Document released by Pfizer apparently as a result of a Freedom Of Information court order in the USA reveals a vast array of previously unknown vaccine adverse effects compiled from official sources around the world.
Pfizer concedes this is ‘a large increase’ in adverse event reports and that even this huge volume is under reported.
Over 100+ diseases are listed, many very serious.
This document was compiled by Pfizer in the very early days of the vaccine rollout in NZ but was possibly not supplied to our government.
All of these are minor, requiring little or no treatment other than rest, with the exception of severe allergic reactions, myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart). As a result, most of the many thousands of New Zealanders reporting adverse effects post vaccination have been sent home with little more than advice to take an aspirin and rest. Some have been told that their conditions may be unrelated medical events, psychosomatic, or due to anxiety on their part.
Relying on the short official Pfizer fact sheet as a guide, Medsafe, our NZ medicines regulatory body, has only accepted one out of the 100+ deaths actually reported to them as related to vaccination. Most are listed as unrelated, under investigation, or unknowable. By contrast, the NZ Health Forum and other groups have collected unofficial reports of adverse effects and death proximate to vaccination. Out of 670+ reports of death compiled by the Forum, 270 have already been investigated by medical professionals and closely linked to known adverse effects. Following the publication of the new Pfizer document many more are expected to be connected with vaccination. Reports describe symptoms such as chest pain, brain fog, extreme fatigue, neurological symptoms, tachycardia, stroke, heart attacks, and many more. Collected data suggests that as many as two-thirds of adverse event enquiries made to medical staff by vaccine recipients have not been reported to CARM—the NZ system of adverse event reporting. Medsafe itself estimates in its Guide to Adverse Reaction Reporting that in NZ only 5% of adverse events are reported. As a result the NZ public is completely unaware of the extent of reported possible risks of vaccination.
The just released Pfizer document which is being circulated widely in the public domain and can downloaded from websites is entitled:
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021
Therefore the reported side effects predate the vaccine rollout in New Zealand. The report itself was finalised by Pfizer on 30 April 2021. Did Pfizer supply this information to our government during the early days of our universal vaccination programme? If so the results should have been shared with our medical professionals, politicians, and the public. Many of the new 100+ listed new adverse event types now released by Pfizer in this 38 page document pose long term risks to health. Until very recently, the document was being withheld by Pfizer who maintained it should be kept confidential. There is a strong possibility that very large numbers of New Zealanders will suffer long term injury as a result.
How did this happen without anyone’s knowledge?
Even though the Pfizer vaccine had undergone very short trials and had provisional approval only, Medsafe did not update its CARM adverse event reporting system to make it mandatory rather than voluntary.
Medsafe did not advise GPs and Hospital staff to be on high alert for adverse events and report them rapidly and in detail.
The Government ignored the unprecedented numbers of adverse events being reported to Medsafe and circulating in the community and on social media.
The Government instituted a public relations, promotional, and media campaign advising the public that the Pfizer covid-19 mRNA vaccine was completely safe and free of serious side effects, giving the impression that there were no side effects—not even the known serious effects of heart inflammation that Pfizer had already admitted.
Unaccountably, conditions imposed by the contract that our Government signed with Pfizer for the supply of vaccines have not been made public. We suspect that the contract contains standard clauses similar to those used with drugs that have completed safety trials, such as a provision that public discussion of adverse events may only be undertaken in conjunction with the company supplying the drug. If this is the case, it will have hamstrung Medsafe and our Government in their approach to assessment and public discussion of adverse events.
What are the new risks of vaccination?
Anyone reading the new Pfizer adverse event report compilation will be staggered. The sheer density of the technical medical terms and disease names are nevertheless broken down into recognisable and serious categories of illness—kidney failure, stroke, cardiac events, pregnancy complications, inflammation, neurological disease, autoimmune failure, paralysis, liver failure, blood disorders, skin disease, musculoskeletal problems, arthritis, respiratory disease, DVT, blood clots, vascular disease, haemorrhage, loss of sight, Bell’s palsy, and epilepsy.
How has this affected New Zealand?
Whilst even the official Medsafe record of adverse effects and the unofficial lists show that the immediate risks of covid vaccination could be as much as 50 – 300 times greater than even the most risky of previous traditional vaccines (such as the smallpox jab), and whilst the long term effects are unknown, 90% of eligible New Zealanders have gone ahead with vaccination having accepted the assurances of safety and efficacy from the government, or having been forced to get vaccinated under threat of loss of employment and freedom of movement. Feeling the fear of covid that has been generated by reports in the international and local media, most people completing vaccination heaved a great sigh of relief—that is one huge worry off my mind, now I can get on with my life.
Those finding that no immediate insurmountable reaction had surfaced (the majority) understandably agreed with the government: “What is all the fuss about? Why shouldn’t everyone do this, or be made to do this? It is a social good that will protect everyone”
BUT there is a huge iceberg in the path of the good ship New Zealand hidden under the waves of relief. Thousands are quietly suffering debilitating illness, unacknowledged and in some cases untreated by their doctors. For those who survived vaccination without immediate injury this was not a problem because they didn’t know about it apart from one or two complaints from friends that might just be random coincidences.
This has brought about a division in New Zealand society which the government created in the name of public safety. Thousands of dedicated servants of the nation including teachers, health workers, and others are being stigmatised and forced out of their jobs in a manner horrifyingly reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. The government did this despite knowing that the Pfizer vaccine was neither fully tested, safe, nor particularly effective. Judges handed down decisions in courts supporting the government mandates unaware of crucial mRNA vaccine safety data, all because Pfizer had withheld this information, and the government had not done its due diligence. Had the true position been known, the High Court’s NZ Bill of Rights analysis may well have been different and its provision which guarantees that every individual should be able to make their own medical choices might still be intact.
Pfizer’s conclusions
Pfizer concludes the released document with a statement “Review of the available data for this cumulative PM experience, confirms a favorable benefit:risk balance for BNT162b2.” PM stands for the Post Marketing data set they are evaluating of 42,086 reported adverse events. Pfizer makes this bald claim of benefit despite admitting that “the magnitude of underreporting is unknown”. This document contains no further substantive information in support of this claim of benefit:risk balance other than a mysterious reference to “the known safety profile of the vaccine”.
The benefit:risk argument is in essence saying: covid-19 is a serious illness and our calculations show that more people will be injured by the disease than are being injured by the vaccine, therefore there will be a net benefit. This argument falls over because of at least three very important factors: Firstly treatment options have improved and thereby the risk of serious illness and death from covid has been greatly reduced.
Secondly the risk of covid is not evenly spread. People with comorbidities (other conditions) and the elderly are at very high risk. Most other people are at very low risk. Thus vaccination could subject people at low risk from covid to a higher risk from vaccination. Approaches to preventive health education can reduce the covid risk to people with comorbidities more than vaccination can. For example a study published in the BMJ found that people following a plant based diet have a 73% reduced risk of serious illness. Data from the UK Biobank has been analysed by researchers from Manchester and Oxford Universities and the West Indies who found that shift workers (who typically have disrupted bioclocks) have three times the risk of being hospitalised with covid. Preventive remedies include changes in diet such as the introduction of more fresh fruit, vegetables, and fibre, and reductions in known unhealthy habits such as smoking, excess alcohol consumption, an overly sedentary lifestyle, a predominance of ultra processed foods, and many more.
The third and most significant reason the benefit:risk argument falls over is the sheer range of adverse reaction types observed by Pfizer and kept hidden until now.
How could a single vaccine have such a wide range of effects?
The technical reasons why mRNA vaccines can have such broad effects on human health are understood by those working in gene therapy. Perfectly stable DNA function is critical to life. In turn, cell function integrity is critical to maintaining DNA. Individual cells contain mechanisms to repair their own DNA as many as 70,000 times a day. From this perspective, the in vitro laboratory study recently published in Viruses 2021, 13,2056, is indicative. It suggests a possible mechanism for vaccine harm. The study found that the spike protein localises in the nucleus and inhibits DNA damage repair by impeding access of key DNA repair proteins. The findings reveal a potential molecular pathway by which the covid spike protein might impede adaptive immunity. They underscore the potential side effects of the full-length spike-based mRNA vaccines.
Despite a degree of cellular autonomy, the nervous system and the physiology must and does function as a whole. The entire nervous system including the immune system is a ‘part and whole’ network. The whole is in every part, the DNA is in every cell, but cell function is also related to a generalised and interconnected genetic network—the holistic functioning of the physiological network is critical to its efficiency. Thus physiological network stability (health) can be impaired by the introduction of pieces of active genetic code (biologic instructions) like those contained in mRNA vaccines.
An analogy will make this clear. We are familiar with computer networks. A very common backbone of most commercial systems is produced by Microsoft. Each computer contains the Microsoft system and the network also runs under its system. The system is supported by computer code—a set of complex instructions written by Microsoft. Individual computers can perform standalone tasks and can communicate with other computers to keep the organisation running smoothly. This can be compared to our physiology. There are many systems in the body: immune system, circulatory system, digestive system, limbic system, homeostatic mechanisms, musculoskeletal structure, neural networks, and so on. They perform apparently stand alone functions, but all run on the basis of the same genetic code contained in our DNA and communicate with one another during the process of maintaining health. Back to our analogy: office staff sometimes send messages full of spelling errors to one another but this doesn’t harm the network. If however a computer virus written in code is sent by one computer it can overwhelm and crash network function because it affects the operating system. Some networks are protected by good firewalls and others are vulnerable. The Covid vaccine introduces a sequence of information written in genetic code into our physiology. It is no wonder that it could elicit such a very broad range of adverse effects, some of which are so serious as to be analogous to a computer network crash. Some individuals have strong immune systems and are little affected, others experience problems in one or other systems. The fact that a sequence of foreign code has been introduced into the physiology produces major risks to health, risks that those working in gene therapy for the last few decades are very familiar with.
The extremely broad range of adverse effects revealed by the Pfizer document is the physiological signature of a general control system failure, a failure of the body’s overall integration and function. It is not plausible to suggest otherwise. That is why experts in genomics, even as I write, are pondering fundamental questions about the action and safety of mRNA vaccines. They are also urging caution.
Conclusion
The NZ government agreed commercial terms with a single company for vaccine supply. It is possible that vital information was withheld. The public was kept in ignorance of known risks. This has divided our society and undermined our fundamental Kiwi tolerance on the basis of not only incomplete but misleading safety data. The government is asleep at the wheel. Knowing full well that safety trials were incomplete, the government apparently accepted information supplied by multinational commercial interests at face value. This should be a ‘never again’ moment. There are huge lessons to be learned and an apology owed to the whole population. The provisions of the NZ BIll of Rights should be given constitutional status. The vaccine mandates should be withdrawn and those affected by them compensated. The proposed vaccination of 5 -11 year olds should be stopped.
Guy Hatchard PhD is a statistician and former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certificationlaboratory. Guy’s book ‘Your DNA Diet’ is available on Amazon.com.
Twitter has permanently suspended the personal account of Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for what the platform calls “repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation policy,” much to the delight of liberals and pro-censorship leftists everywhere. This follows the Twitter ban of Dr Robert Malone on the same grounds a few days prior, which followed an unbroken pattern of continually escalating and expanding censorship protocols ever since the 2016 US election.
In reality nobody ever gets banned for “Covid misinformation”; that’s just today’s excuse. Before that it was the fallout from the Capitol riot, before that it was election security, before that it was Russian disinformation, foreign influence ops, fake news, etc. In reality the real agenda behind the normalization of internet censorship is the normalization of internet censorship itself. That’s the real reason so many people get banned.
I myself had already written many, many articles warning warning about the increasingly widespread use of internet censorship via algorithm manipulation and deplatforming long before the first “Covid misinformation” bans started happening. Arguably the most significant political moment in the US since 9/11 and its aftermath was when liberal institutions decided that Trump’s 2016 election was not a failure of status quo politics but a failure of information control, which just so happened to align perfectly with the agendas of the ruling power structure to control the dominant narratives about what’s going on in the world.
Having unelected tech oligarchs ban duly elected members of Congress – or even the sitting President – from using their massive platforms is dystopian. Remember how many world leaders warned that FB & Twitter's banning of Trump was a threat to democracy.https://t.co/zIT7l04hMWhttps://t.co/2BPFrgeZXv
We saw this exemplified in 2017 when Google, Facebook and Twitter were called before the Senate Judiciary Committee and instructed to come up with a strategy “to prevent the fomenting of discord”.
“We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America,” the social media giants were told by think tanker and former FBI agent Clint Watts, who added, “Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced—silence the guns and the barrage will end.”
Since that time the coordination between those tech platforms and the US government in determining whose voices should be silenced has gotten progressively more intimate, so now we have these giant platforms which people have come to rely on to share ideas and information censoring speech in complete alignment with the will of the most powerful government on earth.
The danger of this is obvious to anyone who isn’t a stunted emotional infant. The danger of government-tied monopolistic tech platforms controlling worldwide speech far outweighs the danger of whatever voice you might happen to dislike at any given moment. The only way for this not to be clear to you is if you are so psychologically maladjusted that you can’t imagine anything bad coming from your personal preferences for human expression being imposed upon society by the most powerful institutions on earth.
Silicon Valley Should Not Restrict Public Discourse About Covid Measures Which Affect Everyone
"Government-tied oligarchic megacorporations are among the very last institutions who should be in charge of worldwide political discourse."https://t.co/WlDypacgmM
It really only takes the tiniest bit of personal growth to understand this. I for example absolutely hate QAnoners. Hate them, hate them, hate them. They always used to make my job annoying because they saw my criticisms of the mass media and the oligarchic empire as aligning with their view that Donald Trump was leading a righteous crusade against the Deep State, so they’d often clutter my comments sections with foam-brained idiocy that perfectly served the very power structures I oppose. They saw me as on their side when in reality we had virtually nothing in common and couldn’t really be more opposed.
When QAnon accounts were purged from all mainstream social media platforms following the Capitol riot, it made my work significantly less irritating. I no longer had to share social media spaces with people I despised, and, if I were an immature person, I would see this as an inherently good thing. But because I am a grown adult, I understand that the danger of giant monopolistic government-tied platforms controlling worldwide human speech to a greater and greater extent far outweighs the emotional ease I personally receive from their absence.
I therefore would choose to allow QAnoners to voice their dopey nonsense freely on those platforms if it were up to me. Whatever damage they might do is vastly less destructive than allowing widespread communication to be regulated by powerful oligarchic institutions who amount to US government proxies. The same is true of Marjorie Taylor Greene and everyone like her.
This should not be an uncommon perspective. It doesn’t require a lot of maturity to get this, it just requires some basic self-preservation and enough psychological growth to understand that the world should not be forced to align with your personal will. It says bad things about the future that even this kindergarten-level degree of insight has become rare in some circles.
The mass rollout of COVID-19 vaccines should be halted immediately. These experimental vaccines pose serious dangers. That is the message contained in a statement from concerned citizens soon to be forwarded to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The statement’s signatories include medical scientists, doctors, epidemiologists, civil servants, civil society organisations and “deeply concerned mothers, fathers, husbands and wives”.
Concerned citizens of India can sign on to the ‘The Truth of COVID-19 — The India Statement’ prior to its dispatch to the PM in the link provided at the end of this article.
Internationally renowned professionals in the field of medical science have also joined this effort by offering their expertise, including Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Pierre Kory, Dr Roger Hodkinson, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi and Dr Tess Lawrie.
The statement comprises two parts. Part one is a five-page summary of the main points and recommendations. This is supported by part two, a 62-page document which quotes the relevant literature and has dozens of references to back up the assertions made about the vaccines, COVID-19 and the vaccination programme.
Some of the key points and recommendations contained in part one are summarised below.
The statement begins by saying that a coronavirus vaccine has never before been used successfully. One problem has been the development of antibody disease enhancement (ADE). The vaccine produces antibodies, but sometimes this does not prevent disease – it instead makes the disease more serious and ADE can extend into the future (this has been seen before, for example regarding the rollout of a Dengue vaccine in Manila).
All the vaccines use the spike protein and this was thought to be a good idea at first because the virus uses its spike protein to attach to the host cells. But the statement notes this is a blunder and a major catastrophe. The spike protein is the toxic part of the virus that causes major (vascular) disease.
It is now confirmed that the synthetic spike protein of the vaccines is also toxic and is similarly causing the likes of clotting and bleeding disorders.
Many thousands of people taking the vaccine have died. The vaccine leaves the injection site in the arm and, contrary to what was assumed, and unexpectedly, travels into the bloodstream, spreading all over the body including with concentrations in the ovaries, bone marrow and lymph nodes.
Moreover, the mass rollout of the vaccines is putting selection pressure on the virus to evolve into strains that are resistant to the vaccine, like Delta and Omicron. This is well-known science that follows the same pattern as, for example, in anti-biotic resistance.
Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize winner who discovered the AIDs virus, has raised an urgent warning about this phenomenon. The statement notes that this process of new variants will not stop as more and more people get vaccinated.
Data from Israel (where the vast majority are vaccinated) show an increase in hospitalisations and deaths among the vaccinated. This is a repeated pattern occurring in other countries and was predicted by Dr Montagnier and other leading virologists.
The protective effect of the vaccines is also waning and is now below the required regulatory efficacy of at least 50%. The US health agencies are already advising a booster third dose. However, leading vaccine experts and immunologists and the vaccine manufacturers knew this all along. It was hidden though from the public.
It is clear that people who recover from Covid-19 develop natural immunity, which is long-lasting with antibodies that are effective against several viruses or variants. A large percentage of the Indian population, around 70% or more, already have this natural immunity. The statement concludes that vaccines are therefore not required.
As the vaccines can produce antibodies to a protein, syncytin, which, in the future, may cause abortions in women, the assertion is that women of child-bearing age (50 and below) should not be given the vaccines.
The statement notes that children have not had much problem with Covid, but some doctors are suggesting that a third wave will affect them. This is based on speculation, not science. Moreover, the long-term impacts of these vaccines and in particular the toxic spike protein are unknown. It would thus be quite unconscionable to risk the future of children. Given the data, it is clear that the risks of Covid-19 vaccines far outweigh the benefits for children.
India has a major disease burden in terms of communicable diseases, (TB, diarrhoeal, etc) and children are seriously impacted (more than 2,000 children die every day). On the other hand, the incidence and deaths due to COVID-19 are negligible. Children are not impacted by this disease.
In India, levels of serious malnutrition are worrying (and the COVID-related lockdown of the country can only have exacerbated this).
According to the statement, stopping unneeded vaccinations would release the huge sum of Rs 35,000 crores (almost 4.1 billion euros) for a public health system in dire need of resources to deal with killer childhood diseases and for improving the health of the population.
The statement notes that at the very heart of the problem of unsafe vaccines is the endemic conflict of interest that engulfs the institutions of health worldwide, not least in the US (NIA/FDA/CDC) the UK (MHRA) and the WHO.
It is for all the reasons mentioned above that vaccine manufacturers demand to be indemnified from any harm their vaccines may cause. Pfizer and Israel have made an agreement to hide Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions for 10 years. Yet, these adverse effects are key to understanding vaccine science.
The statement also says that routine RT-PCR testing as presently conducted, including on asymptomatic cases, should be discontinued. PCR-driven ‘cases’ mislead the public on Covid infections. Furthermore, it is clear that the vaccines have failed to provide immunity and also fail to stop transmission from those vaccinated. India has acquired ‘herd immunity’ and does not need these vaccines. Medical science therefore does not support their continued rollout.
The statement concludes:
India must stop the vaccines with immediate effect… Preventive measures, early treatment and treatment protocols through all the stages of the diseases with Ivermectin and other off-label drugs are proven… very early on, India took exemplary action with regard to the ICMR [Indian Council of Medical Research] guideline on HDQ (hydroxychloroquine) and UP state with its public health measure of dispensing Ivermectin, which was an acknowledged success. We need to widen these measures across India. Both are ‘repurposed’ drugs, are medically proven and safe solutions, and there are others in our toolkit of medical products, along with vitamins (D, C and zinc).”
The PM will be urged to implement the recommendations set out in the statement and these will be at a fraction of the cost of vaccines. The funds released will allow the government to invest in overall health infrastructure (children’s health in particular), the economy, farmers and agriculture and the environment.
Concerned citizens of India can sign on to the statement here, where links to both parts of the statement are provided.
And so, as 2021 goose-steps toward its fanatical finish, it is time for my traditional year-end wrap-up. It’s “The Year of the Ox” in the Chinese zodiac, but I’m christening it “The Year of the New Normal Fascist.”
But this isn’t just a story about New Normal Germany, or New Normal Europe, or New Normal Australia. And it isn’t just a story about mass hysteria, or an “overreaction” to a corona virus. The “New Normal” is a global GloboCap co-production, a multi-trillion-dollar co-production, which has been in development for quite some time, and this year has gone exactly to script.
Given all the drama over the past 12 months, it’s easy to forget that the year began with the occupation of Washington DC by thousands of US (i.e., GloboCap) forces in the wake of the “Terrorist Assault on the Capitol” (a/k/a the “January 6 Insurrection,” or the “Attempted Coup,” or some such nonsense) carried out by a few hundred totally unarmed Donald Trump supporters, who were allegedly intent on “overthrowing the government” and “destroying Democracy” with … well, their bare hands.
This was the long-awaited “Return to Normal” spectacle that had been in the pipeline for the previous four years, the public humiliation of the Unauthorized President (and the “populists” who put him in office) and the GloboCap show of force that followed. Here’s how I described it back in January:
“In other words, GloboCap is teaching us a lesson. I don’t know how much clearer they could make it. They just installed a new puppet president, who can’t even simulate mental acuity, in a locked-down, military-guarded ceremony which no one was allowed to attend, except for a few members of the ruling classes. They got some epigone of Albert Speer to convert the Mall (where the public normally gathers) into a ‘field of flags,’ symbolizing ‘unity.’ They even did the Nazi Lichtdom thing. To hammer the point home, they got Lady Gaga to dress up as a Hunger Games character with a ‘Mockingjay’ brooch and sing the National Anthem. They broadcast this spectacle to the entire world.”
As I assume is obvious to everyone by now, the “Return to Normal” was a “Return to the New Normal,” which the global-capitalist ruling establishment was already imposing on the entire world. The message couldn’t possibly be clearer. As Arnold Schwarzenegger succinctly put it, the message is, “screw your freedom.” The message is, shut up and toe the fucking line. The message is, show me your fucking papers. Use the fucking pronouns. Eat the fucking bugs. Get the fucking “vaccinations.” Do not fucking ask us “how many.” The answer is, “as many as we fucking tell you.”
The message is, there will be no more unauthorized presidents, no more leaving the European Union, no more “populist” rebellions against the global hegemony of global-capitalism and its soul-crushing, valueless “woke” ideology. GloboCap is done playing grab-ass. They announced that back in March of 2020. They informed us in unmistakable terms that our lives were about to change, forever. They branded and advertised this change as “the New Normal,” in case we were … you know, cognitively challenged. They did not hide it. They wanted us to understand exactly what was coming, a global-capitalist version of totalitarianism, in which we will all be happy little fascist “consumers” showing each other our “compliance certificates” in order to be allowed to live our lives.
I’d like to end on an optimistic note, because, Jesus, this fascism business is depressing. So I’ll just mention that, as you have probably noticed, more and more people are now “waking up,” or relocating their intestinal fortitude, and finally speaking out against “vaccine” mandates, and “vaccination passes,” and social segregation, and all the rest of the fascist New Normal program. I intend to encourage this “awakening” vociferously. I hope that those — and you know who you are — who have been reporting the facts and opposing the New Normal, and have been ridiculed, demonized, gaslighted, censored, slandered, threatened, and otherwise abused, on a daily basis for 21 months, as our more “prominent” colleagues — and you know who you are — sat by in silence, or took part in the Hate Fest, will join me in applauding and welcoming these “prominent” colleagues to the fight … finally.
Oh, and, if you’re one of those “prominent” colleagues and you start beating your chest and sounding off like you’ve just rediscovered investigative journalism and are now leading the charge against the New Normal for your YouTube viewers or your Substack readers, please understand if we get a little cranky. Speaking for myself, yes, it’s been a bit stressful, doing your job and taking the shit for you out here in the trenches for the past 21 months. Not to mention how it has virtually killed my comedy … and I’m supposed to be a political satirist.
But there I go, getting all “angry” again … whatever. As the doctor said, “buy the ticket, take the ride.” And it’s the season of joy, love, and forgiveness, and publicly crucifying dissidents, and paranoia, and mass hysteria, and persecuting “Unvaccinated” relatives, and, OK, I might have had one too many. Happy holidays to one and all, except, of course, to the New Normal fascists, especially the ones that are torturing the children. God, forgive me, but I hope they fucking choke.
Anyone who has followed the political culture in the US, Canada, UK, EU over the past twenty years must have realized that a war on epistemology, on truth, on semantics is going on. We witness the hijacking of concepts like democracy, freedom, peace, patriotism, human rights — and their instrumentalization for domestic and geopolitical purposes. We observe a process of language destruction not unlike what Orwell foresaw in his sadly visionary book 1984. “Newspeak” is not the future, it is now, hic et nunc. We recognize it in the jargon of political correctness, the language and practice of the “cancel culture”.
The military-industrial-financial complex in the US, Canada, UK, EU is hell bent on full spectrum cognitive control and inundates the population with plausible “narratives” based on fake news, fake history, fake law, fake diplomacy and fake democracy. We are literally swimming in an ocean of lies – but, remarkably, most people are not conscious of the fact that they are systematically manipulated by governments, corporate media, compliant think tanks and universities. The power of “political correctness” surrounds us in direct and subliminal ways. Most accept it as the “new normal”, as long as they continue having Hollywood entertainment and lots of sports on television. The classical panem et circensis (Juvenal).
A particularly worrisome phenomenon is the gradual emergence of a “human rights industry” that systematically subverts and weaponizes human rights. The holistic approach to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights advocated by Eleanor Roosevelt has been quietly denatured, dismantled, discarded. We see how the “industry” transforms the individual and collective entitlement to assistance, protection, respect and solidarity — based on our common human dignity — into a hostile arsenal to target competitors and political adversaries.
In the stockpile of weaponized human rights, the technique of “naming and shaming” has become a sort of ubiquitous Kalashnikov. Yet, experience shows that naming and shaming fails to alleviate the suffering of victims and only satisfies the strategic aims of certain governments, non-governmental organizations and of a burgeoning clique of human rights operativesin government, academia and even in international organizations. Allegations of real and putative human rights violations have proven politically very useful to destabilize rivals, denouncing and demonizing them. To this end the deliberate use of double-standards, the maximation of human rights violations by a targeted country and the negation or suppression of evidence of violations by our own governments or by our allies, prepares the population to accept patently unjust and illegal actions to prepare “regime change” elsewhere. Precisely this kind of indoctrination of the population through evidence-free allegations and hyperbole paves the way to barbarism e.g. the aggression against Iraq in 2003 and against Libya in 2011, to name only two emblematic examples.
The Iraq invasion, which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly called an “illegal war” found the support of a “coalition of the willing” – 43 States that turned their backs on the UN Charter and on international law, with the support of many university pundits and the corporate media. One could affirm without fear of contradiction that the Iraq war constituted an international revolt, an assault on the international order established under the UN Charter and a negation of the Nuremberg Principles.
The Iraq war was preceded by a public relations and disinformation scheme of “naming and shaming”, a concerted campaign about the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, about the extraordinary criminality of Saddam Hussein, who a few years earlier had done the Pentagon’s bidding in the US proxy war against Iran. Barely eight years later, in 2011, alleged human rights violations were again invoked to denounce Muammar al-Gaddafi for the sole purpose of destabilizing Libya, imposing undemocratic “regime change” and facilitating the looting of Libya’s natural resources. This occurred in flagrant violation of the customary international law principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign States, also contained in treaties and stipulated in the 1986 Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case[1].
Many rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council, European Commission and Inter-American commission also make use of “naming and shaming”, a strategy that rests on the false premise that the “namer” somehow possesses moral authority and that the “named” will recognize this moral superiority and act accordingly. Theoretically this could function if the “namer” were to practice “naming and shaming” uniformly, in a non-selective manner. Alas, the technique frequently backfires, because the “namer” has many skeletons in the closet and engages in blatant double-standards. Such intellectual dishonesty usually stiffens the resistance of the “named” party, who will be even less inclined to take any measures to remedy the alleged violations.
Another technique of norm-warfare is what is termed “lawfare”, whereby the apparatus of the administration of justice, both civil and criminal, is complicit in the subversion of the rule of law. We witness how domestic and international criminal law are instrumentalized to demonize certain persons and not others. A self-respecting judge would not betray the profession by playing this kind of game — but some do – as we have seen in the US, UK, Sweden and Ecuador in the Julian Assange case. The book by UN Rapporteur on Torture Professor Nils Melzer (Switzerland), originally published in German and now being released in English translation (by the author himself) The Trial of Julian Assange (Verso, New York 2022)[2] reveals the breakdown of the rule of law in the US, UK, Sweden and Ecuador – a tour de force, far more serious than Emile Zola’s J’accuse in 1898 during the Dreyfus Affaire in France. Instead of safeguarding the ethos of the rule of law, these political judges corrupt it (remember Roland Freisler in Hitler’s infamous Volksgerichtshof!) thus undermining the credibility of the entire system. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Juvenal). This is a crucial question of constitutional law. Who will guard over the guardians? The corruption of the rule of law by those courts that engage in “lawfare” is far more serious than many will admit, because it is precisely the administration of justice that must be the gatekeeper of truth and equity, the defender of the weak and most vulnerable. The deliberate corruption of the administration of justice to target political or economic rivals leaves us powerless against tyranny.
Under certain conditions, “naming and shaming” as we know it from politicians, rapporteurs and the media, raise issues of additionalviolations of human rights and the rule of law, contravening Arts. 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and could reach the threshold of what is termed “hate speech” under Art. 20 ICCPR.
Experience shows that “naming and shaming” is an ineffective instrument of change. States and ngo’s would do well to revisit Matthew VII, 3-5 and replace the obsolete “naming and shaming” technique by good faith proposals and constructive recommendations, accompanied by the offer of advisory services and technical assistance so as to concretely help the victims on the ground. Sowing honesty and friendship is necessary if we expect to reap cooperation and progress in human rights terms. What is most needed today is mature diplomacy, result-oriented negotiations, a culture of dialogue and mediation, instead of a petulant culture of posturing, grandstanding, intransigence and holier-than-thou pretence.
The arsenal of weaponized human rights also includes non-conventional wars such as economic wars and sanctions regimes, ostensibly justified because of the alleged human rights violations of the targeted State. The result is that, far from helping the victims, entire populations are held hostage –victims not only of violations by their own governments, but also of “collective punishment” by the sanctioning State(s). This can entail crimes against humanity under article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, when as a consequence food security is impacted, medicines and medical equipment are rendered scarce or are available only at exorbitant prices. Demonstrably, economic sanctions kill[3]. It is particularly disgraceful how several non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have preferred to focus on real and alleged violations of civil and political rights by Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and forgotten the fundamental human rights of the Venezuelan people and the fact that tens of thousands of Venezuelans have already perished as a direct result of illegal unilateral coercive measures and financial blockades, as we know from independent reports, including the 2019 report “Collective Punishment” by Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Colombia) and Mark Weisbrot (Center for Economic and Policy Research)[4] .
Another grotesque example of weaponization of human rights principles is reflected in UN Security Council Resolution 1973 concerning humanitarian assistance to the Libyan population. This resolution was promptly hijacked by NATO to wage an all-out war on Libya, leading to the assassination of Libya’s head of State, Muammar Gadaffi in 2011. Ten years later the country is still in civil war and chaos, but the natural resources are safely in the hands of Western economic interests. More recently, in February 2019, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy organized “humanitarian assistance” for Venezuela and placed an impostor with no constitutional legitimacy, the pretender Juan Guaidó, as the leader who would bring this humanitarian assistance to Venezuela. The operation failed. This was followed by a real coup d’état attempt in April 2019, which again failed, and yet another attempt in May 2020, the Operation Gideon, which similarly failed. The violations by the US and accomplices of fundamental norms of international law – and common decency – were breathtaking. And yet, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, etc. whitewashed these operations and sided with the putschists – invoking “principles” such as “democracy”, “humanitarian intervention” and “responsibility to protect”. Hypocrisy had indeed come a long way.
Yet another form of weaponizing values is the grotesque undermining of peace and human rights by Committees that award such prizes. A notorious disgrace is the undermining of the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel, who genuinely wanted to promote peace and human rights. If one regards the laureates over the past years, we realize that most of them do not come within the testamentary purpose. These days the laureates are not genuine pacifists like Henri Dunant or Bertha von Suttner. They are chosen for purely political purposes – not to advance peace and dialogue, but to denounce certain governments (in 2021 the Philippines and Russia) and to promote a geopolitical model over another. This is totally against the letter and spirit the Nobel Peace Prize. The best book on the subject is by the Norwegian lawyer Fredrik Heffermehl, The Nobel Peace Prize – What Nobel really wanted.
And let us not forget the politicization and weaponization of sports. We are being manipulated into thinking that boycotting the Beijing Olympics is a good and honourable thing. It is not. It is an oxymoron, a public relations stunt.
What can we average citizens do? First and foremost we must know the facts. And because the corporate media lies to us, we must pro-actively get the information. Thanks to the internet, it is still possible to access information that we do not get in the New York Times (“all the news that’s fit to print”), Washington Post, CNN and Fox. We must demand transparency and accountability from our democratically elected leaders, when instead of formulating constructive solutions to problems they engage in confrontational politics. We must demand that our elected officials learn the habits of collaboration and compromise, enable true competition by guaranteeing a level playing field for everyone, both domestically and internationally. Our politicians, the media and the university pundits should embrace a new paradigm: competition in solidarity. I incorporate these thoughts into my 25 Principles of International Order,presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2018.[5]
Here our New Year’s Resolutions:
1. Sapere aude (Horace). Get the facts and act thereon.
2. Pushback against the hybrid war being waged by governments and the media. Demand truth from the government and the private sector. Only on the basis of correct information can the citizen exercise his democratic rights.
3. Pushback against the war being waged against whistleblowers, true human rights defenders. Demand the immediate release of Julian Assange. Recognize the contribution of Edward Snowden to the survival of true American values.
4. Pushback against Orwellian newspeak and “political correctness”. Refuse to retreat into self-censorship.
5. Pushback against the military-industrial-financial complex
In 2022 let us commit to listen more to others, practice self-criticism and intellectual honesty, stop instrumentalizing values for short-term political gain.
It’s that time of the year, and instead of following tradition and making new predictions and forecasts (which we preppers do all the time anyways), I usually look back into the recent past, review my (and other’s) work and previous analyses, what transpired (or not), where my perspectives need adjustment and where, and so forth.
I decided to review and expand on a few topics addressed previously here and see where we are on those. In April, I wrote about the thirdworldization of the United States, as both it, and the rest of the First World, is gradually shifting towards the Third World.
It’s not only happening, but accelerating. And the entire world is going that way, too – or soon it will, judging by the signs. These things have a delay and don’t happen linearly, but in waves.
Thirdworldization 2.0 – When the First World becomes the Third World
Let’s see some more about how life can be in places constantly suffering with economic crises, political upheavals, moral degeneracy, authority demoralization, institutional failure and social decadence.
For anyone who’s never lived in such a context, understanding the dynamics of the system and societies in the Third World (or any place in which the order has changed drastically, yet not totally evaporated), can be a good way to prepare for what’s already underway.
The current crisis is global and unlike others seen in recent times
Notwithstanding the crap lining up just waiting to hit the fan – a pandemic, a debt time-bomb, geopolitical tensions, and lots more – the capacity to deal with all that is at an all-time low. Even wealthy nations look exhausted, depleted and lost like never before.
There’s zero willingness to cooperate and coordinate a solution, despite authorities’ constant and oddly similar declarations to the contrary. Speaking of the leadership currently in charge, it’s as mediocre, misguided, and uninspiring as it can possibly be.
And this is everywhere. We’re screwed.
It’s impossible to say for sure whether or not all that will end up in a full-blown SHTF of some kind, much less when. It can take a year, or ten. What’s certain is this: until things reach that catalyst point, degradation will force large swaths of populations worldwide, in most if not all countries, to take a few steps back in many fronts.
As I said before, it’s already happening.
The Third World will get much worse, and the First World will become a lot like the Third.
This is not SHTF as some might see it, but a middle-of-the-road-yet-still-gloomy scenario. Many in Preppersphere can’t conceive of anything less than the Apocalypse. Fine, to each their own. Besides, preparing for the worst means covering for everything less, so in principle it’s not a bad strategy, right?
I live in Brazil, but have visited the US, EU, and a few other countries and continents, even having lived abroad for a period during the 1990s. I’ve experienced both realities under different circumstances and gained some perspective on the contrasts between advanced societies, and ones with broken, inefficient, and corrupt institutions, and with weak social contracts.
That’s what I’m here to share. I’ll continue to raise awareness to what society converts into long before TEOTWAWKI happens, and try to help others prepare and deal with that. I do this not only because this is where I have some degree of knowledge, but also because that is what I see happening.
It’s hard to make progress in a ‘quicksand environment.’
In developed countries, people frame their decisions and take action based on reasonable probabilities, and the assumption that certain basic conditions of the social contract won’t change radically or suddenly, depending on who’s in charge or some other spurious reason.
A functional checks-and-balances system warrants the stability of laws, regulations, the tax regime, while the political rules and institutions create a favorable environment for investment and risk taking by people, families, and businesses. That’s what promotes the development and advancement of a country.
That’s perhaps the most important thing to understand about (and consequently prepare for) thirdworldization: it’s not just that things change, but how they change. Thirdworldization is the present and constant possibility that things can get done, undone, and again, at any moment, in unpredictable ways, without debate or warning.
How do you make plans for the future in such context?
Instability and uncertainty make life in general much harder to navigate in the Third World.
If the goalposts are constantly moving, everyone will act short or near term as a way to adapt and survive. The harder and more unstable the context, the faster you must both adapt and act (what is SHTF if not chaos?). So, there’s a silver lining to living like this, but also a price: it’s riskier, more stressful, tiresome, and frustrating.
I won’t say it’s hell, because it’s not.
Most people don’t live 24/7 in fear or under serious risk, not even in severely hit places. It’s not a full-scale SHTF. Life’s just more fluid, more challenging, and not as predictable and calm as in more civilized nations. Actions and consequences don’t follow a linear, predictable path.
Look around and see the sweeping anxiety and depression everywhere. I’d argue it’s not being caused by the pandemic, or even the economy going kaput, but by the appetite of governments everywhere to change basic rules and destroy freedom and individual liberty in the name of an emergency. When you combine this with people’s willingness to forfeit their rights, privacy and liberties in the name of illusory safety you end up with our current world.
That’s what I mean by the world going the way of the Third World.
Observing and understanding the real nature of fluidity in everyday life of a dysfunctional society can be critical, because dysfunctional is exactly what the world is fast becoming.
I’ll give some examples to illustrate what I’m talking about…
What does the path to authoritarianism look like?
The executive, legislative, and judiciary overstepping each other is common in banana republics. Every country can have a bill of rights, but it’s the separation of powers that make the constitution effective. Without a checks-and-balances system, rights are just words on a piece of paper.
This creates both confusion and infighting while simultaneously eroding confidence in the government’s institutions. People lose reference, politicians tend to abuse this strategy more and more, and from there it’s only downhill. It’s the exact script dictators and populists everywhere follow every single time to not only take power but to try to keep it forever.
For a long time this was something unacceptable and unseen in advanced nations. Despite this, though, it’s still been happening for some time now only having escalated in the last couple decades. Since 2020 it’s exploded, and it’s now eroding political and social stability in various developed countries.
And this is not only about inflated presidents declaring wars and contracting treaties and other actions without congressional approval, but also the government ceding increasing powers to agencies – NGOs and others organizations of unprepared, unelected tyrants aligned with the elites, eager to interfere and micromanage both society and people’s lives, as they steal people’s inherent rights and freedoms.
We now have moral ambiguity from top to bottom.
As we go lower down the scale into a full-fledged Third World nation, everyday life begins to border on the bizarre. In developing countries, the public administration is a cesspool of incompetence, poor planning, lack of vision, populism and corruption which drains precious resources and wealth from what would otherwise be a productive population.
The bureaucracy can reach paralyzing levels. The tax regime is so complex and illogical that it’s almost impossible to comply, even if you want to. The regulations are unstable and mutating. Besides punishing the population, these regulations lower the appetite of people and businesses to invest and take risk. The economy becomes less dynamic, less competitive and, eventually, it crawls.
Finally, when the government, institutions, and other authorities begin to become ambiguous with their defining the rules they create and enforce, people start thinking “why should I follow any of that?”
And once this happens, then it’s only a matter of time for disorder to increase and morality to collapse. That’s what a slow-burning SHTF means, after all: a semi-functional system where everything is fluid and the laws have little practical effect.
There’s little guns can do to solve bigger issues.
But let’s switch gears a little to explain something related: guns are important and can save us in some specific situations. But they can’t help with any of the stuff I’m talking about.
Who are we gonna shoot? The politicians? The corrupt cops? The lazy public workers? The stupid laws? That would solve nothing. All it would mean would be civil war, which only makes everything worse.
Things might get to that point, but it’s a completely different dynamic. When the system is up, shooting someone can land you in jail – even in the Third World.
“How’s that any different from anywhere else?” you might ask. In many ways, this starts with an ineffective investigation apparatus: here only about 6% of intentional homicides are solved, in comparison to an average of 65% in US, 80% in France, and 90% in UK.
Translating, it’s a lot more discouraging to commit a crime in the First World than in the Third. But then other distortions and inequalities come into play. The rich and/or connected almost never go to jail, no matter the crime.
And this leads to the second big difference: the slow and utterly unfair justice system that punishes the entire society, by not punishing the deserving, as it should.
And then there’s the infamous Third World penitentiary system…
These are true SHTF microcosms. No prison anywhere is paradise, obviously. But do you have any idea how bad and dangerous a Third World jail is? If having forty dangerous inmates in a small cubicle originally designed to hold four gives you chills, you understand why honest citizens (especially preppers) are so reluctant to brag about firearms and shooting others in developing countries.
In there, one can get raped, beat up, killed. Or co-opted by one of the many factions that command organized crime, to whom you’ll belong for protection, for the right to live, or even to keep your relatives from being abused, tortured, or killed outside.
Instead of rehabilitating prisoners, this system turns them into even better (that is, worse) criminals.
Mass escapes are also commonplace in Third World prisons. So are violent riots and rebellions in which enemy factions fight, torture, kill and literally rip apart their rivals, as a way to display ruthlessness and inflict fear into opponents. Sure, these things also happen in First World prisons, but not with nearly the same frequency, brutality, or impunity.
There are many ways to get unwillingly involved in this mess of a system, too.
As the situation worsens, so does the entire system. If you do everything right, lay low and get lucky, you may be well. It’s not guaranteed though. Something crazy can happen by pure chance or opportunity, and you’re suddenly involved in something you didn’t ask for, but can’t avoid or escape anymore.
For instance, one day the cops or some government agent – inspection, fiscal, whatever – pay a visit to your small shop or business and ask for a “collaboration”, for… reasons. You pay, of course. It’s extortion, but you don’t want to upset the “law” – and the system can’t protect you from itself.
Now you’re a cash cow.
You go for a jog in the streets and 99% of the time nothing happens. One day you get mugged, or your wife or daughter get groped while riding a bicycle, and there’s little you can do (if you thought “guns!”, go back a couple paragraphs and read what I said about those again).
And then, there’s the organized crime…
I could talk about organized crime for forever, discussing how it grows and spreads based on the same principles and practices that high-profile corporations use to grow and spread. How it infiltrates all levels of society, by corruption, intimidation, lobbying, or even by financing people to occupy strategic positions. How it gets involved with politicians, legitimate businesses, the media – until it’s just one big thing with tentacles everywhere.
Instead, I’ll do you all a big favor and just point to a couple of movies that not only show in true, raw, vivid colors how this whole mechanism works, but do it in a very entertaining and thrilling way. Elite Squad (1997) and its sequel, The Enemy Within (2010) are two of most brilliant and well-made Brazilian movies ever (both rated 8.0 on IMDB).
Apart from superb action flicks, they’re blunt, brutal, realistic portraits of crime, drug fighting/trafficking, institutional corruption, and overall social and moral decadence. They explain how crime evolves and takes over the system – how it gets “institutionalized”. It’s shocking, revealing, and educational.
There’s a reason I keep returning to the topic of crime.
Crime and violence are insidious and pervasive – the first evidence of collapse – while at the same time both the cause and consequence of deeper issues. Crime is the antecedent to (serious) shortages, and skyrockets when the grid goes down. It becomes both a collective and an individual problem. It affects us directly, and indirectly, physically and mentally – an itch no one can scratch.
Look how fast crime has grown in the US and around the world just in the past few months. I’m not talking about a 2% increment, but something in the two or even three figures in some places – and again, in months. For many, especially the part of society living in safe and civilized regions, crime may seem like something distant, numbers and statistics presented in the news.
That all changes when it comes to our door, and then the cat is definitely out of the bag.
To conclude, there’s been a lot of talk about the possibility of civil war in the United States. I think that it can happen, but not necessarily like 1871. It could be a mix of guerrilla warfare and crime, for instance. Or we could witness a steep, sudden, and widespread rise in crime and violence. In Haiti, gangs rule the country and casualties are high. It affects everyday life and impacts the whole population, the economy, everything. It may not be declared, but its de facto a civil war.
Abandoning innocence
When everything is good and there’s a surplus, collaboration happens easily and even spontaneously. With all the challenges and hardships we’re facing, people are entering survival mode everywhere. Becoming more knowledgeable about the dynamics of living in a dysfunctional society can build psychological preparations to live in a fluid and unstable world.
I acknowledge none of what I talked about here is prerogative of Third World or collapsed countries. Disorder, corruption and malfeasance are part of human nature and exist everywhere. But again, it’s certainly more widespread and violent where it’s not contained, and – this is critical – not punished.
And that’s precisely in proportion to the level of institutional efficiency, solidity and civil cohesion. Once these decay, the doors to social maladies are held wide open. And wherever this happens, a similar scenario unfolds.
In a stunning 46-page legal filing to the International Criminal Court on December 6, an intrepid attorney and seven applicants accused Anthony Fauci, Peter Daszak, Melinda Gates, William Gates III, and twelve others of numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code. These included various crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by the Rome Statutes, Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 21, and 53.
Besides the four kingpins, twelve others were named, including the CEOs of the leading vaccine corporations and the health leaders held accountable for the United Kingdom.
Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer
Stephane Bancel, CEO of AstraZeneca
Pascal Soriot, CEO of Moderna
Alex Gorsky, CEO of Johnson and Johnson
Tedros Adhanhom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO
Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister
Christopher Whitty, UK Chief Medical Adviser
Matthew Hancock, former UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
Sajid Javid, current UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
June Raine, UK Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products
Dr. Ravid Shah, President of the Rockefeller Foundation
Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum
Dr. Ravid Shah, having worked for the Gates Foundation since 2001, was named a World Economic Forum “Young Global Leader” in 2007. He now presides over the Rockefeller Foundation, a group funding ID2020 along with the Gates Foundation.
Klaus Schwab, a wickedly intelligent, perhaps diabolical German with double doctorate degrees in Economics and Engineering, is the founder of the World Economic Forum, a club for the wealthiest percentile of the world’s corporate and political elite. He is a power broker who has groomed many presidents, prime ministers, and tech CEOs who now view him with reverence and unswerving loyalty.
Schwab, an economist, and technocrat has befriended many nations, most significantly China’s Xi Jinping, who delivered a key speech at Davos. He praised his vision of a New World Order. On January 25, 2021, Klaus Schwab vowed his support for Xi Jinping with these words, “Mr. President (Xi Jinping) I believe this is the best time to reset our policies and to work, jointly, for a peaceful and prosperous world. We all welcome now, his excellency, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China.” See mark 2:26.
Many consider Schwab the mastermind behind the current movement towards cryptocurrency, universal identification, and a one-world (fascist) government to be run jointly, in totalitarian fashion, with China.
Attorney Hannah Rose and seven applicants brought the Nuremberg action on behalf of the victims, the entire population of the United Kingdom. She filed the legal proceeding with the International Criminal Court located at The Hague. The Hague is notable for its long history in helping victims seek redress for war crimes and defining appropriate ethical guidelines for conduct during war.
Following the Nazi atrocities committed during World War II, the war crime trials were held in Nuremberg, Germany. Following these, a set of principles was developed, which ultimately led to the development of the Nuremberg Code.
These principles essentially meant that anyone, no matter how wealthy or powerful, even a head of state, was not above the law. The fact that the law of their home nation would permit their action would not relieve the person from justice under international law.
In particular, the medical experiments conducted by the Nazi doctors led to strict rules and ethical principles regarding future human scientific trials, including the doctrine of necessary informed consent and freedom from coercion or threat in submitting to experimental drugs.
As we all know, before receiving a surgical procedure, there is a legal and ethical requirement that the patient be apprised of any significant potential risks, including infection, bleeding, nerve damage, or even death. The patient usually signs the consent form following this explanation. And as we all know, whenever we receive prescription medication, we are notified of the potential risks on a package insert and usually a discussion with the Pharmacist.
The vaccines should be no different, yet they are. A person about to receive the jab is rarely told that there are risks of blood clots, bleeding, cerebral thrombosis, myocarditis, and death, yet those risks exist. See mark 12:58 to 17:40.
Attorney Hannah Rose notes in Point 40 of her brief that the ethical standards of the Nuremberg Code amount to an obligation on physicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers to abide by its principles. Accordingly, any physician or research scientist found to have breached any of the ten principles of the Nuremberg Code would face criminal liability.
She notes in Point 42, “The first principle of the Nuremberg Code is a willingness and informed consent by the person to receive treatment and participate in an experiment. The person is supposed to activate freedom of choice without the intervention, either through force, deceit, fraud, threat, solicitation, or any other type of binding or coercion.”
In Point 43 she argues, “When the heads of the Ministry of Health as well as the Prime Minister presented the vaccine in the United Kingdom and began the vaccination of United Kingdom residents, the vaccinated were not advised, that in practice, they would be taking part in a medical experiment and that their consent is required under the Nuremberg Code. This as a matter of fact is a genetic medical experiment on human beings performed without informed consent under a severe and blatant offense of the Nuremberg Code.”
In addition, Rose argues under Point 44 that there is an obligation for alternative treatments to be discussed, including the risks and benefits of such alternatives. She notes that these were never discussed despite the fact alternative treatments have been proven to be safe and effective “with up to a 100% success rate.”
A key principle of the Nuremberg Code requires that a scientist must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
In Point 46, she argues, “It is known that the mRNA ‘vaccination’ treatments have caused the death of many as well as injury and severe damage (including disablement and paralysis) after the ‘vaccine’ was administered. Despite this fact, the government did not instruct the initiation of an investigation into the matter. It is also questionable that given the experimental nature of these vaccinations, that there are not any full reports available of the numbers of dead or injured, as may be expected in such a medical process for the benefit of the public participating in the experiment.”
The reader is reminded that Nazi physicians conducted experiments on human beings in concentration camps without informed consent, leading to horrific suffering and death.
To dramatically underscore the relevance of Nuremberg to the horrific deaths we now see related to the experimental mRNA ‘vaccination’ program, Rose, in Point 34a, included a statement from a group of Holocaust survivors, those who experienced first-hand both the Nazi experiments and today the vaccine experiment. This is an excerpt from their unique perspective:
We, the survivors of the atrocities committed against humanity during the Second World War, feel bound to follow our conscience…Another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. We call upon you to stop this ungodly medical experiment on humankind immediately. It is a medical experiment to which the Nuremberg Code must be applied.
Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav issued a statement in Points 34b and 34c:
The stark lesson of the Holocaust is that whenever doctors join forces with government and deviate from their personal, professional, clinical commitment to do no harm to the individual, medicine can then be perverted from a healing, humanitarian profession to a murderous apparatus…What sets the Holocaust apart from all other mass genocides is the pivotal role played by the medical establishment, the entire medical establishment. Every step of the murderous process was endorsed by the academic, professional medical establishment.
As a direct result of the Nuremberg World War II experience, the United Nations asked the International Law Commission to develop the Nuremberg Principles, the key standards to avoid the Nazi doctors’ atrocities. Unfortunately, as Hannah Rose pointed out, many of these ten principles of the Nuremberg Code were systematically violated by the United Kingdom and many other countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition, a permanent international criminal court was established for investigation and enforcement – known as The International Criminal Court. The ICC began full-time operations in 2002 and currently has 123 member nations that have explicitly agreed to be bound by the Rome Statutes.
The United Kingdom is a member while the United States is not. However, under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, even a state that is NOT a member may exercise jurisdiction “by declaration lodged with the Registrar,” meaning that any nation may be subject to the ICC depending upon the circumstances, member nation or not. Keep in mind that Nazi Germany had not consented to jurisdiction.
The ICC bills itself as a “court of last resort” meaning that claims should be decided in the perpetrator’s home nation whenever possible. However, the core principle of impunity drives the ICC, the belief that no one who commits war crimes should enjoy freedom from criminal responsibility. Therefore, the ICC operates as an impartial and omnipotent arbiter of world human rights and will aggressively step in when it sees flagrant Nuremberg-type atrocities without consequence.
That is precisely what Hannah Rose has identified in her legal brief in Point 2,
“We have tried to raise this case through the English police and the English Court system without success, we have been unable even to get the case registered either with the police or with the court after several attempts…This is such a case which is why we are addressing the ICC directly.”
Attorney Rose relied partly upon the expertise of Dr. Michael Yeadon, a research-based PhD in respiratory pharmacology and former Vice President and Chief Scientist at Pfizer.
In the background section of the brief, she writes in Point 5:
“The Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ do not meet the requirement to be categorized as vaccines and are in fact gene therapy (Appendix 8)…Dr. Mike Yeadon, a joint applicant on this request, asserts that claims calling the Covid-19 injections a ‘vaccine’ is public manipulation and misrepresentation of clinical treatment.
It’s not a vaccination. It’s not prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with it, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.’
MRNA uses the cell’s machinery to synthesize proteins that are supposed to resemble the SPIKE protein of the virus, which is what it uses to enter cells via the ACE2 receptor. These proteins are then identified by the immune system, which builds antibodies against them. The real concern is that these proteins could accumulate in the body, especially in regions of high concentration of ACE2 receptors, such as the gonads. If the immune system then attacks the location where they accumulate, then you could be dealing with an auto-immune condition.”
Dr. Yeadon mentions, in an interview, that our governments have grossly exaggerated the entire threat of COVID-19. He notes that COVID-19 represents a slightly greater risk than influenza if you are older than age 70 but a much lower risk than the seasonal flu if you are younger. See mark 31:00.
“So it’s just absurd that you should be happy or willing to let your economy and civil society be smashed for something which represents for almost everyone working a lower risk than influenza – but that’s true.
Given this virus represents at worst a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than does influenza, and a less risk than for almost everyone else who’s younger and fit, it was NEVER NECESSARY for us to have done anything.
We didn’t need to do anything, lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines – there are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as vaccines are…an off-patent drug called Ivermectin, one of the most widely used drugs in the world, is also able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease including lethality by about 90%.
So you don’t need vaccines and you don’t need any of the measures that have been introduced at all.” See mark 31:15.
For any reader still under the illusion that these mRNA covid vaccines have helped, please read the following article comparing the countries without vaccination to those with it. The most vaccinated nations have deaths per million up to 100 x greater than the least. Always question what the government tells you.
Yeadon goes on to explain that people need not worry about variants. He explains that our immune system is easily able to deal with ALL mutations of SARS-CoV-2 and explains that 18 years after the first SARS, those people are still protected by their immunity – and this immunity even extends to immunity against SARS-CoV-2, a virus 80% similar but 20% different than the original SARS.
Yeadon’s major point is that if survivors of SARS some 18 years later have immunity against the new virus, which is 20% different, why would we believe that a current viral mutant only 0.3% different would be a threat? See mark 35:40.
“So when your government scientists say that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, THEY ARE LYING. If they’re lying and they are, why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up vaccines? They are making them.” See mark 35:55
“You should be terrified at this point. I am, because there is absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. But they’re being made, and the world’s medicine regulators have said…we won’t be asking them to do any clinical safety studies. Let me just say again, the variants are not different enough to represent a threat to you so you do not need top-up vaccines…
The regulators have waved them through. I’m very frightened of that – there’s no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.
This will provide the tools to do it and plausible deniability – because they will create another story about some sort of biological threat, you’ll line up and get your top-up vaccines, and a few months or a year or so later, you’ll die of some peculiar, inexplicable syndrome, and they won’t be able to associate it with the top-up vaccines.” See mark 36:05 to 37:15.
Yeadon follows this up with his conclusion, “This system (mandatory vaccine passports) is being put in place using lies, and it’s being put in place for some purpose, and I believe that purpose is complete totalitarian control, and I think the purpose of that is going to be mass depopulation.” See mark 45:40.
“Do not allow it to be an interoperable global fixed-format database because that will be the end of human freedom, and I see no way of recovering from that once the system’s up and running.” See mark 46:30
Yeadon explained that few people will hear his words and that this fraud was perpetrated on the world’s population through censorship, fear and propaganda. Dr. Yeadon, an insightful man, notes that the perpetrators have exhaustively planned this all, and they have considered how people might respond. Yeadon notes that if we all respond as expected, we will lose.
“Collectively, we need to do something unexpected.” See mark 48:43.
However, it is likely they didn’t plan on the International Criminal Court coming after them. They also didn’t plan on Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, an experienced trial lawyer licensed in Germany and California who founded the Berlin Corona Committee, which heads a group of attorneys with global reach dedicated to dragging this deadly conspiracy into the open and suing it into oblivion.
Fuellmich does an excellent job in this interview of exposing the actions of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, WEF, also known as Davos. The WEF has as its goal the establishment of a New World Order, with the globe to be run by self-selected technocrats like Bill Gates, himself, and other members of Davos.
In 1971 Schwab founded what was to become the WEF in 1987. It has 1,000 members. In general, qualification requires a business to have more than 5 billion dollars per year in revenue. The theme of WEF and Klaus Schwab has recently been “The Great Reset,” which essentially means a new world order. In the following video, Klaus Schwab can be heard discussing this with Henry Kissinger. We hear Dr. Kissinger praising China’s Xi Jinping’s speech and the formation of a new international order. See mark 2:50 to 4:00.
Schwab himself sums up the 2017 Davos Meeting with the following statement, “What a wonderful opportunity to conclude our week here with such concrete proposals and ideas of how we can really create a New World Order.” See mark 26:40.
Professor Andreas Oehler aptly describes the agenda of Schwab and the WEF, “The World Economic Forum seems to be the driver behind and organizer of the global population control operations, be it pandemics, biometric IDs, Great Reset, or public-private partnerships in name of the “common good” (fascist corporatism).” See the following article, “The Four Horseman of the Apocalypse identified, along with the Apocalypse itself.”
Professor Oehler of the University of Bamberg is widely published in credit, banking, finance, and investor protection. He believes that Klaus Schwab and his WEF members, including Bill Gates, planned the COVID-19 pandemic by sponsoring Event 201, a coronavirus pandemic simulation exercise held in New York City on October 18, 2019. WEF has been a proponent of digital biometric identity systems to make societies “more efficient and productive” (and easier to control).
Oehler wrote, “WEF collaborates with the ID2020 alliance, funded by the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to run a program to ‘provide digital ID with vaccines.’ In particular, ID2020 sees the vaccination of children as ‘an entry point for digital identity.’ In reality, this means that anything a person does or is allowed to do (employment, travel, commerce, health care…) will be linked to the person’s digital ID. This will remove any privacy and take total control over each and every activity of any individual on earth.”
For readers who may doubt this, read Klaus Schwab’s book, The Great Reset. One of his chief goals is to have perfect monitoring ability of every human being and to be able to regulate all behavior, even to the point of complete totalitarian control.
The WEF sees times of great turmoil or catastrophes as ideal opportunities to implement this reset, such as during the financial crisis of 2008, and now the COVID-19 pandemic, which Dr. Reiner Fuellmich feels created a perfect opportunity for the WEF to execute its plan. Fuellmich, a world-renowned trial attorney, refers to Schwab and his henchmen collectively as “Mr. Global.”
“Klaus Schwab spells this out in his book, The Great Reset, and demands… a World Government under the UN, which has been brought under control by the WEF. This is to be achieved by creating as much worldwide chaos as possible in the form of pandemics, wars including civil wars and natural disasters so that the world population becomes convinced that the national governments are overwhelmed, and only a world government can help.
At the same time, Schwab calls for the shifting of all wealth to Mr. Global so that in 2030, no one, except Mr. Global, will still own anything, and we will supposedly be happy with that. Cash is to be abolished and replaced by a digital currency. This will be allocated to or taken away from every person in the world who can then also be found anywhere and at any time by various tracking systems. This is to be done by a single central world bank.” See mark 32:45 to 33:56.
Fuellmich and Oehler both describe a series of puppets that the WEF has trained to help carry out these missions under the WEF “Young Global Leader” program, which started in 1993. Such people have gone on to become Presidents, Prime Ministers, and CEOs. These include some of the key players in this pandemic and vaccination effort:
Microsoft founder Bill Gates (1993)
California Governor Gavin Newsom (selected in 2005)
Pete Buttigieg (selected in 2019, candidate for US President in 2020, US secretary of transportation since 2021)
Stéphane Bancel (Moderna CEO; selected in 2009)
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg (2009)
Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (2007)
Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page (2002/2005)
Covid Twitter personality Eric Feigl-Ding (a ‘WEF Global Shaper‘ since 2013)
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (since 2017, selected in 2014)
Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt (selected in 2003; former WEF strategy director)
Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland (selected in 2001; former managing director of Reuters)
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a WEF participant but is not a confirmed Young Global Leader
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (selected in 1993, 12 years before becoming Chancellor)
Current German Health Minister Jens Spahn and former Health Ministers Philipp Roesler and Daniel Bahr
EU Commission Presidents Jose Manuel Barroso (2004-2014, selected in 1993) and Jean-Claude Juncker (2014-2019, selected in 1995)
French President Emanuel Macron (since 2017, selected in 2016),
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (2007-2012, selected in 1993),
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz
Former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi (2014-2016, selected in 2012),
Former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar (1996-2004, selected in 1993)
Dr. Ravid Shah, President of the Rockefeller Foundation
When we notice the harsh authoritarian and mandatory lockdowns of Australia, Austria, and Canada, perhaps it begins to make better sense when we factor in the names of those in the WEF Young Global Leadership program. See mark 34:25 to 34:58.
Now, against our seemingly hopeless situation, Reiner Fuellmich gives us all every reason to be optimistic:
“Against this background, which increasingly more people are recognizing, very large legal disputes have been set in motion in India, South Africa, the US, Canada, and France. Their goal is to hold those responsible accountable under both civil and criminal law. This also includes that the assets that have been taken away by Mr. Global from the world’s population…are returned…In particular, Anglo-American Law with its powerful tools of class action, pre-trial discovery, punitive damages…provides the tools for very effective justice.” See mark 35:00.
Reiner mentions that he has developed very good evidence that the PCR test was fraudulently used to grossly exaggerate the number of true COVID cases and the courts in Portugal, Austria and Germany, have set excellent precedents in their rulings to that effect.
Fuellmich concludes, “The Berlin Corona Committee already now has extremely incriminating evidence proving that this Corona ‘plandemic’ NEVER had anything to do with health; rather Mr. Global’s actions are aimed solely at these goals:
#1. Destruction of regional economies to make the population dependent on Mr. Global’s global supply chains.
#2. Shifting the wealth of the world’s populations from the bottom to the top – to the super-rich – to Mr. Global.
#3. Population reduction – you can call it genocide.
#4. The installation of a World Government under the UN which is now under the control of the WEF.” See mark 36:13 to 36:56.
He reminds us that we are dealing with megalomaniacs and sociopaths, those who lack a conscience. Fuellmich reminds us that while the mainstream media may censor, hundreds of thousands of people hear the message anyway; they are taking to the streets in protest in England, Germany, Australia, Brazil, etc. Civil servants, medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, nurses, and police officers are refusing the jab.
Key elements include those of compassion and spirituality, as this has indeed become an epic struggle between right versus wrong. Reiner tells the story of a doctor who walked into a bank and was accosted by a person afraid because he was not wearing a mask. He hugged the individual who began to weep because they had not been held in more than a year. Fuellmich reminds us that we can all laugh, cry, and feel while they (the sociopaths) cannot.
Attorney Rose, now a heroic icon, asked the ICC to take immediate action by way of legal injunction in Points 128 and 153:
It is of the utmost urgency, that ICC take immediate action, taking all of this into account, to stop the rollout of covid vaccinations, introduction of unlawful vaccination passports and all other types of illegal warfare mentioned herein currently being waged against the people of the United Kingdom by way of a court injunction.
In closing, Reiner Fuellmich asked us to remember spirituality. We must celebrate our humanity. Like those in the Nazi concentration camps, who remembered to sing and praise God in the face of the most extreme adversity, we too must cling to our roots in religion and love for one another.
Fuellmich is confident that we will prevail. See mark 38:40.
That’s what this is all about, humanity versus inhumanity. We are human. We can laugh, cry, sing, dance and hug. The other side, Mr. Global and his puppets can’t do that. They can only fake feelings and have no empathy at all. This is because the other side has no access to the spiritual side. The US Constitution starts with the words, ‘We the People.’ And when the wall came down between East and West Berlin, 33 years ago, it was the East German people chanting – We the people – that brought it down. Mr. Global’s house of cards will come crashing down the very same way. Without a doubt in my mind, Mr. Global and his puppets will lose this war of good against evil – they will lose their insane war against life and creation itself. There is no other way.
After hearing him speak, I am confident as well. Dr. Pierre Kory once told me, “This situation seems backward. The doctors were the corrupt people who caused this mess, but the lawyers are those with ethics who will save us.”
Pierre Kory, as usual, is correct. Someday, today’s youth will become senior citizens. They will remind their society of today’s Nuremberg II trials, and how they helped stop the largest con job ever perpetrated on the world. It is time to end the lockdowns, the vaccination mandates, the censorship, and the propaganda.
The media will resume reporting real news and cease fear-mongering. Then, journalists will return to what they do best – proper investigative reporting. And the International Criminal Court will most assuredly continue what it does best – bringing cold-blooded mass murderers to justice.
Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.
“When the song of the angels is stilled, when the star in the sky is gone, when the kings and princes are home, when the shepherds are back with their flocks, the work of Christmas begins: to find the lost, to heal the broken, to feed the hungry, to release the prisoner, to rebuild the nations, to bring peace among the people, to make music in the heart.” ― Howard Thurman
The Christmas story of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.
The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable (a barn), where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. Warned that the government planned to kill the baby, Jesus’ family fled with him to Egypt until it was safe to return to their native land.
Yet what if Jesus had been born 2,000 years later?
What if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born at this moment in time? What kind of reception would Jesus and his family be given? Would we recognize the Christ child’s humanity, let alone his divinity? Would we treat him any differently than he was treated by the Roman Empire? If his family were forced to flee violence in their native country and sought refuge and asylum within our borders, what sanctuary would we offer them?
Those nativity scenes were a pointed attempt to remind the modern world that the narrative about the birth of Jesus is one that speaks on multiple fronts to a world that has allowed the life, teachings and crucifixion of Jesus to be drowned out by partisan politics, secularism, materialism and war, all driven by a manipulative shadow government called the Deep State.
The modern-day church has largely shied away from applying Jesus’ teachings to modern problems such as war, poverty, immigration, etc., but thankfully there have been individuals throughout history who ask themselves and the world: what would Jesus do?
What would Jesus—the baby born in Bethlehem who grew into an itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist, who not only died challenging the police state of his day (namely, the Roman Empire) but spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, and pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire—do about the injustices of our modern age?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer asked himself what Jesus would have done about the horrors perpetrated by Hitler and his assassins. The answer: Bonhoeffer was executed by Hitler for attempting to undermine the tyranny at the heart of Nazi Germany.
Martin Luther King Jr. asked himself what Jesus would have done about America’s warmongering. The answer: declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice,” King risked widespread condemnation as well as his life when he publicly opposed the Vietnam War on moral and economic grounds.
Even now, despite the popularity of the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD) in Christian circles, there remains a disconnect in the modern church between the teachings of Christ and the suffering of what Jesus in Matthew 25 refers to as the “least of these.”
Yet this is not a theological gray area: Jesus was unequivocal about his views on many things, not the least of which was charity, compassion, war, tyranny and love.
After all, Jesus—the revered preacher, teacher, radical and prophet—was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. When he grew up, he had powerful, profound things to say, things that would change how we view people, alter government policies and change the world. “Blessed are the merciful,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and “Love your enemies” are just a few examples of his most profound and revolutionary teachings.
When confronted by those in authority, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. It cost him his life. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.
Can you imagine what Jesus’ life would have been like if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, he had been born and raised in the American police state?
Consider the following if you will.
Had Jesus been born in the era of the America police state, rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, how many toilets are in your home, etc. The penalty for not responding to this invasive survey can go as high as $5,000.
Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.
Then again, had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they first would have been separated from each other, the children detained in make-shift cages, and the parents eventually turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret. There’s quite a lot of money to be made from imprisoning immigrants, especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.
From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he been daring enough to speak out against injustice while still in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.
Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence. Parents across the country have been arrested for far less “offenses” such as allowing their children to walk to the park unaccompanied and play in their front yard alone.
Rather than disappearing from the history books from his early teenaged years to adulthood, Jesus’ movements and personal data—including his biometrics—would have been documented, tracked, monitored and filed by governmental agencies and corporations such as Google and Microsoft. Incredibly, 95 percent of school districts share their student records with outside companies that are contracted to manage data, which they then use to market products to us.
Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”
While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs. Many states, including New York, are providing individuals with phone apps that allow them to take photos of suspicious activity and report them to their state Intelligence Center, where they are reviewed and forwarded to law-enforcement agencies.
Viewed by the government as a dissident and a potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.
Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.
Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.
Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward against his will for a mandatory involuntary psychiatric hold with no access to family or friends. One Virginia man was arrested, strip searched, handcuffed to a table, diagnosed as having “mental health issues,” and locked up for five days in a mental health facility against his will apparently because of his slurred speech and unsteady gait.
Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. Currently, 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.
Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.
Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year, many on unsuspecting Americans who have no defense against such government invaders, even when such raids are done in error.
Instead of being detained by Roman guards, Jesus might have been made to “disappear” into a secret government detention center where he would have been interrogated, tortured and subjected to all manner of abuses. Chicago police have “disappeared” more than 7,000 people into a secret, off-the-books interrogation warehouse at Homan Square.
Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, given the nature of government then and now, it is painfully evident that whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.
Thus, as we draw near to Christmas with its celebration of miracles and promise of salvation, we would do well to remember that what happened in that manger on that starry night in Bethlehem is only the beginning of the story. That baby born in a police state grew up to be a man who did not turn away from the evils of his age but rather spoke out against it.
After the Crash 