 2020, such drugs would have been recalled as soon as a tiny handful of serious reactions had been reported?
- Why aren’t the vaxxed more curious about what they’ve been injected with?
Finally, why are so few people asking these questions, and why are they censoring us for asking them?
After assessing and meticulously assembling thousands of pieces of evidence over the past two years, I have concluded the only logical answers to the above questions are:
- PROFIT: accomplishing the largest wealth transfer from the middle class to the super-wealthy/super-rich in history;
- POWER: setting the stage for The Great Reset and a global technocratic one-world tyranny; and
- DEMOCIDE: reducing the population to “save the planet.”
In his 1928 book Propaganda, masterful consent engineer Edward Bernays revealed:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
Most ordinary people cannot fathom the degree to which their beliefs and perceptions have been molded by the public-opinion engineers—especially if they watch television and consume other mainstream media.
They are stuck in Plato’s Cave and stubbornly refuse to believe the tales of those who have escaped the cave and returned to rescue them:
They call the ones trying to liberate them from their deception “conspiracy theorists,” “antivaxxers,” “right-wingers,” and “fascists” because those are the scripts their programmers have installed to prevent them from questioning the illusion they are voluntarily imprisoned in.
They merely need to take five minutes to view the data that is hiding in plain sight at OpenVAERS, but they aren’t even willing to do that. Their captors are so confident the hypnotized will never awaken, they don’t bother to conceal their corruption.
You’ve heard of turtles all the way down? Well, this is corruption all the way down.
Getting back to those three end goals I mentioned earlier: profit, power, and democide.
Bernays and his fellow social engineers knew they had to work from the end goal backward. Want to capture women as a new consumer audience for cigarettes? Stage a “Torches of Freedom” demonstration at the 1929 Easter parade with glamorous debutantes sporting cigarettes as a sign of women’s liberation.
Want to orchestrate a massive transfer of wealth, get people to accept one-world authoritarianism, and knock off a good portion of the population while you’re at it?
Stage a pandemic and terrorize the public into relinquishing their liberties in the name of an illusory “safety” that will never arrive. Tell them the only way out is to accept a novel pharmaceutical product that governments (i.e., taxpayers) will be required to fork out billions of recurring dollars to fund. Decimate small businesses, evaporate jobs, wreck the economy, and force the vassals to depend on the State for survival. Make them think it’s all for the “greater good.”
Despite one sucker punch after another, the deceived will cling to their belief in their Stockholm saviors and attack those trying to free them from their enslavement until their dying breath.
Those who don’t die immediately will generate a fortune in revenue for the pharmaceutical-medical complex thanks to their lifelong vaxx injuries and ravaged immune systems.
Pfizer, for example, reported a 77-percent increase in sales of VYNDAQEL®/VYNDAMAX®—its product for treating transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy—in second-quarter 2021. “Coincidentally,” the injections appear to cause cardiac amyloidosis, or stiff heart syndrome, according to this groundbreaking discovery by Dr. Jessica Rose, who will soon be submitting her paper on this research for peer review.
Meanwhile, the noble liars will perpetuate the Problem–Reaction–Solution hamster wheel until the requisite number of people have been eliminated—or we stop the string-pullers from completing their democidal agenda.
They don’t just want us to eat bugs—to them, we are bugs.
Great Reset co-conspirator Prince Philip famously said:
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus to contribute something to solving overpopulation.”
Rik Mayall tried to warn us about this in his 2014 film, One by One, before his sudden death at fifty-six:
In Letter to a Holocaust Denier, I map the ten stages of genocide to the contemporary democide underway, citing menacing quotes from futurist and François Mitterand special advisor Jacques Attali under #9) Extermination:
Below are excerpts from a 1981 interview conducted by Michel Salomon, in which Attali states:
“I believe rather in implicit totalitarianism with an invisible and decentralized ‘Big Brother.’ These machines for monitoring our health, which we could have for our own good, will enslave us for our own good. In a way, we will be subjected to gentle and permanent conditioning.”
“But as soon as you go beyond 60/65, people live longer than they produce and they cost society dearly.”
“Indeed, from the point of view of society, it is much better for the human machine to come to an abrupt halt than for it to deteriorate gradually.”
“As a socialist, I am objectively opposed to extending life because it is an illusion, a false problem.”
“Euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies in all cases. In a socialist logic, to begin with, the problem is as follows: socialist logic is freedom and fundamental freedom is suicide; consequently, the right to direct or indirect suicide is an absolute value in this type of society. In a capitalist society, killing machines, prostheses that will make it possible to eliminate life when it is too unbearable or economically too costly, will come into being and will be common practice. I therefore believe that euthanasia, whether it is a value of freedom or a commodity, will be one of the rules of future society.”
“Medicine is indicative of the evolution of a society that is moving towards a decentralized totalitarianism. We can already see a certain conscious or unconscious desire to conform as much as possible to social norms.”
“It is clear that the discourse on prevention, health economics and good medical practice will lead to the need for each individual to have a medical file which will be put on a magnetic tape. For epidemiological reasons, all these files will be centralized in a computer to which doctors will have access.”
“I believe that we are leaving a universe controlled by energy to enter the universe of information. If matter is energy, life is information. This is why the major producer of tomorrow’s society will be living matter. Thanks in particular to genetic engineering, it will produce new therapeutic weapons, food and energy.”
You will recognize echoes of these prophesies when we get to fellow futurist and Attali intellectual heir Yuval Noah Harari a bit later.
While these concerns about overpopulation were all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s, reality has not borne out their dire predictions. Contrary to the sky-is-falling Malthusian projections of the Club of Rome; philanthropath Bill Gates, inexplicably-unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger; and other tyrants and colluders, the “world’s population is projected to nearly stop growing by the end of the century” according to Pew Research.
Whether these diehard depopulationists are forging ahead with their culling plans because they genuinely believe the human species is growing at a rate that threatens the planet or they simply want to horde the Earth’s resources for themselves is purely speculative—although betting on malicious, self-serving intentions has historically paid off.
Either way, they have used COVID as a cloak to achieve all three of these objectives—profit, power, and democide—in record time.
My series of articles, Anatomy of a Philanthropath: Dreams of Democide & Dictatorship, outlines the depopulation agenda that has been brewing for centuries. I have merely dipped my toe into this ocean so far and hope to explore the iceberg submerged beneath the murky surface in future articles.
Anatomy of a Philanthropath
Next, I will present highlights from Anatomy of a Philanthropath. I encourage you to read the original articles for a more comprehensive portrait if you haven’t yet done so:
Part 1: A Mostly Peaceful Depopulation
Let’s start out by defining “philanthropath.” A philanthropath is a psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist.
There is perhaps no more important tool for turning the tide of public opinion than framing, so if we want to win this war against the democidal dictators and their enablers, we must use framing, repetition, and viralization to propagate the truth.
Special note to the viewers of this video and readers of this article: If you only remember one thing from this presentation, make it “philanthropath.” Every time you reference Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, the Rockefellers, or any other philanthropaths, remember to use that term. Use the hashtag #Philanthropath in your social media. I want “philanthropath” to be synonymous with the architects of democide and tyranny. People need to feel disgust, revulsion, and a desire for justice when they see any of these perpetrators.
Most people are familiar with the exploits of Bill Gates—including the African women who have been sterilized via his foundation’s infertility-technology–laced tetanus vaccines and the Indian children who died or suffered vaxx injuries from Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine, so I’ll skip over him and jump straight to April 1968, when “a group of thirty individuals from ten countries—scientists, educators, economists, humanists, industrialists, and national and international civil servants—gathered in the Accademia dei Lincei in Rome,” The Limits to Growth foreword tells us.
This was the historic moment during which the Club of Rome was founded and their Project on Predicament of Mankind was launched. You probably have a lot of questions about them. I do, too, so I will likely cover them in greater depth in a future article.
For now, however, let’s take a look at this 2017 interview with former Club of Rome Director Dennis Lynn Meadows, one of the coauthors of the 1971 Predicament of Mankind report and 1974 book The Limits to Growth:
“Globally, we are so far above the population and consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it’s gonna come back down.… I hope that it can occur in a civil way, and I mean ‘civil’ in a special way. Peaceful. Peace doesn’t mean that everybody’s happy, but it means that conflict isn’t solved through violence, through force but rather in other ways, and so, that’s what I hope for, that we can, I mean—the planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people.
“Conversely, you can have more people … we could even have eight or nine billion probably if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They’re always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you could have them. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high standard, so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal so that people share the experience and you don’t have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.” (emphases mine here and in subsequent quotes)
Also in 1974, Klaus Schwab’s mentor Henry Kissinger authored a National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 200) on overpopulation, noting:
“[I]t is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970’s and 1980’s.”
Kissinger’s greatest concern lay with least developed countries (LDCs), partly because it could threaten access to “depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals).”
The report stresses the urgency of implementing a population control plan in these nations:
“[15] We cannot wait for overall modernization and development to produce lower fertility rates.”
Kissinger advises the following action:
“[31(d)] Initiate an international cooperative strategy of national research programs on human reproduction and fertility control covering biomedical and socio-economic factors.”
This passage is chilling:
37. There is an alternative view which holds that a growing number of experts believe that the population situation is already more serious and less amenable to solution through voluntary measures than is generally accepted. It holds that … even stronger measures are required and some fundamental, very difficult moral issues need to be addressed.”
He warns:
“barring both large-scale birth control efforts … or economic or political upheavals, the next twenty-five years offer non-communist LDCs little respite from the burdens of rapidly increasing humanity.
“Moreover, short of Draconian measures there is no possibility that any LDC can stabilize its population at less than double its present size.”
“The burdens of rapidly increasing humanity”—I told you they see us like bugs, vermin to be eradicated for their philanthropathic aspirations.
Kissinger recommends sterilization as part of their short-term strategy:
“Sterilization of men and women has received wide-spread acceptance in several areas when a simple, quick, and safe procedure is readily available.”
He also praises abortion as a mechanism of population control:
- “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.”
- “Indeed, abortion, legal and illegal, now has become the most widespread fertility control method in use in the world today.”
Part 2: Downloadable Digital Dictatorships
Nearly half a century later, Klaus Schwab advisor/World Economic Forum (WEF) programmer Yuval Noah Harari is telling us we are on the brink of achieving Dennis Meadows’s dreams of a smart dictatorship, saying, “You can really buy a package of how to create a digital dictatorship just off the shelf”:
Harari is best-known for his classification of humans as “hackable animals”:
“Now, in the past, many tyrants and governments wanted to do it, but nobody understood virology well enough, and nobody had enough computing power and data to hack millions of people. Neither the Gestapo nor the KGB could do it.
“But soon, at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people. We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals.”
At the 2021 Athens Democracy Forum during Dialogue: The Geopolitics of Technology, Harari described the emergent ability to eradicate privacy:
“For the first time in history, it’s possible to completely eliminate privacy.… Dictators always dreamt about completely eliminating privacy, monitoring everybody all the time and knowing everything you do, and not just everything you do but even everything you think and everything you feel.… Now it’s possible.”
During the Panel Discussion on Technology and the Future of Democracy at the same event, Harari revealed that COVID is the pivotal turning point that was used to persuade people to submit to biosurveillance:
“Maybe in a couple decades when people look back, the thing they will remember from the COVID crisis is this is the moment when everything went digital, and this was the moment when everything became monitored, that we agreed to be surveilled all the time, not just in authoritarian regimes, but even in democracies, and maybe most importantly of all, this is the moment when surveillance started going under the skin.
“Because really, we haven’t seen anything yet. I think the big process that’s happening right now in the world is hacking human beings, the ability to hack humans, to understand deeply what’s happening within you, what makes you go. And for that, the most important data is not what you read and who you meet and what you buy, it’s what’s happening inside your body.
“We have these two revolutions: the computer science revolution, or the infotech revolution, and the revolution in the biological sciences. And they are still separated, and they are about to merge. They are merging around … the biometric sensor. It’s the thing, it’s the gadget, it’s the technology that converts biological data into digital data that can be analyzed by computers. And having the ability to really monitor people under the skin, this is the biggest game-changer of all because this is the key for getting to know people better than they know themselves.…
“COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance. If we want to stop this epidemic, we need not just to monitor people, we need monitor what’s happening under their skin, their body temperature …
“I’m not against surveillance, it’s an important tool, especially to fight epidemics. The question is who is doing it, and how. If you give it to a security service to do it, that’s extremely dangerous.
“Yes, now they’re using it to see whether you have the coronavirus, but exactly the same technology can determine what you think about the government. You know, anger is a biological phenomenon, just like disease. It’s not some spiritual thing out there, it’s a biological pattern in your body. With this kind of surveillance, I mean you watch the big president, a big leader give a speech on television, the television could be monitoring you and knowing whether you’re angry or not just by analyzing the cues, the biological cues coming from your body.
“So people are now watching us online, all over the world, this conversation, now, maybe even right now, the people who are watching us are being watched and analyzed.…
“We know that you’re watching this, and we also know how you feel. Are you angry about what you hear? Are you frightened? Are you bored?
“This is the kind of power that Stalin didn’t have. When Stalin gave a speech, everybody of course clapped their hands and smiled. Now how do you know what they really think about Stalin? It’s very difficult. You can’t have a KGB agent following everybody all the time. And even if you do it, he’s just watching your outside behavior. He doesn’t really know what’s happening in your mind. But in ten years, the future Stalins of the twenty-first century, they could be watching the minds, the brains, of all the population all the time and also, they will have the computing power to analyze all it.…
“Now you don’t need human agents, you don’t need human analyzers. You just have a lot of sensors and an AI which analyzes it, and that’s it, you have the worst totalitarian regime in history. And COVID is important because COVID legitimizes some of the crucial steps even in democratic countries.”
Some of you may have seen the clip going around of Albert Bourla bragging about their new technology for biometric compliance at the 2018 WEF:
“FDA approved the first ‘electronic pill’, if I can call it like that. It is basically a biological chip that is in the tablet and, once you take the tablet, and it dissolves into your stomach, it sends a signal that you took the tablet.
“So, imagine the applications of that, the compliance. The insurance companies would know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them. It is fascinating what happens in this field.”
What better vehicle for delivering the soma Harari imagines as part of the solution to the problem of “all these useless people”:
“Again, I think the biggest question in maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people?
“The problem is more boredom and how, what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life, when they are basically meaningless, worthless?
“My best guess, at present is a combination of drugs and computer games as a solution for [most]. It’s already happening.…
“I think once you’re superfluous, you don’t have power.”
It may be the destiny of humanity, Harari postulates, to simply be consumers:
“Maybe the ultimate destiny of homo sapiens is just be consumers. You don’t need humans for anything except as consumers.”
Harari sees COVID-19 as a global solidarity test, asking, “If you want to test global solidarity, what’s easier than a global pandemic?”
“If you want to test global solidarity, what’s easier than a global pandemic that, you know, it threatens all of us, it’s obvious that as long as the pandemic keeps spreading in one country, it poses a threat to all of the other countries because of the mutations and so forth. It’s not a human enemy, so you know, it’s all, all of us humans uniting against this terrible virus.”
Observing the radical changes governments made in the name of a threat as innocuous as COVID, he notes:
“[I]t shows that … you can change things on a massive scale. Again, you can stop all flights. You can lock down entire countries.… And this may make us more open to radical ideas …”
Later in the video, he observes:
“a crisis is an opportunity to also do good reforms that in normal times people will never agree to.”
Henry Kissinger shares his glee over this “crisitunity,” as Homer Simpson would say:
“… the pandemic is imposing on us a universal world order.… But it’s now being dealt with on a purely national basis. But we’ll be forced to look at the broader view by its internal dynamic.”
In other words, a New World Order—a.k.a. The Great Reset!
Klaus Schwab is game, notoriously saying:
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”
Part 3: Yuval Noah Harari: Not the Man We Think He Is?
Based on the clips of Harari that have gone viral, most people have come to the conclusion that he is actually in favor of the global digital biosurveillance dictatorship.
Most of his darkest statements, however, are actually warnings about what could be—if we don’t use this “narrow window of opportunity,” to borrow Klaus’s phrasing, to ensure the technology is used for beneficent purposes.
I know, right? Hard to believe he would be that gullible. I realize this is a generous interpretation based on the surface of his statements. His boyish enthusiasm may really be masking an infernal agenda, but I always try to ground my conclusions on the available evidence, and for now, we have his overt admonitions about the technocratic totalitarianism biotechnology can enable, which he—also unbelievably naïvely—thinks institutions will rescue us from:
“[W]e need institutions actually more, but there is this wave of distrust against them.… The idea that we can just do without them, that we’ll have just this free market of ideas and anybody can say anything, and we don’t want institutions to kind of stand in the middle, and curate and decide what is reliable and what is not reliable, this doesn’t work.”
He also seems to think adding an ethics curriculum for engineering and computer science programs will prevent them from implementing tyrannical technologies—yeah, it would help, but I mean, c’mon, man. As if philanthropathic toadies would be likely to choose ethics over lavish incomes and power trips.
Even as he recommends Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, he entirely misses the irony that he is helping to fulfill this ominous warning Arendt quotes from the 1948 Social Research article The Origins of Scientism:
“… thus totalitarianism appears to be only the last stage in a process during which ‘science [has become] an idol that will magically cure the evils of existence and transform the nature of man.’”
During the Athens Democracy Forum Dialogue: The Geopolitics of Technology, Harari suggested that citizens have the ability to surveil governments as a check on their power:
“[T]urn it around. Survey the governments more. I mean, technology can always go both ways. If they can surveil us, we can surveil them.”
It doesn’t even occur to him that people should absolutely never-in-a-million years submit to biosurveillance or that will be the end of freedom, forever. He just takes that as a given to protect us from “pandemics” and other emergencies.
Here is Harari’s utopian vision of what the future looks in a hundred years:
“I think that the two key things is that first the power resulting from all these inventions is shared, not equally between everybody but at least not concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite, either a human elite or a nonhuman elite, and secondly … the power to hack human beings is used not to manipulate us, not to control us but to help us understand ourselves better and improve ourselves. You know the old saying, ‘Know thyself.’ Now we have the technology to do it if the technology is used for our benefit and not for the benefit of some big corporation or totalitarian government, then this can be, really, the best society that ever existed.”
It scarcely matters whether Harari is genuinely credulous enough to trust the institutions he is empowering or a mega-villain disguising his deeper motives. What does matter is that he is advising Klaus Schwab, who has been busy setting up the dominoes to achieve the transhumanist totalitarian terror Harari has been describing.
An apparent victim of mass formation, Harari views organizations such as the WEF and WHO as agents of good rather than potential vehicles for one-world tyranny, arguing that the WHO should be granted more power and funding:
“The skeleton of such a global anti-plague system already exists in the shape of the World Health Organization and several other institutions. But the budgets supporting this system are meagre, and it has almost no political teeth. We need to give this system some political clout and a lot more money, so that it won’t be entirely dependent on the whims of self-serving politicians.
“As noted earlier, I don’t believe that unelected experts should be tasked with making crucial policy decisions. That should remain the preserve of politicians. But some kind of independent global health authority would be the ideal platform for compiling medical data, monitoring potential hazards, raising alarms, and directing research and development.”
Fine by Klaus, who boasts about owning all of the stakeholders necessary to gain world dominion:
Schwab: If I look at our stakeholders, we have business, of course. That’s a very important audience, and we have politics. We have continuous partnerships with many governments around the world. Then, of course, we have NGOs, we have trade unions, we have all those different parts.
Interviewer: Media, of course.
Schwab: Media, of course. And very important, experts and scientists and academia. Because if we are looking at the future, I think we should look at new solutions, and the new solutions will be very much driven by technological developments.
Interviewer: And we even have, you even have religious leaders, right?
Schwab: Religious leaders. We have social entrepreneurs. Very important, social entrepreneurs.
From philanthropaths Gates to Soros to Schwab and their intellectual henchmen Meadows to Kissinger to Harari, all believe they are righteously fulfilling their calling as defenders of the planet, conquering threats such as disease, overpopulation, populism, disinformation, and chaos.
In so doing, they have become monsters themselves, as Nietzsche cautions:
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that, in the process, he does not become a monster himself. Gaze long enough into an abyss, and the abyss will gaze right back into you.”
—Beyond Good & Evil (Kindle, paperback, hardcover, audiobook)
In Closing
We, too, must remain alert to this possibility as we raise our metaphorical sword to defeat the monsters described here. We defend against such an outcome by steadfastly clinging to our principles of integrity, truth, liberty, and love.
I can think of no finer embodiment of that grand-hearted heroism than Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko.
In honor of Dr. Zelenko’s courageous life, I wish to close with his final reflections on his legacy, which I think each one of us here can proudly say we are fulfilling:
“I started the Zelenko Freedom Foundation because I’m dying.…
“As I look at this stage of my life, my body is failing me. Legacy becomes essential. I think life is much bigger than any one individual, and if we can set up systems in place that can propagate principles of truth, of love, of courage. Do what’s right, not what’s easy. I think that’s a worthy use of someone’s last energies.
“I want the epitome of truthful messaging, journalism, through various platforms, whether it’s social media, regular media, print media, irrelevant, word of mouth, and houses of worship.
“I want the truth like a mantra propagated. I’m presenting to you a different perspective from what you’ve been told.”
No comments:
Post a Comment