Category Archives: Sociology

Big Media: Selling the Narrative and Crushing Dissent for Fun and Profit

Posted on by
Reply

By Charles Hugh Smith

Source: Of Two Minds

The profit-maximizing Big Tech / Big Media Totalitarian regime hasn’t just strangled free speech and civil liberties; it’s also strangled democracy.

The U.S. has entered an extremely dangerous time, and the danger has nothing to do with the Covid virus. Indeed, the danger long preceded the pandemic, which has served to highlight how far down the road to ruin we have come.

The danger we are ill-prepared to deal with is the consolidation of the private-sector media and its unification of content into one Approved Narrative which is for sale to the highest bidders. This is the perfection of for-profit Totalitarianism in which dissent is crushed, dissenters punished and billions of dollars are reaped in managing the data and content flow of the one Approved Narrative.

So don’t post content containing the words (censored), (censored) or (censored), or you’ll be banned, shadow-banned, demonetized, demonized and marginalized. Your voice will be erased from public access via the Big Media platforms and you will effectively be disappeared but without any visible mess or evidence–or recourse in the courts.

That’s the competitive advantage of for-profit Totalitarianism–no legal recourse against the suppression of free speech and dissent. And if you’re shadow-banned as I was, you won’t even know just how severely your free speech has been suppressed because the Big Tech platforms are black boxes: no one outside the profit-maximizing corporation knows what its algorithms and filters actually do or exactly what happens to the disappeared / shadow-banned.

Shadow-banning is an invisible toxin to free speech: if you’re shadow-banned, you won’t even know that the audience for your posts, tweets, etc. has plummeted to near-zero and others can no longer retweet your content. You only see your post is online as usual, because this is the whole point of shadow-banning: you assume your speech is still free even as its been strangled to death by Big Tech black box platforms.

Since Andy Grove’s dictum only the paranoid survive is my Prime Directive, I’ve paid a bit more to have access to server traffic data. So I can pinpoint precisely when I was shadow-banned: my overall traffic fell off a cliff and the number of readers visiting from links on Big Tech platforms fell from thousands to near-zero.

The new consolidated Big Media Totalitarians play an interesting game of circular sources: in the traditional, now-obsolete / suppressed form of journalism, a reporter would be required to identify a minimum of three different sources for the story, and make at least a desultory effort to present two sides of the issue.

That model is out the window in the USSA’s Big Media Totalitarian regime. Now reporters only have to use a completely bogus, fabricated source in another Big Media story. Just being in another Big Media platform / publication is now “proof” that the source is legitimate.

In other words, investigative journalism is nothing but a Potemkin Village of circular sources conjured out of thin air by Big Media. Here’s an example from my own experience of being shadow-banned.

1. A completely bogus organization pops up out of nowhere and doesn’t bother identifying its owners, managers or sources.

2. This complete travesty of a mockery of a sham fabrication then issues a list of websites which it claims, with zero evidence, are stooges / outlets of Russian propaganda.

3. With zero investigation of this slanderous, evidence-free “source,” the venerable Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos) publishes an evidence-free hit piece glorifying this fabrication on Page One.

4. The other Big Media giants then amplify the bogus slander because it came from a “legitimate source,” the Washington Post.

Do you understand how circular sourcing works now? Once a flagrantly bogus bit of propaganda is embraced by one Big Media giant as part of the Approved Narrative, then every other Big Media / Big Tech corporation promotes the fabrication as “real news” even as it is obviously the acme of “fake news”, a complete fabrication.

The fake “source” was called PropOrNot, and the list included dozens of well-respected independent websites, all slandered with a completely fake accusation for one reason: each site had published some content that cast a skeptical eye on the crowning of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the crushing of Bernie Sanders’ campaign by Big Media’s Approved Narrative.

As long as you post videos of kittens and kids dancing, you’re OK because your content (owned and controlled by the platform you posted it on–read the terms of Service) is free to the platforms and they use your content to “engage” users which generates billions in profits.

But if you question the Approved Narrative, you put a big day-glo target on your back. Now if you’re a multi-millionaire, you know, a top 0.1% per-center, you can afford to keep posting dissenting views even after you’ve been demonetized and your income falls to near-zero.

The rest of us aren’t quite so privileged. This is another of the toxic elements in Big Media / Big Tech’s consolidated control of what was once known as free speech: They don’t have to ban your content outright, which might cause a few ripples of tame protest; all they have to do is starve you into submission by strangling your source of income.

Thanks to watertight terms of service, even a multi-millionaire is legally powerless against the USSA’s Big Media Totalitarian regime. By posting content, you already gave away all your rights. So you can go solo and post content on some obscure corner of the web that no one knows exist, but that’s the functional equivalent of being banned and demonetized.

So go right ahead and enter a sound-proof box and scream your head off; nobody can hear you. Welcome to the totally privately owned, legally untouchable Big Tech / Big Media Totalitarian regime that will let you know what’s in the Approved Narrative because that’s all you’re allowed to see.

Gordon Long and I cover these topics and many more in our latest video Buying the Narrative (35:41) Since I’d like the video to actually be viewed more than 11 times, I avoided using the terms (censored), (censored) or (censored), and that’s the final fatal poison delivered by our profit-maximizing Big Tech / Big Media Totalitarian regime: self censorship. You know what you can’t say, so don’t say it. Stick with the kitten videos and you’ll be just fine.

You’ll be just fine but you no longer live in a functioning democracy. The profit-maximizing Big Tech / Big Media Totalitarian regime hasn’t just strangled free speech and civil liberties; it’s also strangled democracy.

It’s all fun and games until the pendulum of Totalitarian Consolidation and its Approved Narrative reaches an extreme (like, say, right now) and the pendulum swings back to an equal extreme at the other end of the spectrum. Keep in mind that hubris and money are no match for history: the more powerful you claim to be, the greater your fall. The way of the Tao is reversal.

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.’s Banquet of Consequences (December 8, 2020)

The Great Reset; ‘No pasarán’

Posted on by
1

By Ghassan and Intibah Kadi

Source: The Saker

The revolving results and aspirations of having a clear outcome of the American Presidential elections are bringing many related issues to the surface. Perhaps none bigger than the heightened call by the World Economic Forum (WEF) for a ‘Great Reset’.

The mission of the WEF, stated beneath its logo reads that it is: ‘Committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas’.

This is a vague mission statement that is riddled with logical and philosophical flaws.

What does ‘improving the state of the world’ exactly mean? There are many issues in the world that can be improved, and not all of them are based on economics for an economic forum to attempt to improve. Consider freedom of speech for example, freedom of information, the abuse of information in the form of mis-information and dis-information, just to name one example. Have we not seen that this very aspect has reached unprecedented heights in the American elections?

When the WEF invited Greta Thunberg to attend the January 2020 meeting, not only did it endorse her concept of climate change, but it also advertently ignored the counter-theory which is actually supported by many climatologists and scientists in other related areas. So how can the state of the world be improved if science is hushed up and theories are accepted for fact without proof?

By way of its mission statement and putting it into practice therefore, the WEF does not seem to take much notice of the importance of correct information and, on the contrary, works against it. Is this improvement of the world or moving it backwards towards the dark ages?

And talking about Greta, according to the mission statement, she ‘qualified’ to participate and be engaged even though she is not a leader in either business, politics or academia. She must then, by definition, be considered by the WEF as a ‘leader of society’. But even if we assume that she is a leader in this capacity, realistically what kind of input can she make in reaching and implementing realistic recommendations in order to improve the world? Was she only invited to mesmerize and recruit the youth?

But Greta is not the only oddity. Guess who else was there in January 2020? George Soros. Actually, Soros has been a repeat contributor.

Soros is definitely a huge business person and I have no problem with him fitting the qualification criteria. But isn’t Mr. Soros one of the main reasons behind many of the problems and issues facing humanity and which the WEF proclaims the desire to improve?

How can one invite the butcher to the ‘Save the Sheep’ forum?

This brings in the issue of morality.

Who gave the WEF the moral mandate to decide what is good and bad for the rest of the world? This again takes us back to the flaws of the mission statement. The statement does not make any mention of morality and/or the engagement of renowned ethicists in the membership panel.

Whilst many may have some reservations about Mandela, he was nonetheless an ethicist and a moralist over and above being a political and community leader. He was once invited and he gave an address to the 1992 WEF forum in Davos. But people of the caliber of Mandela, and they are far and few between, should be more than just occasional guests. They should be on a permanent panel of elders who inform and advise policy and legislation action based on moral value. Will the world be able to find enough ‘perfect’ humans to empanel and assign such a huge task to? Certainly not. No one is perfect, but a group of wise elders is certainly more trustworthy than a pact of globalists.

The WEF can amend its mission statement and come clean and admit that it is comprised of the elites who are the actual reason behind the world problems and not the ones to offer solutions. To be able to be truthful to its mission statement however, it must not base its criteria and recommendations on economics and economics only.

We have taken recent interest in the WEF because the term ‘Great Reset’ [1] has jumped up from almost nowhere, suddenly [2] becoming almost everyone’s mantra. It took us a while to realize that the term actually refers to a new book by the name of ‘COVID-19 The Great Reset’ written by none other than Dr. Klaus Schwab, the 82 y/o founder and ongoing CEO of the WEF ever since its inception in 1971. The above WEF link includes toward the end of the document an interesting diagram which summarizes the Great Reset plan, titled “The Great Reset Transformation Map”. [3]

And what is exactly the position of Dr. Schwab? How can he take the wiser-than-thou stand and proclaim to be the saviour of the world? Under which mandate is he allowed to tell governments, people, all people of all nations, cultures, religions and political views to follow his vision of how to create a better new world?

A most eloquent, smooth speaker, but it doesn’t take much probing to see that Schwab is at best either a megalomaniac or a fool, but he definitely displays archetypal symptoms of megalomania, and in a very dangerous attire. When Mao declared his short-sighted Cultural Revolution, he was seen in the West as a new Hitler. But ironically the same West sees Schwab as a saviour.

Don’t listen to these words, hear him speak about what he calls the ‘fourth industrial revolution’. He claims that the steam engine heralded the first revolution, mass production the second, and computers the third. And now, according to him, the fourth industrial revolution is about ‘a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities’ This is an hour-long video, [4] and if readers cannot listen to it all, they can find those exact words at the 15m:45s mark. And what is our ‘digital identity’ by the way?

Actually, he is perhaps neither a megalomaniac nor a fool, but a freak, the kind of villain that jumps straight out of Batman comics. Alongside the Penguin and the Joker, Schwab should be locked up behind bars, dressed in a straight jacket and pumped to the hilt with antipsychotic drugs, but he is not. He has appointed himself as an advisor to global political leaders, and those buffoons take him seriously.

The man has not been elected by anyone, he does not represent anyone, he seems to not have consulted with anyone elected to speak on behalf of citizens. If this is not what defines a dictator, what does? The WEF is actually his own lovechild, and its name gives it a guise of legitimacy, but it is in fact an NGO just like any other. It neither has any official structure nor the power to generate binding policies. And Soros is not the only shady dude ever invited to speak at the forum.

Schwab is the person who invites whom he chooses. Over the years, the guest list included movie stars and rock stars, but the ‘permanent’ members are CEO’s of big business with turnovers in the billions. We are only talking about some 1000 “leading” companies [5] among millions worldwide who are given a “platform”. They are the biggest pollutants and profiteering culprits on the face of the planet. They are also the biggest benefactors; they donate millions of dollars annually to support the WEF.

Other members include the Saudi royals, the Ford Foundation, Mastercard Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto, just to name a few. One would have to have rocks in his/her head to even imagine that those people and the globalist entities they represent get together in order to discuss how to make the world a better place for the underprivileged. He/she would have to be delusional to believe that those rascals convene for any reason other than bolstering their grab-hold of global wealth and monopoly of power.

This is not to mention the irony of Monsanto and Greta being on the same forum.

If anything, the WEF is the biggest known organization that is comprised of the elite of the elite, the culprits behind the inequity and injustice in this world. It is perhaps the biggest wolf in sheep’s clothing on the prowl.

But how will the ordinary man and woman on the street respond to the concept of being part human part machine? And what is more frightening here is; how seriously are world leaders going to take Schwab’s recommendations and how will they implement them in democratic countries in which changes much smaller than what he is recommending require referendums? Furthermore, what will be the ‘fate’ of individuals and nations that do not heed and comply with his directives? Will they be sanctioned? Will non-compliant individuals be able to find jobs or keep existing ones? Will non-compliant nations face trade sanctions?

Many ideologies have come and gone, but none in recent times, since the various versions of Marxism, including Maoism, tried to portray itself in a manner that attempts to sound rational and pragmatic. We must exclude religions here, because religions are based on faith, they are spiritual beliefs, and they are not only and specifically based on and aimed for social reform. But this ‘Great Reset’ theory is very different from any of its predecessors. On the surface, it is based on living frugally in order to protect the environment and generate greater social justice [6], and this does not sound like a bad idea. But at a deeper level, it is a call for thought policing and control of individuals and robbing them of their choices; including their own identity.

Did pre-COVID humanity go wrong to the extent that it needed a great reset?

Well, we only have to look at the trajectory of humanity to realize that it was (still is in fact) unsustainable. All we need to look at is one major aspect; population growth. We simply cannot expect the trend in population growth to go unchecked especially when coupled with increases in affluence and higher standards of living in some countries. If anything, that trend has been generating a huge growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. But even with this knowledge, humanity did not flinch at the news and images of wide-spread famines and literally thousands dying on a daily basis because of their inability to find food; all the while the ‘other half’ is dying from being overweight and overfed.

Whilst some evil-minded people think that the practical way out of this dilemma can be achieved by implementing different modes of eugenics, the voices of compassion have become less audible, and at best, ignored even muted.

Did the pre-COVID world need a reset? Definitely. Many of its founding determinants have been based on injustice, shortsightedness, divisiveness, lack of good old values, the inability of being sustainable; just to name a few.

When millions cannot find food to eat and clean water to drink yet others fly half the way across the world to attend a baby shower, something must be amiss and a reset is way overdue.

But what is it that the vision of the WEF and its ‘Bible’ (COVID-19 The Great Reset) have to offer in order to provide the world and future generations with a brighter new direction?

It doesn’t take long to see that within the WEF “Great Reset” article [7] there are clear indications that what it is attempting to do is to create more compliant robotic individuals and draw the world and its population deeper into the abyss.

The WEF “Great Reset” article is carefully written and worded in a manner that by the time the reader builds a huge deal of trust in the writer, trust in his intentions, and eventually reaches the recommendations, he/she finds that there is no reason, none at all, to disagree with any of its recommendations. If you examine the diagram [8] in the article titled “The Great Reset Transformation Map”, you will find it is very telling.

Even a quick analysis of the WEF principles and modus operandi shows that the whole ethos is based on individuals and companies the practices of whom have led the world to the current state of loss and despair and entrapment that it is in. Certainly, the cause cannot be the cure; not in this instance.

The paper is a blatant endorsement of the Neo-Left, its agendas and attempts to break down cultural values that glue society together, and turn the world into an obedient slave camp.

Apart from the frightening Schwab’s definition of the fourth industrial revolution, the actual recommendations for the ‘Great Reset’ are quite alarming and unsettling to say the least. It promotes digital currency. How does this restore hope in this new world? This is not to mention encouraging the use of robots, drones, and exponentially increasing reliance on technology instead of aspiring to reinstate the good old values of morality that have worked for millennia.

The words morality, honesty, care, compassion, kindness, happiness, courage, generosity, charity etc., are not mentioned even once in the document; not even a single one of them. Why, one may ask? What is it that drones can do to save humanity from an impending disaster that none of the above innate human values can?

Actually, when it comes to human values, Schwab shamelessly argues that as in the future there will be less cooperation based on shared values with an increasingly multipolar world emerging, relationships will have to be based on shared interests; not values (see at 40:00 min)[9]. For him not to believe in the goodness within humanity, he surely must have deeply-founded psychological disorders. We should pity him, but not if he wants to dictate to us how to lead our lives.

What is more concerning about the man is that he asks, almost demands, that all that he proposes must be implemented now and without any further delay, because he argues that the COVID crisis [10] is giving humanity an opportunity that must not be missed. During a recent visit to India, it was reported that Schwab has said that the country now has the opportunity in leapfrogging [11] to a more digital and sustainable economy.

If we want to be cynics, which we are, we would conclude that those who design and run the WEF do not only sleep in the same bed as those who have destroyed the world, THEY ARE the ones who destroyed it, and yet have the audacity to say they are trying to save it. Unfortunately many follow them and take them at face value.

The great reset humanity really needs is one that takes it back to its roots, its values that include freedom of choice and expression. It needs a reboot, not just a reset, and definitely not the reset that is pre-set by maniacal dictators who wish to create implantable microchips that can read one’s mind. [12]

To the likes of Dr. Schwab, the world population must rise, even against their leaders if they must, and together chant ‘no pasarán’

 

  1. “Now is the time for a great reset”; Klaus Schwab, 3 June 2020, World Economic Forum; https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/?fbclid=IwAR1jQO1l6S4ZM7PEe21QiPLa7Espjlm2uh33ovefznJdK-MRZcO1KYzQA1E
  2. ‘Great Reset’ trends on Twitter after Trudeau speech on Covid-19 hints it’s not just a ‘conspiracy theory’, 16 Novemner 2020, RT. https://www.rt.com/news/506887-trudeau-great-reset-conspiracy-reveal/
  3. The Great Reset Transformation Map
    https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006OLciUAG?tab=publications
  4. “World Economic Forum Founder Klaus Schwab on the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Streamed live on 13 May 2019 at Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=CVIy3rjuKGY.
  5. “Our Partners” World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/about/our-partners
  6. Searching through WEF site and speeches many references exist regarding living more simply to save the environment and the word “redistribution” often is associated with this. Further research is required by the interested reader to determine whether this implies a redistribution of wealth and what exactly that entails.. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/can-redistributing-wealth-also-be-good-for-growth/
  7. Of the WEF, Ken Moelis, Founder and CEO of Moelis & Co. told the Wall Street Journal’s Matt Murray.“ “Davos would do better thinking of growth, rather than redistribution,” (toward the end of video) https://www.wsj.com/video/moelis-davos-should-focus-on-growth-not-wealth-redistribution/C3EC8119-09F4-4CBE-909E-8D59CED4D321.html
  8. “Now is the time for a great reset”; Klaus Schwab, 3 June 2020, World Economic Forum; https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/?fbclid=IwAR1jQO1l6S4ZM7PEe21QiPLa7Espjlm2uh33ovefznJdK-MRZcO1KYzQA1E
  9. Schwab, 3 June 2020, Ibid.
  10. Schwab, 13 May 2019, Chicago Council on Global Affairs 40:00 min
  11. Schwab, 3 June 2020, Ibid.
  12. “Schwab Hails India’s Policy In COVID-19 Fight; Says ‘has Potential To Shape Global Agenda’, 25 October 2020, Brigitte Fernandes, RREPUBLICWORLD.com https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/schwab-hails-indias-policy-in-covid-19-fight-says-has-potential-to-shape-global-agenda.html
  13. “Klaus Schwab: Great Reset Will “Lead to a Fusion of Our Physical, Digital and Biological Identity”, 16 November 202, Joseph Paul Watson, https://summit.news/2020/11/16/klaus-schwab-great-reset-will-lead-to-a-fusion-of-our-physical-digital-and-biological-identity/?fbclid=IwAR2IU4eIRZsXgplVnFHifWLY7fs5i-9uwCDRnqqt_vnNZPLICmL3Gk6LYvk

Zero Point: Our 4th Industrial Revolution Against Their Great Reset

Posted on by
Reply

By Joaquin Flores

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

Genesis 1:26 – And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Humanity is on the precipice of a new dark age, a long dark winter. It is one in which the technologies once developed to liberate humanity from toil, have developed further into a seemingly insurmountable techno-industrial leviathan. This is one based upon misanthropy, slavery, and human eradication. Called the Great Reset, it is being put forth by the same as those speaking of this 4th Industrial Revolution.

But there is another 4th Industrial Revolution which is on the horizon, one which places mankind at the helm of liberatory technologies like the internet of things (IoT) and 3D printing.

Hence, what is being termed the 4IR is in fact about subverting the actual 4IR towards the interests of the financialists whose old method of control (finance) is dwindling.

In this piece, we will attempt to shed light on two very altering visions of a 4th Industrial Revolution. One of prosperity and individual human freedom as well as social liberty, versus one of repression and a new technocratic police state.

 “The real 4th Industrial Revolution is about micro-production and each household, in its garage, owning its own means of production. That is the real promise of the internet of things and 3D printing. It is not about furthering globalization or the mass societies of scale towards an ever-larger pyramidically shaped control paradigm.”

Whose 4th Industrial Revolution – Ours or Theirs?

There are two competing visions of the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR), and in that sense, two competing visions of a Great Reset. This is why we have posed the question in our essay Whose Great Reset? The Fight for Our Future – Technocracy vs. the Republic . Consequently, a lot of confusion has arisen about the 4th Industrial Revolution; whether it is primarily an anthropic or misanthropic agenda.

This is chiefly because Klaus Schwab’s books ‘Covid-19 – The Great Reset’ and ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution’ appropriates the language of the coming 4th Industrial Revolution, but puts forward another practically unrelated agenda entirely. The World Economic Forum, the ‘Davos People’, is a financialist network which looks upon the coming new epoch not with optimism, but with horror.

Just as the financialist system was about externalizing costs, now we find an entire social-psychological regime of externalizing horror. The horror and uncertainty of this time is in most ways a reflection of their own. The dominating ideas of any society are the ideas of its dominating class.

The moves of Schwab (and backed by the Rothschilds and their friends in big tech, and the Deep State writ large), are all moves to contain, control, and push-back the 4th industrial revolution into a different kind of system. This is because the technologies which the actual 4th Industrial Revolution really involve are to the detriment of the present ruling plutocracy.

To be clear, their Great Reset will not bring about the 4th Industrial Revolution they speak of, nor as it was originally understood. The 4th Industrial Revolution was originally thought to be new inventions that bring great freedom, and individual initiative that automation would allow for. These would break the fetters of the old economic model and unlock the potential of the new. It would not destroy society and imprison people, but magnify the plurality of a free society and liberate people from the planned obsolescence industrial model.

The real 4th Industrial Revolution is the economic component of the Great Awakening and the 4th Turning.

The old society was based in mass-scale industrial production, planned obsolescence, and the societies of mass-scale requiring bureaucracies. Those old bureaucracies and societies of scale mirror, in its social relations of production, the form lent to it by the means of production.

In other words, the society of mass industry and planned obsolescence at the economic level was the foundation for a society of mass bureaucracy and meaningless work at the social level. The bureaucratic revolution of the 1920’s and 30’s which was the New Deal and the Military Industrial Complex, was seen in other parts of the world as Marxism-Leninism and Fascism.

Consequently, as we have explained in ‘Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity’, that system relied upon planned obsolescence. The goal was not to produce access to the goods produced by industry, but to continue on the cycle of production and distribution as an over-arching control paradigm. This was to have people going to work every-day.

Therefore the focus of innovation has not been to increase the durability of goods, but to focus on adding features which, in terms of cost vs. benefit, were significantly higher in cost than realized benefit. And so marketing so heavily focused on the conspicuous consumption aspect of commodity ownership, for its conspiculous aspects, as explained by Thorstein Veblen in his seminal work The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), and operationalized in the revolution in advertising which is generally attributed to Edward Bernays’ 1923 classic Crystallizing Public Opinion. Moreover, the entire ‘philanthropic’ parade from Rockefeller down to Gates can only be fully understood through the lens of Bernays.

Origins of the 4th Industrial Revolution

The phrase ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ we are erroneously informed by Wikipedia, is said to have been introduced by Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. Yet this is credited based on a 2015 article published in the Atlanticist magazine, Foreign Affairs “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution“ . This would go on to become theme of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.

So what exactly is the 4th Industrial Revolution if not yet another ploy by the elites to use new technologies to further enslave humanity?

Wikipedia’s revisionism entirely ignores its use in futurist circles among thinkers, techies, and independent investors going back nearly two decades. These were in turn inspired by the New Wave Science Fiction movement of thee 60’s and 70’s, and a related genre, Cyberpunk. Even in the Wiki article which begins by falsely attributing 4IR to Klaus Schwab, they later admit that the term dates back to at least the Hannover Faire in Germany in 2011. But the term (or similar) dates back another decade before it. The concept itself dates back to the 19th century, seeing what increased automation would mean. This is a function of the organic composition of capital, the ratio of constant to variable capital.

Dragon investor knows that investing in a new product which lasts forever is a non-starter. And yet technology has long existed which could tremendously extend the lifespan of any given product. The replacement of plastic parts with the actually cheaper to produce tin, for example, has been documented for nearly 70 years as a product-life extending material.

This would have eradicated global poverty within a generation. But instead the control-paradigm which required the constant upwards redistribution of wealth towards the aim of control, and the requirement that people keep themselves busy with work (idle hands do the devil’s work), was the more ‘logical’ model, provided that the aim is conserving power and not liberalizing human freedom and dignity.

And so why we are seeing this great coup against republican democracies right now, the Covid-19 ‘Great Reset’, is not because the time is opportune nor because the financial elites are in a position of strength. It is not because they have done the sufficient ground work to smoothly transition into a post financial control matrix. But rather because time is running out and their position of strength is weakening by the day.

This is all because of the declining rate of profit which the 4th Industrial Revolution is the solution for. Those technologies have been developing swiftly since the 1950’s. Now to repeat, there are various possible iterations of ‘a’ 4th Industrial Revolution – some are emancipatory and liberatory in nature. And yet others (the one being pursued by the financial elites and as spelled out by the World Economic Forum) are based in misanthropy, population reduction, thought-control and policing, and the ‘long dark winter’.

Why would we want those who so disastrously brought about the ‘Great Reset’ to then go on to manage for us the ‘4th Industrial Revolution’?

The roots of forecasting the 4th Industrial revolution were based in post-capitalist economic theory, and looked at sub-dividing capitalism into further historical mini-stages. This was so that the development of capitalism away from variable capital (human labor) and towards constant capital (machines) could be more accurately described and projected. It was a descriptive and predictive model. Secondarily, it has always been a fact of life that many of the same technologies that can liberate humanity can also enslave them.

A better 4th Industrial Revolution is about micro-production and each household, in a personal garage, having their own means of production. That is the real promise of the internet of things (IoT) and 3D printing. It is not about furthering globalization or the mass societies of scale towards an ever-larger pyramidically shaped control paradigm.

With that comes ‘self-employment’, and a tremendously reduced (and self-created) work schedule of working in one’s own garage. Now, there are various transitional models which involve more local community efforts, and the requisite specializations and down-stream repair micro-economies at the local level that would flow from this.

AI and ‘cybernetics’ are also fields that are developing, but strictly speaking are irrelevant to the 4IR if the liberatory potential of post-scarcity economics is understood.

Cybernetics isn’t necessarily involved in the decentralized and localized outcomes of the IoT.

Applied cybernetics (as envisioned by the World Economic Form) and, with it, ID2020 and beyond, are the opposite of any 4th Industrial Revolution if we understand the liberatory potential of 4IR.

Their vision attempts to ‘Uberize’ the entire economy. The idea here is to eliminate all permanent work, but in its place have non-contracted temporary work, which changes on a nearly daily basis. This is similar to the disastrous ‘Labor Ready’ model already seen in the U.S.

The dystopic idea here is that everyone has a ‘chip’ implanted in them, and this has all their biometric data as well as serving as their bank card. People will earn credits when they receive work assignments at a random new location on a given day, and successfully complete that work.

Unfortunately, the liberatory potential of the 4IR is not understood by those who quite rightly reject the financialist institutional version of it. How these work towards a liberatory agenda of personal freedom, localism, and the foundation for intentional communities based on shared values, is being obscured by the official proponents of the false 4th Industrial Revolution from the World Economic Forum.

In the same way that the financial elites have somewhat erroneously called their corporate-statist monopoly system ‘capitalism’ (if capitalism is understood as competition between players with equal legal rights), they are calling the next system they have in mind the ‘4th industrial revolution’, when in fact it works against the actual 4IR that can be.

And while the phrases and incessant quacking about ‘decentralization’ and ‘internet of things’, along with ‘3D printing’ are also used in the false version of 4IR, likewise we have seen for the past hundred years the corporate monopoly system nevertheless use the language of ‘markets’, ‘private property’ and ‘freedom’ when in fact those components of the corporate system have not really been its most prominent features.

This, practically alone, informs us on the fraudulence which is the World Economic Forum’s 4IR. Just as ‘capitalism’ has not truly relied on free competition, the 4IR being proposed will not truly be based on a decentralized model of 3D printing.

Rather, they will sit on 3D printing and the internet of things until other, really unrelated technologies like pre-crime detectors and other surveillance state techniques, can be implemented. Then they will try to centralize 3D printing when by its very nature, it is best suited to decentralization – thus eliminating various downstream and distribution middle-men. Bear in mind, that the coercive techniques implemented first will be part of a global population reduction scheme with the aim of reducing the population by as much as 90% its present number.

But the aim for the plutocrats in transition to a new kind of oligarchy, they are trying to maintain what Karl Wittfogel described as a ‘Hydraulic Civilization’ in his seminal book Oriental Despotism (1957). Here we understand that the difference with the free-farmers and peasants typical of Northern Europe were made possible because of the relatively high level of annual rain-fail. In many ways, liberal ideas of personal freedom that developed out of the middle-ages and into modernity in Northern Europe are a vestige of this economic, agricultural, reality.

In contrast, the Chaldean and Egyptian hydraulic civilizations of which Rome took its model, were based upon a militarized control over relatively centralized waterways (the Tigris, Euphrates, and the Nile). Access required paying of taxes, fines, fees, military service, and a whole array of other control mechanisms. In a post-economic order that we see on the horizon, one component of this is the transformation of a whole and larger section of society into ‘contact tracers’, a new security apparatus of ‘block captains’, of snitches, of informants against the rest of society. A reference here is the 1977 science fiction work ‘A Scanner Darkly’, by Philip K. Dick

Today the oligarchs are trying to make a Hydraulic Society out of 3D printing, but first need to establish a new coercive model of control over these new productive modes. Even to the extent of manufacturing pandemics, forced lockdowns, and a ‘cyber-pandemic’ of intentional, rolling black-outs.

But the more obvious implementation of 3D printing is more akin to rainfall. That is the primary contradiction at present.

The cornerstone of any 4IR that is workable for humanity, in line with the rights of man and based upon the dignity of the human spirit, is by definition based on a new form of cottage industry which the internet of things and 3D printing make possible.

Humanity was made in the image of its creator, and is worthy of a society reflective of his magnificence. It’s time to blow up the dam and stand under the rain-fall.

No Escape from Our Techno-Feudal World

Posted on by
Reply

By Pepe Escobar

Source: Global Research

The political economy of the Digital Age remains virtually terra incognita. In Techno-Feudalism, published three months ago in France (no English translation yet), Cedric Durand, an economist at the Sorbonne, provides a crucial, global public service as he sifts through the new Matrix that controls all our lives.

Durand places the Digital Age in the larger context of the historical evolution of capitalism to show how the Washington consensus ended up metastasized into the Silicon Valley consensus. In a delightful twist, he brands the new grove as the “Californian ideology”.

We’re far away from Jefferson Airplane and the Beach Boys; it’s more like Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” on steroids, complete with IMF-style “structural reforms” emphasizing “flexibilization” of work and  outright marketization/financialization of everyday life.

The Digital Age was crucially associated with right-wing ideology from the very start. The incubation was provided by the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), active from 1993 to 2010 and conveniently funded, among others, by Microsoft, At&T, Disney, Sony, Oracle, Google and Yahoo.

In 1994, PFF held a ground-breaking conference in Atlanta that eventually led to a seminal Magna Carta: literally, Cyberspace and the American Dream: a Magna Carta for the Knowledge Era, published in 1996, during the first Clinton term.

Not by accident the magazine Wired was founded, just like PFF, in 1993, instantly becoming the house organ of the “Californian ideology”.

Among the authors of the Magna Carta we find futurist Alvin “Future Shock” Toffler and Reagan’s former scientific counselor George Keyworth. Before anyone else, they were already conceptualizing how “cyberspace is a bioelectronic environment which is literally universal”. Their Magna Carta was the privileged road map to explore the new frontier.

Those Randian heroes

Also not by accident the intellectual guru of the new frontier was Ayn Rand and her quite primitive dichotomy between “pioneers” and the mob. Rand declared that egotism is good, altruism is evil, and empathy is irrational.

When it comes to the new property rights of the new Eldorado, all power should be exercised by the Silicon Valley “pioneers”, a Narcissus bunch in love with their mirror image as superior Randian heroes. In the name of innovation they should be allowed to destroy any established rules, in a Schumpeterian “creative destruction” rampage.

That has led to our current environment, where Google, Facebook, Uber and co. can overstep any legal framework, imposing their innovations like a fait accompli.

Durand goes to the heart of the matter when it comes to the true nature of “digital domination”: US leadership was never achieved because of spontaneous market forces.

On the contrary. The history of Silicon Valley is absolutely dependent on state intervention – especially via the industrial-military complex and the aero-spatial complex. The Ames Research Center, one of NASA’s top labs, is in Mountain View. Stanford was always awarded juicy military research contracts. During WWII, Hewlett Packard, for instance, was flourishing thanks to their electronics being used to manufacture radars. Throughout the 1960s, the US military bought the bulk of the still infant semiconductor production.

The Rise of Data Capital, a 2016 MIT Technological Review report produced “in partnership” with Oracle, showed how digital networks open access to a new, virgin underground brimming with resources: “Those that arrive first and take control obtain the resources they’re seeking” – in the form of data.

So everything from video-surveillance images and electronic banking to DNA samples and supermarket tickets implies some form of territorial appropriation. Here we see in all its glory the extractivist logic inbuilt in the development of Big Data.

Durand gives us the example of Android to illustrate the extractivist logic in action. Google made Android free for all smartphones so it would acquire a strategic market position, beating the Apple ecosystem and thus becoming the default internet entry point for virtually the whole planet. That’s how a de facto, immensely valuable,  online real estate empire is built.

The key point is that whatever the original business – Google, Amazon, Uber – strategies of conquering cyberspace all point to the same target: take control of “spaces of observation and capture” of data.

About the Chinese credit system…

Durand offers a finely balanced analysis of the Chinese credit system – a public/private hybrid system launched in 2013 during the 3rd plenum of the 18th Congress of the CCP, under the motto “to value sincerity and punish insincerity”.

For the State Council, the supreme government authority in China, what really mattered was to encourage behavior deemed responsible in the financial, economic and socio-political spheres, and sanction what is not. It’s all about trust. Beijing defines it as “a method of perfecting the socialist market economy system that improves social governance”.

The Chinese term – shehui xinyong – is totally lost in translation in the West. Way more complex than “social credit”, it’s more about  “trustworthiness”, in the sense of integrity. Instead of the pedestrian Western accusations of being an Orwellian system, priorities include the fight against fraud and corruption at the national, regional and local levels, violations of environmental rules, disrespect of food security norms.

Cybernetic management of social life is being seriously discussed in China since the 1980s. In fact, since the 1940s, as we see in Mao’s Little Red Book. It could be seen as inspired by the Maoist principle of “mass lines”, as in “start with the masses to come back to the masses: to amass the ideas of the masses (which are dispersed, non-systematic), concentrate them (in general ideas and systematic), then come back to the masses to diffuse and explain them, make sure the masses assimilate them and translate them into action, and verify in the action of the masses the pertinence of these ideas”.

Durand’s analysis goes one step beyond Soshana Zuboff’s

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism when he finally reaches the core of his thesis, showing how digital platforms become “fiefdoms”: they live out of, and profit from, their vast “digital territory” peopled with data even as they lock in power over their services, which are deemed indispensable.

And just as in feudalism, fiefdoms dominate territory by attaching serfs. Masters made their living profiting from the social power derived from the exploitation of their domain, and that implied unlimited power over the serfs.

It all spells out total concentration. Silicon Valley stalwart Peter Thiel has always stressed the target of the digital entrepreneur is exactly to bypass competition. As quoted in Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World, Thiel declared, “Capitalism and competition are antagonistic. Competition is for losers.”

So now we are facing not a mere clash between Silicon Valley capitalism and finance capital, but actually a new mode of production:

a turbo-capitalist survival as rentier capitalism, where Silicon giants take the place of estates, and also the State. That is the “techno-feudal” option, as defined by Durand.

Blake meets Burroughs

Durand’s book is extremely relevant to show how the theoretical and political critique of the Digital Age is still rarified. There is no precise cartography of all those dodgy circuits of revenue extraction. No analysis of how do they profit from the financial casino – especially mega investment funds that facilitate hyper-concentration. Or how do they profit from the hardcore exploitation of workers in the gig economy.

The total concentration of the digital glebe is leading to a scenario, as Durand recalls, already dreamed up by Stuart Mill, where every land in a country belonged to a single master. Our generalized dependency on the digital masters seems to be “the cannibal future of liberalism in the age of algorithms”.

Is there a possible way out? The temptation is to go radical – a Blake/Burroughs crossover. We have to expand our scope of comprehension – and stop confusing the map (as shown in the Magna Carta) with the territory (our perception).

William Blake, in his proto-psychedelic visions, was all about liberation and subordination – depicting an authoritarian deity imposing conformity via a sort of source code of mass influence. Looks like a proto-analysis of the Digital Age.

William Burroughs conceptualized Control – an array of manipulations including mass media (he would be horrified by social media). To break down Control, we must be able to hack into and disrupt its core programs. Burroughs showed how all forms of Control must be rejected – and defeated: “Authority figures are seen for what they are:  dead empty masks manipulated by computers”.

Here’s our future: hackers or slaves.

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Yet Another Major Escalation In Establishment Internet Censorship

Posted on by
1

By Caitlin Johnstone

Source: CaitlinJohnstone.com

YouTube, whose corporate owner Google is arguably the most powerful company on earth, is now deleting user videos which claim the US election was fraudulent.

YouTube’s official statement on its decision to do this is very revealing, not so much for what it says as for what it does not say.

At no point does the video publishing platform attempt to argue that it is removing these videos because they jeopardize anyone’s health or safety, as it did when it began deleting videos deemed to be spreading misinformation about Covid-19.

At no point does it attempt to argue that these videos are inciting violence, as it did when it began deleting QAnon videos.

At no point does it claim that these videos are misleading voters, as it initially began collaborating with the US government to prevent, since all the voting is over and done with.

It’s simply deleting the videos because they are believed to be wrong. This is an important distinction, because it’s a marked deviation from the previous policy of content deletion used by YouTube and other new media platforms.

“Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect,” YouTube writes. “Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come.”

I neither know nor care whether the sort of election fraud alleged to have taken place in the contest between Joe Biden or Donald Trump actually happened; I know the processes by which candidates are elevated to run in a US general election are corrupt and rigged from top to bottom, so the question of whether additional manipulation took place between two establishment-approved imperialist oligarch lackeys in a pretend election is not particularly interesting to me. But this new move by YouTube is a major escalation in the continually escalating rollout of internet censorship protocols by US government-tied Silicon Valley megacorporations.

Even if America did not have the single most flawed election system in the entire western world (and it does), and even if it had been conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no election fraud of any sort took place (and it hasn’t), it would still be a massive escalation beyond previous online censorship protocols to begin censoring people simply because they are wrong. People are allowed to be wrong. A free society allows people the right to voice wrong beliefs because the only alternative is creating a monolithic Ministry of Truth which has authority over what the right and wrong beliefs are.

Those of us who’ve been warning of the dangers of government-aligned plutocratic corporations lowering their standards for silencing speech further and further were not committing a slippery slope fallacy; it’s not fallacious to warn of a slippery slope when the slope is demonstrably real. The fact that we’ve been methodically paced from accepting the cross-platform deletion of Alex Jones a couple of years ago to random internet users being silenced for no other reason than expressing wrongthink today shows us the slope is very real and very consequential, and our slide into information totalitarianism will continue if something major does not change.

Matt Taibbi has written a solid article condemning YouTube’s latest ramp-up and highlighting the double standard in the way Democrats have been pushing narratives about Trump colluding with Russia to fraudulently steal the 2016 election for four years with no consequences whatsoever while Trump supporters are banned from doing essentially the exact same thing. I would add that the primary source of this double standard is not ideological bias (though that’s surely a factor as well) but the coziness these Silicon Valley tech giants have formed with US government agencies who signed off on Russiagate but not on Trump’s claims. It’s not so much a liberal bias as it is a US intelligence cartel bias.

In reality, there was never any more evidence for liberal claims of Russia interfering with the US election in any meaningful way than there is for election fraud in 2020. Actual journalists and impartial social media platforms would have recognized the indisputable fact that the Russian hacking narrative was extremely porous and remains completely unproven, and the narrative about Russian memes swaying the election is a complete joke. The only thing giving the Democrats’ claims more narrative weight than those of the Republicans today is that one was endorsed by the US intelligence cartel (the same US intelligence cartel which just so happened to wind up advancing multiple preexisting agendas using Russiagate) and the other was not. That’s it.

Those who understood that whoever controls the narrative controls the world and that plutocrat-controlled mass media is the linchpin of the oligarchic status quo were very excited about the arrival of the internet, because they understood its information-democratizing potential. Now we’re all watching those hopes slowly eroded into nothing as the same power structures which control and influence the mainstream media now work to take full control over online information.

“On average 88% of the videos in top 10 search results related to elections came from authoritative news sources (amongst the rest are things like newsy late-night shows, creator videos and commentary),” YouTube boasts in the aforementioned statement on its deletion of wrongthink election videos. “And the most viewed channels and videos are from news channels like NBC and CBS.”

As though rigging your algorithms to give users results which link to the same plutocratic media outlets who’ve helped deceive the public about every war and continuously manipulate them into believing status quo politics totally work is something to be proud of.

If information which isn’t approved by the powerful continues to be squeezed into smaller and smaller fringe circles, the information-democratizing potential which once gave revolutionary thinkers so much hope will be completely nullified, and all that will remain is a network which allows establishment power structures to distribute propaganda much faster than they could back in the days of the old media. Here’s hoping our rulers fail in their attempts to do this, and that we succeed in our desire to stop them.

Here’s Why You Should Skip the Covid Vaccine

Posted on by
8

By Mike Whitney

Source: The Unz Review

“The world has bet the farm on vaccines as the solution to the pandemic, but the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are.”
Peter Doshi, associate editor of the British Medical Journal and assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”
Albert Einstein

The new Covid vaccines will make billions of dollars for the big pharmaceutical companies, but here’s what they won’t do:

  1. The vaccines will not cure Covid
  2. The vaccines will not prevent people from contracting Covid
  3. The vaccines will not prevent Covid-related hospitalizations
  4. The vaccines will not prevent Covid-caused deaths

Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “If the vaccine does not protect me from getting Covid (or dying from Covid), then why should I take it?”

And the answer is: “You shouldn’t. It makes no sense at all, especially in view of the fact that new vaccines pose considerable risks to one’s health and well-being.

“Risks,” you say? “No one said anything about risks. I thought this wonderful new Covid cure was entirely risk-free; just take the jab and– Presto– life goes back to normal.”

Wrong. There are risks, significant risks that the media and the medical establishment have papered-over with their ridiculous Happy Talk about “miracle” vaccines. But all of this is just public relations hype designed to hoodwink people into injecting themselves with a dubious substance that does NOT do what it’s supposed to do, and which DOES pose serious long-term risks to one’s health.

So, let’s dig a little deeper into this question of risks and see what are the experts saying. Check out this excerpt from an “Open Letter From: UK Medical Freedom Alliance To: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization… for COVID-19 in the UK.”:

“It is worrying that recent Parliamentary discussions seem to not attach proper weight to any concern about vaccine risks and the right to informed consent, while focusing solely on strategies to increase the uptake of vaccines in the general population.

Inadequate Assessment of the Public Health Risk from a Covid Vaccine

In a recent letter to the British Medical Journal (BMJ), physician Arvind Joshi warned against the disaster that could result from this misguided policy and outlined the serious risks involved to the public and other serious issues that are being taken if a Covid Vaccine is rushed out without thorough and adequate safety and efficacy testing:

“Adverse effects like Subacute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis, Ascending Polyneuritis, Myopathies, Autoimmune Diseases, and rarer chance of triggering development of malignancies are most dreaded possibilities.“...“The rush for the Vaccines should not lead to disaster.” (Note: There is a more comprehensive list of potential ‘bad outcomes’ in the link to the article.)

Virus-vectored and genetically engineered vaccines could undergo recombination or hybridization with unpredictable outcomes.…Previous attempts to develop coronavirus and other vaccines e.g., RSV and dengue, have been hampered by the problem of ‘antibody dependent enhanced immunity’(ADEI), which has led to severe illness and deaths in the animals and human subjects involved in the trials28. This phenomenon only becomes apparent after vaccination, when the subject is exposed to wild virus at some point in the future. Worryingly, the Covid Vaccine trials have not been conducted in a way to exclude the possibility of this serious sequalae occurring months or years after vaccination...

Late onset adverse vaccine effects such as Subacute Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis (SSPE),Ascending Polyneuritis, Myopathies, Autoimmune Diseases, Infertility and Cancers cannot be ruled out with short duration trials.” (“Open Letter From: UK Medical Freedom Alliance To: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization… for COVID-19 in the UK.”)

It’s all very technical, but the truth is plain to see: There are serious risks associated with taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Most vaccine recipients will experience only minor aches and pains but some will undoubtedly get quite ill and permanently damage their health. No one really knows for sure because there have been no long-term trials. The Covid vaccine has been fast-tracked from Day 1. So, the question is: Do the benefits outweigh the risks. And, in this case, they clearly don’t. The chances of getting violently sick or dying from Covid are very slight, (IFR is 1 in 400) while the (potential) adverse effects from the vaccine are spelled out above. Why would anyone roll the dice on a vaccine that does not prevent one from contracting Covid, does not protect one from hospitalization, and will not prevent one from dying? That’s just not a good tradeoff. Here’s more from an article at Forbes:

“Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint…(But) Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected“…

“We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols…do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.” (“Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed”, Forbes)

Can you see what’s going on? “Prevention” is not even a primary objective. The standard for success in these trials is whether the vaccine mitigates Covid symptoms in people who test positive. But who cares about symptoms? What people care about is dying. That’s why people are so eager to get vaccinated, because they think it will eliminate the threat of dying.

This is a critical point, and one that is well worth mulling over.

Why?

Because it helps to illustrate how the vaccine campaign is built on a foundation of lies and deception. For example, when the drug companies boast that their product is “95% effective”, it does NOT mean that– if you get vaccinated– you will be immune to Covid. It doesn’t even mean that you won’t get violently ill and die. All it means is that the vaccine reduced the symptoms of some of the people in the trials who tested positive.

Did you know that?

Of course, you didn’t. You thought that if you took the vaccine, you’d be protected from Covid, because that is the logical assumption that anyone would make. Most people equate vaccines with immunity. The drug companies know that which is why they’re exploiting people’s ignorance and deliberately obfuscating the truth. They want people to continue to believe that vaccination is a protective shield that will save them from sickness and death. But it’s not. It’s a bunch of baloney.

Bottom line: Vaccine “effectiveness” is not measured in terms of “preventing infection”. It relates to the vaccine’s impact on symptoms. Here’s more from Forbes:

“One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves….

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. …

A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine’s ability to prevent severe illness and death. Again, we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier….

These protocols do not emphasize the most important ramifications of Covid-19 that people are most interested in preventing: overall infection, hospitalization, and death. It boggles the mind and defies common sense that the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and the rest would consider the approval of a vaccine that would be distributed to hundreds of millions on such slender threads of success.

It appears that these trials are intended to pass the lowest possible barrier of success.” (“Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed“, Forbes)

The author is right, isn’t he? If the vaccine doesn’t prevent infection, it’s not worth taking. Period. And yet, all these high-falutin organizations are on-board with this farce. It’s a disgrace. We’re not even talking about a “low bar” for success here. We’re talking about “no bar”. If people are concerned about symptoms, they’d be better off taking an aspirin and leaving it at that. There’s no need to inject themselves with some hybrid cocktail that no one has the slightest idea of what the long-term effects might be. That’s just reckless.

Like we said earlier, the real issues are being cleverly concealed by the people in charge who are hyping the “95% effective” nonsense to hoodwink people into cooperating. It’s blatantly dishonest.

And here’s something else to think over: What do we really know about these miraculous vaccines that are supposed to lead us out of our “public health crisis”?

Not much. We know that they’re being rushed to market. We know that they were delayed for political reasons. We know the science is being shaped by the politics. We know that vaccine development typically takes 10 years, and that “rushed” vaccine development takes 3 years, and that the upcoming batch of dubious vaccines will have taken roughly 8 months.

8 months!

Do you find that reassuring? Does that make you want to push your way to the front of the line on Vaccine Day? And are you surprised that a large sampling of medical professionals has decided they aren’t going to take the vaccine until it’s been out for at least a year??

And here’s another thing: The pharmaceutical giants don’t even know if their vaccines will stop transmission or not. I’m not kidding, they really don’t know. So– along with the fact that the vaccine will not provide immunity– it also will not stop the spread of the infection which means, the pandemic will continue.

Don’t you think the public is entitled to know this?

And let’s not forget that these so called “vaccines” don’t really fit the traditional definition of vaccine at all. The CDC defines a vaccine as: “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

And the CDC defines “immunization” as:

“A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.”

Well, we’ve already shown that the new vaccines do not necessarily provide immunity, so the question is whether they actually “stimulate a person’s immune system” or if the “vaccine” moniker was simply preserved as a promotional device to dupe the public? Here’s some background from an article at RT:

“The type of vaccine being developed against Covid-19 has never been used before, outside of Ebola. Some people feel that they should not really be called vaccines, because they are completely different from anything that has gone before.

Up to now, vaccination has meant injecting a dead virus (or bacteria), or one that has been weakened and can only poorly replicate, or parts of the virus, or suchlike. Once inside the body, the immune system spots this ‘alien’ material, and creates a response against it, which will hopefully be remembered for years and years. The next time the dangerous virus appears, the body will use the immune memory of something very similar, to wipe out the virus (or bacteria) at high speed, giving it no chance to do damage

Now, we have a thing called a messenger RNA vaccine (mRNA). RNA is, effectively, a single strand of DNA – the double helix that sits within our cells and makes up our genetic code. Many viruses are made up of a single strand of RNA, surrounded by a protein sphere. They enter the cell, take over the replication systems, make thousands of copies of themselves, then exit the cell. Sometimes killing the cell as they do so, sometimes exiting more gently. Covid19 (Sars-Cov2) is an RNA virus.

Knowing this, rather than attempting to create a weakened virus, which can take years, or break the virus into bits, the v accine researchers decided to use Sars-Cov2’s RNA against itself. To do this, they isolated the section of RNA which codes for the ‘spike’ protein – which is the thing the virus uses as a ‘key’ to enter cells…

These spike proteins then leave the cell – somehow or other, this bit is unclear. The immune system comes across them, recognizes them as ‘alien’ and attacks. In doing so, antibodies are created, and the immune memory system kicks into action. If, later on, a Sars-Cov2 virus gets into the body, the immune system fires up and attacks the remembered spike protein. Hopefully killing the entire virus.” (“As a doctor, people ask me if it’s safe to take a new Covid vaccine“, RT)

It’s all very complicated and cutting-edge, but what’s clear is that “Messenger RNA” and “spike’ protein” are a far-cry from plain-old dead virus which has worked just fine for decades. It’s hard to understand why the drug companies decided to reinvent the wheel in trying to settle on an antidote for Covid. Even so, this new state-of-the-art technology does have its drawbacks as was pointed out in the letter by the researchers in the Medical Freedom Alliance. Here’s what they said:

“Several Covid Vaccines involve the use of a completely new technology -mRNA vaccination -whose large-scale use in healthy human subjects is unprecedented and long-term effects unknown. Exogenous mRNA is inherently immunostimulatory, and this feature of mRNA could be beneficial or detrimental. In addition, a study found evidence of molecular mimicry …

Virus-vectored and genetically engineered vaccines could undergo recombination or hybridisation with unpredictable outcomes….Previous attempts to develop coronavirus and other vaccines e.g., RSV and dengue, have been hampered by the problem of ‘antibody dependent enhanced immunity’(ADEI), which has led to severe illness and deaths in the animals and human subjects involved in the trials. This phenomenon only becomes apparent after vaccination, when the subject is exposed to wild virus at some point in the future. Worryingly, the Covid Vaccine trials have not been conducted in a way to exclude the possibility of this serious sequalae occurring months or years after vaccination.” (“Open Letter From: UK Medical Freedom Alliance To: The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization… for COVID-19 in the UK.”)

The point is, the effects of injecting a hybrid concoction into one’s body could be quite serious. We just don’t know what the long-term effects will be, and we probably won’t know because the vaccine is going to be rushed into distribution before those trials can be conducted. This is not a sensible strategy for dealing with the virus. It is needlessly reckless and, perhaps, lethal. Here’s more from an article at the Jerusalem Post:

“There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks,” Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post…..

“We will have a safety profile for only a certain number of months, so if there is a long-term effect after two years, we cannot know,” Brosh said, adding that we could wait two years to discover them, “but then we would have the coronavirus for two more years.”…

(Brosh) acknowledged that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions….. An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components…

(Michal) Linial ( a professor of biological chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ) expressed similar sentiments: “Classical vaccines were designed to take 10 years to develop. I don’t think the world can wait for a classical vaccine.”….But when asked if she would take the vaccine right away, she responded: “I won’t be taking it immediately – probably not for at least the coming year,” she told the Post. “We have to wait and see whether it really works.” (“Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long-term?“, The Jerusalem Post)

Great, so the “professor of biological chemistry” isn’t going to take the vaccine, but it’s okay for ordinary people like you and me??

Give me a break. Professor Linial’s reluctance is a tacit admission that the vaccine is not safe. What else could it mean? Here’s more from the same article:

“In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects.” (The Jerusalem Post)

Well, that’s just dandy. We know the vaccines won’t prevent infection, hospitalization or death. We also know they are “are completely different from anything that has gone before”. We also know they won’t stop transmission, and that their long-term safety is very much in doubt. Even so, our leaders– who lie to us about virtually everything– want us to click our heels and submissively take “the jab” whether we want to or not.

In my opinion, the risks of vaccination far outweigh the benefits. I would rather trust my own auto-immune system (and the new treatments, medications and therapies) then be guinea pig in Big Pharma’s sinister lab experiment.

“Thanks, but no thanks”.

Edward Snowden On Big Tech Companies, Like Facebook, Censoring & Controlling Information

Posted on by
Reply

By Arjun Walia

Source: Collective Evolution

Glenn Greenwald is no stranger to censorship, he’s the journalist who worked with Edward Snowden (NSA mass surveillance whistleblower)  to put together his story and release it to the world while working for the Guardian. He eventually left the Guardian and co-founded his own media company, The Intercept, an organization that would be free from censorship and free to report on government corruption and wrong-doings of powerful people and corporations. He recently resigned from The Intercept as well due to the fact that they’ve now censored him, and is now completely independent. You can find his work here.Glenn Greenwald is no stranger to censorship, he’s the journalist who worked with Edward Snowden (NSA mass surveillance whistleblower)  to put together his story and release it to the world while working for the Guardian. He eventually left the Guardian and co-founded his own media company, The Intercept, an organization that would be free from censorship and free to report on government corruption and wrong-doings of powerful people and corporations. He recently resigned from The Intercept as well due to the fact that they’ve now censored him, and is now completely independent. You can find his work here.Glenn Greenwald is no stranger to censorship, he’s the journalist who worked with Edward Snowden (NSA mass surveillance whistleblower)  to put together his story and release it to the world while working for the Guardian. He eventually left the Guardian and co-founded his own media company, The Intercept, an organization that would be free from censorship and free to report on government corruption and wrong-doings of powerful people and corporations. He recently resigned from The Intercept as well due to the fact that they’ve now censored him, and is now completely independent. You can find his work here.

Anybody who reports on or sheds a bright light onto immoral and unethical actions taken by governments and the powerful corporations they work with has been subjected to extreme censorship. In the case of Edward Snowden, he’s been exiled, and Julian Assange of Wikileaks is currently clinging to his life for exposing war crimes and other unethical actions by multiple governments and corporations. There are many other examples. What does it say about our civilization when we prosecute those who expose harm, corruption, immoral/unethical actions by governments and war crimes?

Greenwald recently interviewed Snowden about internet censorship and the role big tech companies and governments are playing. Greenwald explains that in one of his earliest meetings with Snowden, he (Snowden) explained that he was driven in large part by the vital role the early internet played in his life, “one that was free of corporate and state control, that permitted anonymity and exploration free of monitoring, and, most of all, fostered unrestrained communication and dissemination of information by and among citizens of the world without corporate and state overlords regulating and controlling what they were saying.

This is what he and Snowden go into in the interview posted below. Prior to that I provide a brief summary of Snowden’s key thoughts.

Snowden starts off by mentioning government surveillance programs and the companies they contracted to do this work and compares them to modern day Big Tech giants censoring information on a wide range of topics. We see this today with elections/politics, to medical information dealing with coronavirus and vaccines, for example.

“In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic. These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways…They’re trying to make you change your behaviour… – Snowden

So basically, these Big Tech companies have become slaves, if you will, to the governments will, or at least powerful people situated in high places within the government. Snowden brings up the fact that many of these companies are hiring people from the CIA, who come from the Pentagon, who come from the NSA, who have top secret clearances…The government is a customer of all the major cloud service providers. They are also a major regulator of these companies, which gives these companies the incentive to do whatever they want.

This is quite clear if you look at Facebook, Google and Amazon employees. There are many who have come from very high positions within the Department of Defense.

In no case is this more clear than Amazon – Snowden

Amazon appointed Keith Alexander, director of the NSA under Barack Obama.

He was one of the senior architects of the mass surveillance program that courts have repeatedly now declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional….When you have this kind of incentive from a private industry to maintain the warmest possible relationship with the people in government, who not just buy from you but also have the possibility to end your business or change the way you do business…You now see this kind of soft corruption that happens in a constant way. – Snowden

Snowden goes on to explain how people get upset when government, especially the Trump government, tries to set the boundaries of what appropriate speech is by attempting to stop big tech censorship, he then says,

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication. That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

You can watch the full conversation between Greenwald and Snowden below, the conversation is about 40 minutes long.

Closing Comments: This kind of information almost begs the question, are we ready as a society to truly create and disseminate journalism that is honest, integral and bi-partisan? Why is it that these types of organizations fail or struggle? How do some media companies fail? Well, they no longer stay true to their mission. They fall to the pressure of politics and fall into ideology. How many other times did ideology change what media outlets reported? Yes, it’s almost impossible to have zero bias, but how close can we get to zero? How can we achieve this when media outlets who do not fit within the accepted framework and disseminate information that challenges the popular opinion are constantly being punished for simply putting out information?

As Snowden mentioned above, these Big Tech companies in collusion with governments are literally attempting to not only censor information, but change the behaviour of people as well, especially journalists. When you take away one’s business or livelihood as a result of non-compliance, you are in a way forcing them to comply and do/say things you they way you want them done/said. We’ve experienced massive amounts of censorship and demonetization here at Collective Evolution, but we haven’t changed as a results of it. We simply created CETV, a platform that helps support our work as a result of censorship.

Generation Numb: How Losing My Phone Exposed Me to the Pain of My Peers

Posted on by
1

This terrible void of which everyone stays pleasantly unobservant is the unofficial sickness of Gen Z.

By Ben Scheer

Source: ScheerPost

I hadn’t planned to give up my smartphone. After all, I was starting my sophomore year of college and I had not met a single adult who lives without one and definitely no other 19-year-old. If you haven’t noticed, it is part of the culture. A few weeks into the semester, I forgot my phone (a Google Pixel 2, for all you phone nerds) in the backseat of an Uber on my way back from shopping off campus. This would lead to an opening to consider a break from the phone and everything that comes with it.

I remember feeling frustrated at myself for being so absentminded and immediately rushed to track it down, anxiously calling the driver from a friend’s phone. While I listened to the open ringing on the line I began to think about this one technology’s central role in my life.

That gateway to other worlds.

Over the next few days I continued to hope my phone would come back to me and also thought further into its role in my relationships. I felt how hindering it was in communicating with the people I love.

How it had required me to be always ready to pluck it from my pocket, pull my focus and as a result, never be truly present. I saw in that reflection the possibility for healthier relationships, less dependent on constant digital connection.

More free, less reliant.

Sure, there were a thousand things that would be made more challenging and tedious, but it would be worth it if I could be more present for my own life.

Days later, after I had given up hope of seeing it again, I used a friend’s phone to call my dad to tell him.

“I will get you another one, what kind do you want?” was the first thing he said.

“Actually I think I’m good,” I responded, to his surprise. “I can write you and my mom by email. If we want to talk, I can call you from my computer.”

Quickly, I started to feel the change. My mood and habits became clearer; I felt happier, more grounded, less looming anxiety, feeling more alone and with myself, more conscious of my space and those in it.

Being alone led to more opportunities for reflection and boredom. I felt calmer, and my walking and pace of day actually slowed down. It is hard to describe how it changed the patterns in my brain but I could feel it readjusting, as it does if you spend a week in the woods or on a beach. One thing I felt was that my days were longer and more connected from one moment to the next.

I also became more aware of the moods and feelings of others around me and was suddenly terrified to see how dependent my peers were on all their screens, and, looking back just a bit, how consumed I, too, had been.

Something else bubbled up from my unconscious: My expectations of college differed from what I was seeing. Between talking to older relatives and seeing college life on TV and in the movies, I was expecting a . . . BIT MORE JOY! Young souls, free minds, positive energy, community. I was seeking some bright spark in the people around me, yet all too often what I saw was dull, void, distractible, unthinking, unfeeling people enveloped in the world of their screens instead of being in community and conversing with the people around them.

Yes, that is harsh. It is also what I see.

So much lost human potential.

I want something or someone to blame, but maybe what I should really be blaming is myself for expecting something else. The truth is, though, I feel right in blaming the phones.

It has been over a year since I gave up my smartphone, but I remember vividly when looking at my phone for hours a day seemed normal to me. I was content to stare at the screen for hours, doing the same thing: Watching mildly entertaining videos or mashing game buttons, swiping on Tinder, scrolling on IG, surfing memes and YouTube videos. In many ways, it’s a drug too good to give up, seemingly a harmless drug, but no. We have opened Pandora’s box of marvels and there is no way to close it now.

We are continually wanting what we do not yet have, an innate motivation amplified and rerouted by capitalism’s hyperdrive marketing engines. A good fix for this constant yearning, or any discomfort is to drown it out with distractions. Feeling an uncontrollable emotion? Existential itch? Low-grade anxiety? No problem: Try scrolling on the social of your choice for a bit, trust me, it takes the edge off.

Trauma or poverty, pain or loneliness, all manner of worry, we have a cure! Or at least the emotional response can be staved off long enough for you to find the next thing to click.

This terrible void of which  everyone stays pleasantly unobservant is a part of me as well, the unofficial sickness of my generation. (COVID-19 will be the official one, memorialized in our virtual yearbooks.) This hole, this pit, that is created from not knowing one’s self, not trusting one’s self, or not allowing feelings. So distracted that these insecurities that we act on every day are a mystery. That you cannot see how fundamentally OK everything actually is because you have music constantly in your ear and a fear that, in silence, your own thoughts would be too scary. The sickening thought that your true feelings for someone were no more than an act of comfort-seeking desperation and that “love” is a lifesaver from yourself.

I can’t blame anyone though. The distractions surround us, they surround the people we are with. The collective unfeeling is so great, so vast, it cracked me open, actually made me cry often once I allowed myself to experience it. I felt like I was losing my footing in the world in which I had grown up. Disconnected from my past and unsure of where we were going.

(Side note: If you haven’t yet watched The Social Dilemma, go do that, it’s worth it.)

Walking into a small college class to see no one looking at each other or chatting, the blank vacant stares. The soft glow. It felt … confusing? Why were so many interesting young people ignoring one another? What was a classroom like before these tools were available and allowed everywhere? Why were the screens so celebrated?

Then my confusion grew, and from it rage and pain. These emotions danced together, fueled me and crushed me. I saw, for the first time, the real power that the phones held. Yes, a power we had given them, but a power nonetheless. The power to keep people who were 500 miles apart tethered to one another, or keep people sitting right next to each other brutally apart.

Who can I blame? It is just the world I have been born into, and the technology- and profit-driven changes are coming faster every year. We live in the future with brain equivalents in our pockets and a web that contains all of our collective knowledge but reveals the worst of what we are and so little of the love we contain and of which we are capable.

Is the internet a good idea? Are phones good for humans? These are not questions we have answered or even barely thought to ask in the mainstream of our culture. Of course they are, what else could they be? Progress! Faster communication! More knowledge! More speed! More fun! We will all be more efficient and entertained, and from that we will live better lives.

NO! Stop, slow down. Please. These gadgets, these everywhere-anytime screens, are ruining the minds of the people who have been mesmerized since they were only little children.

To clarify: not ruining, in that people are made stupid (although it definitely does not help develop our attention span), but rather ruining our emotional capacity and spiritual selves. And these limits fetter us as we are already so strained by the pain we are able to see through our little windows; we don’t have a moment to feel, to feel our own pain, or that of our friends.

Or, for that matter, the pain of the world, or the impact of our constant consumption, or where all this STUFF comes from and where it ends up, or the pain of our history and centuries of exploitation of other humans and nature from which all this wealth originally was derived.

Being human is objectively great. We can use language and words to describe how we feel. We can feel the sun on our face and take in the taste of a thousand foods, dance to every song. Feel great pain and great happiness. Yet, all the time I see this discomfort, unrest and fear in my most distracted friends. It is coming from the disconnection from what they are feeling, a disconnection from being.

This is the worst theft of modern-day, first-world life: the theft of being present.

The phones and distractions and speed create this disconnection from the simple fact that you are actually OK, better then OK — you are alive and can feel and that is a gift to cherish.

Worse than the days of sadness are the days of not feeling anything. Some people are depressed not because anything is wrong but because they are numb to their feelings, too distracted and avoidant to feel them; avoidant, and scared of what might happen if they let themselves feel.

Try this: Really study those you love, let their face become new to you, again, and become fascinated in the way they move. Feel the wonder of being with another human.

After more than a year without a smartphone, I am more hopeful than I was in those first few months. Not to say that everything is all right, far from it. Here in the United States our technology has allowed for multiple realities to coexist alongside one another and I don’t see a clear path out of that problem. Distraction and narrow self-interest prevent us from seeing and grappling with the apocalyptic future climate change can bring in a much shorter time frame than even most globally aware people are willing to accept.

However, I do know that change is a constant and I am healed by looking past my own lifetime and by all the simple beauties of life and living. In the end, these technologies do NOT define us. We can work together to change how we coexist.

 

Postscript: For those who are interested in also letting go of your smartphone, I would recommend downgrading to a flip-phone or phone of a similar level. I now walk around the world with a thick, red brick through which I can communicate with my work and family in case of emergencies.