Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN February 11, 2022 If you are unaware of The World Economic Forum and "The Great Reset", The Fourth Industrial Revolution, then you are unaware of the Davos crowd which controls the narrative for the Renewable Energy Policies which you are seeing. Klaus Schwab and his great fascist reset https://winteroak.org.uk/2020/10/05/klaus-schwab-and-his-great-fascist-reset/amp/ Feb 5th and 7th – via Technocracy News By Jacob Nordangård at PharosWorld Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” Revealedhttps://www.technocracy.news/world-economic-forums-young-global-leaders-revealed/ http://pharos.stiftelsen-pharos.org/world-economic-forums-young-global-leaders/ EXCERPT In 1992, Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum launched a program initially called Global Leaders of Tomorrow. In 2004, this program was turned into the Forum for Young Global Leaders (covered in book by author of article)… …Klaus Schwab: The network creates a force for worldwide influence through the combination of the individual skills and resources of its members.… …As Klaus Schwab says in the introductory quote, it has become very successful. Already in the first year, 1992, a number of highly influential candidates were elected. Among 200 selected were global profiles such as Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, Bill Gates, Bono, Richard Branson (Virgin), Jorma Ollila (Shell Oil), and José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission 2004–2014)… More examples of influential Young Global Leaders Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden Crown Prince Haakon of Norway Crown Prince Fredrik of Denmark Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, Netherlands Princess Reema Bint Bandar Al-Saud, Ambassador for Saudi-Arabia in USA Jacinda Arden, Prime Minister, New Zeeland Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister, Belgium Emmanuel Macron, President, France Sanna Marin, Prime Minister, Finland Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President, Costa Rica Faisal Alibrahim, Minister of Economy and Planning, Saudi Arabia Shauna Aminath, Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Technology, Maldives Ida Auken, MP, former Minister of Environment, Denmark (author to the infamous article “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better”) Annalena Baerbock, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leader of Alliance 90/Die Grünen, Germany Kamissa Camara, Minister of the Digital Economy and Planning, Mali Ugyen Dorji, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Bhutan Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada Martín Guzmán, Minister of Finance, Argentina Muhammad Hammad Azhar, Minister of Energy, Pakistan Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information and communications technology and Innovation, Rwanda Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, South Africa Birgitta Ohlson, Minister for European Union Affairs 2010–2014, Sweden Mona Sahlin, Party Leader of the Social Democrats 2007–2011, Sweden Stav Shaffir, Leader of the Green Party, Israel Vera Daves de Sousa, Minister of Finance, Angola Leonardo Di Caprio, actor and Climate Activist Mattias Klum, photographer and Environmentalist Jack Ma, Founder of Alibaba Larry Page, Founder of Google Ricken Patel, Founder of Avaaz David de Rothschild, adventurer and Environmentalist Jimmy Wale, Founder of Wikipedia Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor Niklas Zennström, Founder of Skype… …Partners for Global Leaders of Tomorrow in 2000 were large global companies such as The Coca Cola Company, Ernst & Young, Volkswagen, and BP Amoco. These could contribute to the agenda by “playing an active role in developing and implementing the concept of the GLT project. The partners can therefore actively participate in the development of GLT programs; representatives of the partner companies as well as their guests are invited to GLT meetings .. ” Since the Global Leaders of Tomorrow was turned into Young Global Leaders 2004, partners such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and JPMorganChase (with alumni from the program) have also participated as sponsors… …In addition, leading multinational investment management corporations such as BlackRock, led by the World Economic Forum’s own Larry Fink, have constantly moved their positions forward. German economist and journalist Ernst Wolff believes that many of the national leaders included in the Young Global Leader program have been selected for their willingness to carry out the tough agenda of lockdowns in recent years without asking any questions, and that their impending failure (as evidenced by in a growing dissatisfaction of the masses) will be used as an excuse to create a new form of Global Government where the old nation states become largely obsolete. A new global digital currency with Universal Basic Income (UBI) can then be gradually introduced to replace our doomed monetary system.[3] This conclusion partly coincides with my own…. One minute video Klaus Schwab: “we penetrate global cabinets of countries with WEF Young Global Leaders like Trudeauhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/Lv25qcFpt9mx/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 February 12, 2022 One World Government AKA Globalism AKA The Great Reset, AKA Agenda 21 etc. Part of www.allmyrants.org https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,315 RG February 12, 2022 Get a real job and feed the poor. Lol like Putin, XI, Trump, Biden, Kim Un, etc can work together. The great reset would be to make business pay taxes. You know that ain’t happening. Trump is the king of tax cheats and loved for it. It’s a convoluted mess you rednecks put us in. Lol I say vote a Japanese woman in for president. Y’all just ain’t smart enough. We need some woke brains in there. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 883 MP February 12, 2022 17 hours ago, Tom Nolan said: If you are unaware of The World Economic Forum and "The Great Reset", The Fourth Industrial Revolution, then you are unaware of the Davos crowd which controls the narrative for the Renewable Energy Policies which you are seeing. Klaus Schwab and his great fascist reset ... Do you actually read all this stuff before you post it? 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st February 13, 2022 Is the "Davos Crowd" really unknown? It's as if half of these websites try to claim they just discovered the new world for the first time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN February 14, 2022 On 2/12/2022 at 10:45 AM, Meredith Poor said: Do you actually read all this stuff before you post it? Meredith, you are very uninformed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 883 MP February 15, 2022 11 hours ago, Tom Nolan said: Meredith, you are very uninformed. Or very skeptical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN February 17, 2022 A hidden alliance of political and corporate leaders is exploiting the pandemic with the aim of crashing national economies and introducing a global digital currency, and these leaders include President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson. Justin Trudeau is a Young Global Leader (YGL), and Klaus Schwab and the WEF organization has taught him how to be a pathocrat, part of that pathocracy that wants to turn the world into a global technocracy; a Brave New World of medical and political dictatorship, a panopticon of surveillance, machine learning and transhumanism. Justin Trudeau - Agenda Contributor https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/justin-trudeau Many will be quick to dismiss the World Economic Forum (author of great reset) after all – what influence do they have here in Canada? On that note here is a list of a few current members that highlight the depth of the WEF influence in Canada: Chrystia Freeland – Deputy Prime Minister of Canada; Mark Carney – Former governor of the bank of Canada, current governor of bank of England; Jagmeet Singh – Member of the Young Global Leaders which is a partner program of the WEF; Michelle Rempel – Member of the Young Global Leaders; Melanie Joly – Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum; Ailish Campbell – Is the Chief Trade Commissioner and ADM · Global Affairs Canada. Was designated as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum The Great Reset In speaking about Covid-19, Klaus Schwab, the creator of the World Economic Forum said “the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.” Chrystia Freeland She is a member of the World Economic Forum's Board of Trustees 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 February 17, 2022 (edited) All they want to achieve is total control of the world and everyone in it. Should we bow before them, or only God? "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus Christ Edited February 17, 2022 by ronwagn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN February 21, 2022 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/next-step-world-economic-forum The Next Step For The World Economic Forum ...If I give you the names of the following people – Biden, Trudeau, Ardern, Merkel, Macron, Draghi, Morrison, Xi Jinping – what do you think that they have in common? Yes, they are all pampered and stumble over themselves, but that is also not the connection. One can see very quickly that these names certainly connect to lockdown countries and individuals who have ignored their own laws and/or tried in some way to usurp them. But, there is more to it than that and I will give a hint by providing a link with each name. Joseph Biden, President, United States Boris Johnson, PM of United Kingdom Jacinda Ardern, PM of New Zealand Angela Merkel, Former PM of Germany Emmanuel Macron, President of France Justin Trudeau, PM of Canada Xi Jinping, CCP Leader, China Mario Draghi, PM of Italy Scott Morrison, PM of Australia They are all associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF), a “nonprofit” private organization started (in 1971) and headed by Klaus “You will own nothing and be happy” Schwab and his family. This is a private organization that has no official bearing with any world governance body, despite the implication of the name. It could just as well have been called the “Church of Schwabies.” The WEF was the origin of the “Great Reset” and I would guess that it was the origin of “Build Back Better” (since most of the above names have used that term recently). If you think that the WEF membership ends with just leaders of countries, here are a few more names: Gavin Newsom, Governor of California Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington State Anthony Fauci, Director NIAID Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House Allow me to introduce more of the WEF by giving a list of names for the Board of Trustees. Al Gore, Former WP of the US Mark Caney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action T. Shanmugaratnam, Seminar Minister Singapore Christine Lagarde, President, European Central Bank Ngozi Okonja-Iweala, Director General, WTO Kristalian Georggieva, Managing Director, IMF Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Minister of Canada Laurence Fink, CEO, BlackRock You can see a cross section of political and economic leaders on the board. The leader of the organization, that is the leader of the Board, is still Klaus Schwab. He has built an impressive array of followers. If you want to really see the extent of influence, go to the website and pick out the corporate name of your choice; there are many to choose from: Abbott Laboratories, Astra-Zeneca, Biogen, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Serum Institute of India, BASF, Mayo Clinic, Kaiser Permanente, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, Blackrock, CISCO, Dell, Google, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Zoom, Yahoo, Amazon, Airbus, Boeing, Honda, Rakuten, Walmart, UPS, Coca-Cola, UBER, Bank of China. Bank of America. Deutsche Bank, State Bank of India, Royal Bank of Canada, Lloyds Banking, JP Morgan-Chase, Equifax, Goldman-Sachs, Hong Kong Exchanges, Bloomberg, VISA, New York Times, Ontario (Canada) Teacher’s Pension Plan The extent of reach is huge even beyond the worldwide leader network. For example, we all know what Bill Gates has been doing with his wealth via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). But, the Wellcome Trust is equal to the task. Who is the Director of the Wellcome Trust? One named Jeremy Farrar, of the United Kingdom SAGE and lockdown fame – arguably the architect of the US-UK lockdowns in 2020 – is closely associated with WEF. Concerning the reach that can occur, let me give some examples from the BMGF alone, and it comes from the time that I spent in 2020 reading their extensive funding list. A few years ago, the BMGF awarded the Institute for Health Metric Evaluation (IHME) a ten-year, almost $280 million award. IHME (associated with the University of Washington in Seattle) was at the forefront of the computer modeling that was driving the lockdowns and the nonpharmaceutical Interventions during 2020. People have seen their name often in print or on MSNBC or CNN. In 2019, IHME awarded the Editor of the Lancet (Dr. Richard Horton) a $100,000 award and described him as an “activist editor.” The Lancet, once considered one of the best medical journals, has been at the forefront of censoring opposing scientific viewpoints since 2020 and publishing “papers” that were not fit to be published. I never could understand what it meant to be an “activist” editor in a respected scientific/medical journal because, stupid me, I always thought that the first job of the editor was to be impartial. I guess I learned in 2020 how wrong I was. Of course, the Lancet is also heavily funded from pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer (also a member of the WEF). But, the BMGF reach goes far beyond just IHME and these connections have been quite recognizable. Here are some examples of the organizations and moneys received during 2020 alone broken down by areas.... 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN February 22, 2022 https://community.oilprice.com/topic/25114-the-davos-meetingworld-economic-forum’s-annual-january-meeting-2022-deferred/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN February 22, 2022 https://community.oilprice.com/topic/25822-backstory-the-covert-us-and-foreign-intervention-with-the-ukraine-crisis-corbettreportcom/ INTERNAL LINKS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 February 22, 2022 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-Wall-Street-Cant-Afford-To-Turn-Its-Back-On-Fossil-Fuels.html Why Wall Street Can’t Afford To Turn Its Back On Fossil Fuels By Tsvetana Paraskova - Feb 21, 2022, 11:00 AM CST Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN March 20, 2022 https://community.oilprice.com/topic/25990-the-global-digital-id-prison-by-james-corbett-of-corbettreportcom/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN March 20, 2022 Odysee Video LINKGlobalization is Dead. Long Live the New World Order!https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/globalization-is-dead-long-live-the-new:6 Episode 369 - Globalization is Dead. Long Live the New World Order! https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-369-globalization-is-dead-long-live-the-new-world-order/#comment-131897 Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed The globalists tell us that globalization is dead. But don't worry, there's a New World Order waiting in the wings to take its place. Confused? Don't be. Get the scoop on Globalization 2.0 and the New New (Polycentric) World Order on this week's edition of The Corbett Report podcast Watch this video on BitChute / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4 For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode. For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download). SHOW NOTES January 29, 1991: State of the Union Address Gary Hart "New World Order" September 11, 1990: Address Before a Joint Session of Congress January 16, 1991: Address to the Nation on the Invasion of Iraq Bill Clinton New World Order speech Henry Kissinger New World Order 2007 Soros "New World Order" Tony Blair "New World Order" G20 pledges 'new world order' with 5 trillion dollar plan Gordon Brown "New World Order" U.S., China Part of New World Order Narrative at IIF Annual Meeting Sen. Chris Coons: Putin does not support liberal world order Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream Is the New Threat to World Order Mattis sees Russia as the number one threat to world order Globalisation is dead and we need to invent a new world order Ellen Brown on FSB / bank bail-ins Russia Hails the New World Order - #NewWorldNextWeek China Banning People From Transit for Bad "Social Credit" Scores Artificial Wombs to Make Women Obsolete - #BraveNewWorldNextWeek Continuing Coups, Kremlin Kontrol & Copyright Crackdown - #NewWorldNextWeek Russia calls for new economic world order (2007) Vladimir Putin calls for new world order (2014) Putin calls for new world order (2016) Beijing Blasts ‘American Aggression,’ Calls for Russia-China ‘New World Order’ Zhou Xiaochuan: Reform the international monetary system China and the New World Order China’s AIIB: What You Need to Know Phoney Opposition: The Truth About the BRICS China’s SWIFT Alternative and the (Engineered) Death of the Dollar Globalization 2.0: China Ushering in Newer, Shinier New World Order! How To REALLY Defeat Globalism Solutions: Spontaneous Order Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
specinho + 439 March 20, 2022 On 2/12/2022 at 7:18 AM, Tom Nolan said: If you are unaware of The World Economic Forum and "The Great Reset", The Fourth Industrial Revolution, then you are unaware of the Davos crowd which controls the narrative for the Renewable Energy Policies which you are seeing. Klaus Schwab and his great fascist reset https://winteroak.org.uk/2020/10/05/klaus-schwab-and-his-great-fascist-reset/amp/ Feb 5th and 7th – via Technocracy News By Jacob Nordangård at PharosWorld Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” Revealedhttps://www.technocracy.news/world-economic-forums-young-global-leaders-revealed/ http://pharos.stiftelsen-pharos.org/world-economic-forums-young-global-leaders/ EXCERPT In 1992, Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum launched a program initially called Global Leaders of Tomorrow. In 2004, this program was turned into the Forum for Young Global Leaders (covered in book by author of article)… …Klaus Schwab: The network creates a force for worldwide influence through the combination of the individual skills and resources of its members.… …As Klaus Schwab says in the introductory quote, it has become very successful. Already in the first year, 1992, a number of highly influential candidates were elected. Among 200 selected were global profiles such as Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Nicolas Sarkozy, Bill Gates, Bono, Richard Branson (Virgin), Jorma Ollila (Shell Oil), and José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission 2004–2014)… More examples of influential Young Global Leaders Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden Crown Prince Haakon of Norway Crown Prince Fredrik of Denmark Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, Netherlands Princess Reema Bint Bandar Al-Saud, Ambassador for Saudi-Arabia in USA Jacinda Arden, Prime Minister, New Zeeland Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister, Belgium Emmanuel Macron, President, France Sanna Marin, Prime Minister, Finland Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President, Costa Rica Faisal Alibrahim, Minister of Economy and Planning, Saudi Arabia Shauna Aminath, Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Technology, Maldives Ida Auken, MP, former Minister of Environment, Denmark (author to the infamous article “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better”) Annalena Baerbock, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leader of Alliance 90/Die Grünen, Germany Kamissa Camara, Minister of the Digital Economy and Planning, Mali Ugyen Dorji, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Bhutan Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada Martín Guzmán, Minister of Finance, Argentina Muhammad Hammad Azhar, Minister of Energy, Pakistan Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information and communications technology and Innovation, Rwanda Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, South Africa Birgitta Ohlson, Minister for European Union Affairs 2010–2014, Sweden Mona Sahlin, Party Leader of the Social Democrats 2007–2011, Sweden Stav Shaffir, Leader of the Green Party, Israel Vera Daves de Sousa, Minister of Finance, Angola Leonardo Di Caprio, actor and Climate Activist Mattias Klum, photographer and Environmentalist Jack Ma, Founder of Alibaba Larry Page, Founder of Google Ricken Patel, Founder of Avaaz David de Rothschild, adventurer and Environmentalist Jimmy Wale, Founder of Wikipedia Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor Niklas Zennström, Founder of Skype… …Partners for Global Leaders of Tomorrow in 2000 were large global companies such as The Coca Cola Company, Ernst & Young, Volkswagen, and BP Amoco. These could contribute to the agenda by “playing an active role in developing and implementing the concept of the GLT project. The partners can therefore actively participate in the development of GLT programs; representatives of the partner companies as well as their guests are invited to GLT meetings .. ” Since the Global Leaders of Tomorrow was turned into Young Global Leaders 2004, partners such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and JPMorganChase (with alumni from the program) have also participated as sponsors… …In addition, leading multinational investment management corporations such as BlackRock, led by the World Economic Forum’s own Larry Fink, have constantly moved their positions forward. German economist and journalist Ernst Wolff believes that many of the national leaders included in the Young Global Leader program have been selected for their willingness to carry out the tough agenda of lockdowns in recent years without asking any questions, and that their impending failure (as evidenced by in a growing dissatisfaction of the masses) will be used as an excuse to create a new form of Global Government where the old nation states become largely obsolete. A new global digital currency with Universal Basic Income (UBI) can then be gradually introduced to replace our doomed monetary system.[3] This conclusion partly coincides with my own…. One minute video Klaus Schwab: “we penetrate global cabinets of countries with WEF Young Global Leaders like Trudeauhttps://www.bitchute.com/video/Lv25qcFpt9mx/ On 2/13/2022 at 12:45 AM, Meredith Poor said: Do you actually read all this stuff before you post it? almost all influencers are well known figures, young to middle ages. They exist, so is the agenda. The initial aim might have been kind..... The old and experienced might be tied to do much changes. Tied up by friendship that sometimes disfavours change, by being comfortable with status quo or less informed about new occurences down below, by monosided stand on most things etc. The younger ones might be giving an impression of daring to point out flaws in the status quo, how they wish to change it, etc. Therefore, the group lets the young influence changes they wish to see. However, there is still a gap between idealism and reality; pure enthusiasm and practicality. Specialization functions out of trust, that others in a team can do the work delegated well. When the leaders do not have sufficient information that they are confident enough to act on, or lacking of personal experience and skill over problems they intend to solve, these elected influencers become merely icons, come short of desirable outcomes. Blind pushing for the youngs to take over, for women or particular races to take up positions not suitable out of the beliefs that everyone is born equal, with equal capability to learn/ be educated, might be futile. Adults can be divided into kindergarten learners, primary schoolers, secondary's, tertiary's, graduates from informal and formal education etc.. Entrust the right one is not always easy because we do not always know where they are until they are accidentally tested, by chance. Tackling climate change is good. But we need a know how. Otherwise, it becomes merely slogan that could be chant for decades and still, nothing has changed. Hasty actions, especially by crowd followers or fund followers, will rarely yield desirable outcomes. They could make things worse sometimes by faking the outcomes to suit the requirement or market needs. All kind intentions seem to fall short in execution. We need not take the extreme path shall there are better ways known/offered to us. Natural ways might have always proven to be more effective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,315 RG March 20, 2022 On 2/17/2022 at 2:51 PM, ronwagn said: All they want to achieve is total control of the world and everyone in it. Should we bow before them, or only God? "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus Christ Apparently some of your leaders were jerked around by God. Things went Gods way I suspect and you had no clue. Amazing, Isn't it? Anybody selling Gods word and thought Trump was picked by God was drinking stump water. (Southern saying). We waited and waited for the evidence. It was not forth coming. After the evidence of Coup finally became clear it was like a long tall stalk of green sugarcane…..SWEET! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,315 RG March 20, 2022 1 hour ago, specinho said: almost all influencers are well known figures, young to middle ages. They exist, so is the agenda. The initial aim might have been kind..... The old and experienced might be tied to do much changes. Tied up by friendship that sometimes disfavours change, by being comfortable with status quo or less informed about new occurences down below, by monosided stand on most things etc. The younger ones might be giving an impression of daring to point out flaws in the status quo, how they wish to change it, etc. Therefore, the group lets the young influence changes they wish to see. However, there is still a gap between idealism and reality; pure enthusiasm and practicality. Specialization functions out of trust, that others in a team can do the work delegated well. When the leaders do not have sufficient information that they are confident enough to act on, or lacking of personal experience and skill over problems they intend to solve, these elected influencers become merely icons, come short of desirable outcomes. Blind pushing for the youngs to take over, for women or particular races to take up positions not suitable out of the beliefs that everyone is born equal, with equal capability to learn/ be educated, might be futile. Adults can be divided into kindergarten learners, primary schoolers, secondary's, tertiary's, graduates from informal and formal education etc.. Entrust the right one is not always easy because we do not always know where they are until they are accidentally tested, by chance. Tackling climate change is good. But we need a know how. Otherwise, it becomes merely slogan that could be chant for decades and still, nothing has changed. Hasty actions, especially by crowd followers or fund followers, will rarely yield desirable outcomes. They could make things worse sometimes by faking the outcomes to suit the requirement or market needs. All kind intentions seem to fall short in execution. We need not take the extreme path shall there are better ways known/offered to us. Natural ways might have always proven to be more effective. Apparently your expectations of green are in line with the extreme left. The worlds 1% per year gain is outstanding if your in the know. Since your probably yellow square buss slow, we’ll let it go. It won’t take much to outperform the status quo. Unleash those women and learn how to take care of a house. Look around the world stage. You see competence going on? By mostly men. Sadly, men have been screwing up for thousands of years. The end result is the thing you should judge, not the race, color or gender. Finlands prez seems smart. Join NATO and get better weapons and more of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surrept33 + 609 st March 21, 2022 7 hours ago, Boat said: Apparently your expectations of green are in line with the extreme left. The worlds 1% per year gain is outstanding if your in the know. Yeah, not to mention the geopolitical "west" (or developed liberal democracies) are still responsible for much of this growth, rather than the geopolitical "east" (that is, Russia and China, the authoritarian regimes): from a wsj article yesterday[- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN March 22, 2022 Globalists Release Timeline for Health Tyranny https://www.corbettreport.com/globalists-release-timeline-for-health-tyranny/ https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/globalists-release-timeline-for-health?s=r Globalists Release Timeline for Health Tyranny The Corbett Report Mar 20 by James Corbettcorbettreport.com March 20, 2022 One thing you learn after spending years in the conspiracy realist space: when the globalists tell you that something is about to happen, you'd better believe they're hard at work behind the scenes to make that "prediction" a reality. For example, when 9/11 suspect Philip Zelikow takes to the pages of Foreign Affairs to "warn" about the "eminent threat" of "Catastrophic Terrorism" that, "like Pearl Harbor," will "divide our past and future into a before and after," you'd better believe his neocon cronies are about to deliver a 9/11 to the public. When Bill Gates "warns" us that "we're not ready" for what he calls "the next epidemic," you'd better believe that he's using his monopolization of global "health" to prime the pump for the COVID scamdemic. When Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping release a joint statement vowing to "accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" by cooperating on "key areas" like "vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity," you'd better believe they are actively collaborating on the promotion of an AI-driven, Fourth Industrial Revolution globalist agenda with their WEF cronies. And when the globalists release a detailed timeline telling you exactly what the next steps are in the rollout of the global biosecurity security state, you'd better believe they are hard at work erecting that enslavement grid as we speak. Luckily for us, we do not need to be mind readers or fortune-tellers to know what the globalists are preparing for our dystopian future. We simply have to read their documents. And boy, have they released some real doozies in the past month: three documents that lay out a precise timeline and an overview of what they're hoping to achieve and how they're hoping to achieve it. Today, let's examine these documents so that we can better understand what we're up against and form a more effective plan for derailing this agenda of control. DOCUMENT #1: The European Council's Handy-dandy Infographic Timeline Earlier this month, the European Council released a document laying out the EUreaucrats' own timetable for the implementation of global health tyranny. Entitled "Infographic - Towards an international treaty on pandemics," it cuts down on all those complicated linguistic thingies—what do you call them again? words?—and reduces the complexities of a legally binding global pandemic treaty down to the lowest common denominator: the "infographic." With this Buzzfeed-worthy gimmick in hand, the European Council wastes no time in getting down to business, informing us that "On 3 March 2022, the Council adopted a decision to authorize the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response" before patting itself on the back for its role in proposing the idea of a global pandemic treaty in the first place: So far, so unsurprising. This is the exact kind of mealy-mouthed "global approach" blah blah blah "common cause" yadda yadda "protecting health" pabulum that you would expect the global technocratic class to administer in a document like this. Then, they lay out an incredibly abbreviated history of how we have arrived at the proposal for a global health tyranny: You'll note that this curiously truncated "history" unhelpfully informs you that 2021 was "only the second time in WHO history that its governing body . . . met for a second time in the same year" without bothering to link you to the list of World Health Assembly meetings. If they had bothered to do so, as I do here, you could see for yourself that the first time this two-meetings-in-one-year event happened was back in 2006, when the WHO met in May to discuss "Strengthening pandemic-influenza preparedness and response" in the context of the newly revised International Health Regulations and then again in November of that year to appoint Margaret Chan as the organization's Executive Director. It's not hard to understand why they leave out that part of the history, though. Not only would it be too much information to include in their childish infographic, it also might have prompted you to learn more about the creation of the "public health emergency of international concern" that lewas then invoked by Chan during the ginned-up swine flu "pandemic" of 2009 (and again during the ebola "pandemic" of 2014) to justify the consolidation of WHO powers in the dawning era of biosecurity. And, obviously, that kind of history is not what the European Council is aiming for here. Back to the document: Next, we see what is really at stake in this seemingly innocuous proposal for a global pandemic treaty. We learn that what is really being proposed is not that political blather about "banding together for a common cause" but creating a legally binding agreement to govern the global response to global public health "crises" (real or imaginary). Don't worry, though, this agreement—in addition to promoting the sharing of genetic data and samples among WHO member countries—is rooted in the constitution! . . . The WHO constitution, that is, not your silly, outdated national constitution. This agreement will override that. At last, we arrive at the juicy part: And so we discover the real roadmap for the creation of the biosecurity state as the European Council sees it. First there will be a meeting of an "intergovernmental negotiating body" to discuss progress on a draft for the globalist "health" takeover. "What body? Representing which governments? Convening under what authority? And represented by whom, exactly?" you might ask, if you were the sort to question the information that is forcibly shoved down your throat by the self-proclaimed authorities. But relax, dude! This is an infographic, not one of those complicated overly talky explainer doohickeys! Just turn off you mind, relax and float downstream with the European Council and whoever else is steering this ship! Next we learn that this "negotiating body"—"Is this an official body? Who gets to decide who is appointed to this body? Is it part of the WHO itself?" . . . but there you go again with those pesky questions—will deliver a "progress report" to the WHO's annual-ish meeting next year. (Now don't go asking what this progress report will consist of, how it will be delivered, who will review it or what these unnamed officials will do with it! That's way more information than these poor infographic designers could possibly supply you with!) And then, in May 2024, the "proposed instrument" will be presented for adoption at the WHO's World Health Assembly, and the biosecurity takeover will be complete. Think of it as Patriot Act 2.0, but global. And focused on medical martial law. Finally, our friends at the European Council put our minds at ease about why a legally binding global agreement is needed after all: You see, it's just about keeping you safe in the loving arms of the de facto global health tyranny so that they can implement long-term fascism at all levels! Nothing to see here, right? So there you have it, folks: we have two years left before they close the barn door on health freedom at the global governmental level. At least, according to the European Council. But why listen to the EU, you might ask? Good question. The simple answer is that they have a track record of correctly "predicting" the next moves in the erection of the medical martial law grid. Remember when the European Commission released the snappily named "Roadmap for the Implementation of Actions by the European Commission Based on the Commission Communication and the Council Recommendation on Strengthening Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases" back in 2019? No? Well, let me refresh your memory: Ahhh, right. It just so happens that the EUreaucrats were forecasting the creation of a vaccination card/passport for EU citizens in 2022 just months before the scamdemic was launched. Coincidence, I'm sure. DOCUMENT #2: A Roadmap for Living with COVID But, to be sure, it isn't just the European Council talking about the coming biosecurity grid, and we don't have to rely on some contextless, sourceless, idiotic infographic to learn what the globalists are planning next. We could turn, for example, to "Getting to and Sustaining the Next Normal: A Roadmap for Living with COVID." This is a document from . . . who exactly? Well, according to the "About" page on the website, this 136-page report on our coming medical martial law nightmare was put together by some unnamed group of random individuals. Apparently, they all woke up one day filled with concern for Americans in the COVID era and decided out of the goodness of their hearts (and with the help of a bit of Rockefeller funding) to write a handy-dandy roadmap for getting us to what they call the "next normal." And which random good Samaritan took on the role of "shepherding" (their word) the 53 authors of this report? None other than Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania and former Biden Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board member. Yes, that Ezekiel Emanuel. The document is precisely as disturbing as you would expect, laying out step-by-step exactly how to hardwire the biosecurity state into place through the creation of centralized testing, surveillance, data sharing, monitoring and reporting standards. It also calls for the development of new technologies and processes for combating the inevitable next pandemic. But if all that wasn't Huxleyan enough, the report also advocates the creation of "a comprehensive, scientifically-tested communication and behavioral intervention infrastructure to increase vaccination, testing and treatment" and . . . wait for it . . . the creation of a new post on the National Security Council: Deputy Assistant to the President for Biosecurity! (And you thought I was joking about biosecurity being the next paradigm, didn't you?) DOCUMENT #3: National Covid-19 Preparedness Plan Equally disturbing is the Biden White House's own "National Covid-19 Preparedness Plan," unveiled earlier this month. Purporting to be a plan for "getting America back to our normal routines while protecting people from COVID-19, preparing for new variants, and preventing economic and educational shutdowns," the document is broken down into four goals: Protect against, and treat, COVID-19 Prepare for new variants Prevent economic and educational shutdowns Continue to lead the effort to vaccinate the world and save lives Worryingly, many of the creepy aspects of the biosecurity state embedded in this particular plan are already being implemented. For example, on page 34 of the document the US surgeon general is directed to "issue a Request for Information (RFI) from researchers, healthcare workers, tech platforms, and community organizations on the impact of health misinformation during the pandemic." As The New York Times reports, this request has now been issued: President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested that the major tech platforms submit information about the scale of Covid-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems. A request for information from the surgeon general’s office demanded that tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of Covid-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The notice asks the companies to submit “exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation,” as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation. Meryl Nass summarizes the bone-chilling nature of this request nicely in a recent Substack post on the topic: The feds are asking for detailed information about the demographics 'exposed to misinformation.' You know that obtaining the names of who is reading what is their next step. Furthermore, read the last paragraph in the NY Times article below, closely. The feds want citizens to start 'sharing' information on misinformation. Isn't that sweet? This is how they dress up the Stasi in 21st century euphemism to encourage ratting out your friends and neighbors. Given what we have just seen taking place in Canada around the doxing and financial de-personing of the Freedom Convoy supporters, can there be any doubt that the systems are now being erected so that thoughtcriminals will be penalized for sharing "misinformation" about the next scamdemic? CONCLUSION The COVID narrative has fallen apart in recent months and the mockingbird repeaters of the MSM have refocused the attention of their zombie-like viewers onto the spectacle in Ukraine, but the biosecurity agenda has not gone away. Indeed, as Kit Knightly warns in his latest insightful article at Off-Guardian, the "stealth omicron" scare story that is being floated in the media right now reminds us that the COVID narrative has not gone away; it is merely sleeping for now. Regardless of what happens next in the continuing COVID saga, though, the erection of the biosecurity state continues apace. In fact, it is even helped along by the fact that so few are paying attention to this agenda now. Distracted by the pyrotechnics of warfare, the hoi polloi hardly notice that the European Commission is happily announcing their imminent victory in the war over the formerly free peoples of the world. By 2024, if all goes well, they will have their global pandemic treaty in place and absolute power to implement their will anywhere in the world at any time under the cover of any declared health emergency. If you had sprung any of this (literally any of it) on the public two years ago, it would have been swiftly and roundly rejected. Today, it is simply accepted that this is happening. After all, it is the next logical step in the narrative of "pandemic and recovery" that the masses have been brainwashed with for the past two years. The social engineers know what they are doing. They are wearing the population down, first generating hysteria over a perceived crisis and then slipping in the poison pill once the public's attention has turned elsewhere. This suggests, once again, that our perception and attention are themselves important. They cannot implement their agenda without our acquiescence, so they spend unbelievable amounts of energy propagandizing the public, preventing information about their true agenda from circulating among the public, and working to distract the public. And, once again, this suggests that the work we are doing in pursuing this information and sharing it with others is an important part of stopping the would-be rulers from erecting their biosecurity state. However, this also implies that if we cannot raise sufficient awareness of this agenda among the general public then we will surely lose this fight. The choice is ours. We can either go back to sleep and follow the shiny baubles of the latest breaking news on the MSM news feeds or we can continue to focus on the creation of the biosecurity state, build coalitions with those who are resisting it, and move forward with the creation of a parallel economy for overcoming our reliance on the state's tools of coercion and control. I know which of those two options I'll be choosing. I hope you'll be here with me. This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN March 22, 2022 RE: James Corbett’s 3/21/2022 articleGlobalists Release Timeline for Health Tyranny Under DOCUMENT #1… INFOGRAPHIC: What are the potential benefits of an international agreement on… Last two items… ~~~ ”Sharing of monitoring data, genetic data, samples, technology, and their associated benefits.” ~~~ ”A One Health approach that connects the health of humans, animals, and the planet.” Under DOCUMENT #2…Ezekiel Emanuel – When people follow Corbett’s “that” link, it takes them to Corbett’s 3/06/2021…Episode 396 – Bioethics and the New Eugenics (with transcript)https://www.corbettreport.com/bioethics/ [Use your Ctrl + F keys to search “Ezekiel Emanuel”.] One EXCERPT…That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come. He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public. Much more on Ezekiel Emanuel and his Eugenics mindset in Episode 396. Under DOCUMENT #3 The New York Times:President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested that the major tech platforms submit information about the scale of Covid-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems… … The notice asks the companies to submit “exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation,” as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation. As Corbett says: ”…can there be any doubt that the systems are now being erected so that thoughtcriminals will be penalized for sharing “misinformation” about the next scamdemic?” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Nolan + 2,441 TN March 22, 2022 https://www.corbettreport.com/bioethics/ Bioethics and the New Eugenics Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios. What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent. Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4 For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode. For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download). CLICK HERE for a German dub of this video TRANSCRIPT Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine, biology and the life sciences. At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios. PAUL ROOT WOLPE: Imagine what's going to happen when we have a memory pill. First of all, you don't have to raise your hand but let's be honest: who here's going to take it? SOURCE: Memory Enhancing Drugs: Subject of "Arms" Race? MICHAEL SANDEL: I've read of a sport—it's a variant of polo that is I think played in Afghanistan if I'm not mistaken—where the people ride on horses. Is it horses or camels? I don't know which. And they use a—it's a dead goat or something—to, I don't know, whack the polo ball or whatever it is. Now it's a dead—I think it's a goat. Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So it's not that the goat is experiencing pain. It's dead already. And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn't you agree? And yet it's not that the interests of that goat are somehow not being considered. Let's assume it was killed painlessly before the match began. SOURCE: The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans MOLLY CROCKETT: What if I told you that a pill could change your judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this morning. You're probably thinking by now this sounds like science fiction, right? SOURCE: TEDxZurich - Molly Crockett - Drugs and morals But the bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly. Their ideas are being used by governments to assert control over people's bodies and to enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways. ARCHELLE GEORGIOU: Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. And what these researchers found in Japan is that lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply in some communities and in those communities they have a lower suicide rate. And so they're really investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough to really in a positive way without having the bad effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate very interesting concept. SOURCE: Lithium May Be Added To Our Water Supply GATES: You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade-off society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, “Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?” But that’s called the “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion. SOURCE: Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers’ Jobs Even a short time ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish. But now that the world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics and overburdened health care systems, these previously unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate. What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent. This is a study of Bioethics and the New Eugenics. You are tuned in to The Corbett Report. On November 10, 2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. JOE BIDEN: So that’s why today I’ve named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into action. A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021. SOURCE: President-elect Biden Delivers Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic ANCHOR: We've learned that a doctor from our area is on the president-elect's task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard Monroe picks up the story. THOMAS FARLEY: I know he's a very bright, capable guy and i think that's a great choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this epidemic. HOWARD MONROE: Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning on Eyewitness News. He praised president-elect Joe Biden's transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. SOURCE: UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve On President-Elect Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel's career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come. He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public. JONATHAN GRUBER: OK? Just like the people—transparency—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass. SOURCE: 3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans "Too Stupid to Understand" Obamacare During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of "death panels" arose. Although the term "death panel" was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death. ROB MASS: When I first heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under consideration. And the article was entitled "Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions." I don't know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death panels. And he wrote an article which I thought should have been required reading for the entire country about how rationing medical care—you think that that's going to start with with the Affordable Care Act? Medical care is rationed all the time and it must be rationed. Explain that. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: So there are two kinds of "rationing," you might say. One is absolute scarcity leading to rationing and that's when we don't simply don't have enough of something and you have to choose between people. We do that with organs for transplantation. We don't have enough. Some people will get it, other people won't and, tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu pandemic—not if but when we have a flu pandemic—we're not going to have enough vaccine, we're not going to have enough respirators, we're not going to have enough hospital beds. We're just going to have to choose between people. SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel: Oncologist and Bioethicist When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel's various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow "independent" board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions. If this idea seems familiar, it's because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the "fittest" should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed "unfit" by the government-appointed boards—presided over by the eugenicists—should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least—who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?” SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment This is the exact same talk of "Life Unworthy of Life" that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime. In 2009, author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel about this genocidal idea. MODERATOR: So we'll do the same format. It'll be three minutes and then time for questions. We'll start with Mr. Chaitkin. ANTON CHAITKIN: [My name is] Anton Chaitkin. I'm a historian and the history editor for Executive Intelligence Review. President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there. The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to three trillion dollars by taking lives considered "not worthy to be lived" as the Nazi doctors said. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington state law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster. Dr. Emmanuel's movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council's purpose directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler's killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly "unworthy" people. Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program. Hitler told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing. You on the council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight. Disband this council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now. SOURCE: Obama's Genocidal Death Panel Warned by Tony Chaitkin It should come as no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association. The paper, "Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19," was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses "the need to ration medical equipment and interventions" during a pandemic emergency. Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce medical resources from younger patients or from those with more promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a "death panel" to determine who should or should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself. In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times. As Canadian researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality. JAMES CORBETT: Let's get back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is such an important part of this story. And it's one of those things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance sounds reasonable enough, but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more horrifying. And you quote, for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, "Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19," which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which calls for "maximizing the number of patients that survived treatment with a reasonable life expectancy." Which, again, I would say sounds reasonable at first glance. Yes, of course we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What's wrong with that? So what can you tell us about this paper and the precedent that it's setting here. ROSEMARY FREI: Well it's all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying, "Well, the most important thing is that it's the older people get a lower place in terms of triaging." And I point out in my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience with SARS because we had that—there were a significant number of deaths in Ontario because of it. And there were people from Toronto who had direct experience with SARS—which of course is (ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus—who wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for how to triage during a pandemic—this was in 2006—they didn't mention age at all. And here we are 14 years later, every single set of guidelines, including this really important New England Journal of Medicine paper say, "Well, age is an important criterion." And this is what's interesting. So this paper is really important because—and also the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I would say, of the American Medical Association says the same thing: it's age. So they're all stepping in line and then the Canadian Medical Association said, "Oh, we don't have time to put our own guidelines together so we'll just use this one from the New England Journal of Medicine." To me, that's astonishing. When I was a medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various—one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society, which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them put together guidelines. There's a whole big set of organizations for every single specialty for creating guidelines. Yet, "Oh! We don't have time to put together this—" And also, I mean Canada had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this background. Yet, "Oh, we can't do so it!" So they gave totally—they, quote, they said we have to go with the recommendations from the New England Journal of Medicine. SOURCE: How the High Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose That bioethicists like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. RAHM EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. SOURCE: Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis But from a broader perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of "death panels" has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by the bioethicists. In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From abortion to euthanasia, there isn't a debate in the medical field that wasn't preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the public for a massive change in mores, values and laws. That research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, "was important in establishing the field of bioethics." The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center's work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992. As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of "bioethics." CHAITKIN: Eugenics practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early 1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century—those discussions were carried over—and the same discussions and preparations in England—were carried over into Nazi Germany. After the war—after World War II—people who had participated in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation—which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe—they set up a population control movement that overlapped with the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas. And out of that combination of eugenics and population control was born the institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what's called "bioethics," where you decide—so, supposedly decide—ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly limited resources. So it's a completely phony and morally disgusting field in general. It's ill-born at the root of it and it's a practice which has never confronted—in the medical community and in the academic community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice—they've never confronted the basis for the existence of this "bioethics." SOURCE: Anton Chaitkin on the Eugenics / Euthanasia Agenda The history of bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings Center and other centres for post-war "crypto-eugenics" research. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are associated with the Hastings Center. Take Ezekiel Emanuel himself. In addition to being a senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress—which was accused in a 2013 expose from The Nation of maintaining "a revolving door" with the Obama administration and running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists—Emanuel is also a Hastings Center fellow. In fact, Emanuel's career as a bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996 article in The Hastings Center Report, which—after praising Daniel Callahan's attempts to inject a debate about the goals of medicine into the discussion of health care—highlighted a point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree: "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed." For "an obvious example" of this principle in action, Emanuel then cites "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Just last year, The Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about "What Values Should Guide Us" when considering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users' movements with governments and researchers: EMANUEL: I have to say I've actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so far in this. It's hard for me to see that they've done something really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19. They have lots of capacity. Believe me: Facebook already knows who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you've gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go into. Google does the same. And they have not used this data. Maybe they're afraid that people are going to be all upset, but they haven't even been willing to give it to someone else to use in an effective manner. And I think either they're going to become irrelevant in this process or they're going to have to step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem. SOURCE: Re-Opening the Nation: What Values Should Guide Us? Or take Hastings Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning whether it is "important that organ donors be dead" in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for involuntary sterilization—the hallmark of the now universally denounced American eugenics program—at a 2013 panel discussion on "Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics." NORMAN FOST: On the sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so that he's not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the best thing. But I don't think we should rule out sterilization as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of his sexual assault. I think sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate. But the overreaction to that . . . and Wisconsin leads the way at overreacting to that. We have a Supreme Court decision that says you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us permission to do it and they never will and that's not in the interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for whom procreation would be a disaster—that is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy. So if it's the case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a parent . . . and I can't tell quite that from the limited history here and it may not be the case—but I just want to say that the country's overreaction to sterilization—like it's wrong, it's always terrible to involuntarily sterilized somebody—is not true and it ought to be at least on the table as something that might be in his interest. SOURCE: A Conversation About Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics But these discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center. Take Joseph Fletcher. Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both his critics and his apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology and Society there. In addition to his position as president of the Euthanasia Society of America and his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation, Fletcher was also a member of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down's syndrome "or other kind[s] of idiot[s]," Fletcher wrote: “The sanctity (what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically; it is only extrinsic and bonum per accident, ex casu - according to the situation. Compared to some things, the taking of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can sometimes be a friend and servant.” Or take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known to the public, however, are his arguments in favor of infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants,” positions which have driven his critics to call him "Son of Fletcher." Although Singer is extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the least controversial positions when speaking to the public. . . . PETER SINGER: . . . So we said, "Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not." That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you've made that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that's your decision. If your decision is that it's better that the child should not live, it should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely. And so that's what we proposed. Now, that's been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement—which incidentally didn't really exist at the time we first wrote about this issue. And they've taken us as, you know, the stalking horse—the bogeyman, if you like—because we're up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants. SOURCE: The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants . . . his actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly stated. In Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting that "a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy." After conceding that "It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time"—noting that "Even when we talk with two or three year old children it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of death"—we could provide an "ample safety margin" for such concerns by deciding that "a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month." Singer is by no means alone in his profession in discussing this subject. In fact, he's just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly where to draw the line when discussing infanticide. Take Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in Australia who published a paper titled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus," and thus "the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn." Lest they be mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes "cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk." Unlike so many other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even establishment media outlets like The Guardian insisting that "Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn't make you Glenn Beck." Seemingly taken aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the article responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic field of bioethics: When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate. “Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years. Whatever else may be said about the researchers' response, this was not a dishonest defense of their work. Julian Savulescu, the editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics that published the article, did point out in his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least the 1960s, when Francis Crick—the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby—proposed that children should only be allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met certain genetic criteria. Indeed, the pages of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates. From Dan Brock's article on "Voluntary Active Euthanasia," published in The Hastings Center Report in 1992, to John Hardwig's 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings Center Report asking "Is There A Duty to Die?" to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy Berlinger's 2008 pronouncement that "Allowing parents to practice conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children is troubling in several ways," these ethics professors toiling in a hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally mean the difference between life and death for people around the world. In his prescient 1988 article on "The Return of Eugenics," Richard J. Neuhaus observed: Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to be told that “the profession has already passed that point.” In truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up with what is already being done without its moral blessing. Indeed, bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors, researchers or medical workers. As academics, they are forced to take the word of doctors and researchers at face value. But which doctors? Whose research? Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the AMA and other organizations whose work—as even those within its ranks admit—is not solely dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the organizations' billionaire backers. We are feeling the effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy. *CLIP (0m35s-1m27s) SOURCE: Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be as necessary as wearing a seatbelt JULIAN SAVULESCU: It's important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be anything new. There are many mandatory policies, other coercive policies—taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to other occupants in the car. But importantly some people do die of seat belt injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks. Some countries in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies. In Australia the "no jab, no pay" policy involves withholding child care benefits if the child isn't vaccinated. In Italy there are fines. And in the US children can't attend school unless they're vaccinated. All of these policies have increased vaccination rates and have been implementable. SOURCE: "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against": Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslott KERRY BOWMAN: Some form of vaccination passport is almost inevitable. With travel it's virtually a given. And you look at countries like Israel is now introducing the green card. And all this is going on the assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can't transmit it and it's kind of looking like my read on the science is it's looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines. So that would be the question. Now some people say we absolutely can't do it, like, it's just not fair in a democratic society because there's people that refuse—don't want vaccines—and there's people that can't have vaccines. But here's the other side of the argument: Is it really fair to the Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are vaccinated—they're no longer a risk to other people—is it really fair to continue to limit their freedom? So you've kind of got those two sides of it colliding. SOURCE: 'Vaccination passports' a near certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family's relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby's momentary discomfort as it is murdered? Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines "value" and "happiness" and "relief" and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual's worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered. The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions. All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal. Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest." He didn't add "pandemic" to that list of excuses, but he didn't have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place. Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades. At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels. Filed in: PodcastsTagged with: bioethics • coronavirus • eugenics • history • philosophy • rockefeller Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich216 + 454 RK March 22, 2022 A bunch of trained jackass’s! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RichieRich216 + 454 RK March 22, 2022 On 2/12/2022 at 12:11 AM, Boat said: Get a real job and feed the poor. Lol like Putin, XI, Trump, Biden, Kim Un, etc can work together. The great reset would be to make business pay taxes. You know that ain’t happening. Trump is the king of tax cheats and loved for it. It’s a convoluted mess you rednecks put us in. Lol I say vote a Japanese woman in for president. Y’all just ain’t smart enough. We need some woke brains in there. The King of all tax cheats is Black Rock and J.P. Morgan! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,065 DM March 22, 2022 On 2/14/2022 at 9:11 AM, Tom Nolan said: Meredith, you are very uninformed. your information is BS.......I know sheep who are smarter than you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members