The New York Times editorial board recently opined that Americans are losing “the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions,” yet this same newspaper refused to review, or even publish an advertisement for, RFK, Jr.’s runaway bestseller, “The Real Anthony Fauci.”
In a bold, but clearly disingenuous, statement from its famed editorial board, “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate, and certain longstanding values,” The New York Times issued a cautionary statement:
“For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.”
The editorial board pounded the point home:
“People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes, and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation …. Freedom of speech requires not just a commitment to openness and tolerance in the abstract. It demands conscientiousness…
“We believe it isn’t enough for Americans to just believe in the rights of others to speak freely; they should also find ways to actively support and protect those rights.”
Of course, The New York Times should be leading by example. In fact, it has not supported free speech, protected the First Amendment, or allowed honest debate. It has not allowed competing perspectives about the most important issues of the day.
Instead, it has been a mouthpiece for greedy corporations and corrupt government officials.
In support of the newspaper’s interests, and at the expense of the interests of American citizens, The New York Times censored Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s latest book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” in every conceivable way.
It ranked the book No. 7 on its non-fiction bestseller list even though the book outsold any other book in America that week by thousands of copies.
Then it refused to allow Skyhorse Publishing to place an advertisement for the book because its censorship division, ironically called “Standards Management,” decided the book itself constituted misinformation — despite the paper’s stated policy that “Standards” only looks into whether an ad itself is “non-defamatory and accurate.”
The New York Times followed up with a scathing hit piece targeting Kennedy as “a leading voice in the campaign to discredit coronavirus vaccines and other measures being advanced by the Biden White House to battle a pandemic that was … killing close to 1,900 people a day.”
The Times accused Kennedy of circulating “false information” — without indicating what that information was or explaining why it was false — and of comparing the government pandemic response to the Holocaust, even though he didn’t do that.
Finally, The New York Times refused to review “The Real Anthony Fauci” or so much as comment on its historic grassroots success, even though it’s become a cult classic, selling more than 1 million copies in just four months, and launching a worldwide movement against government corruption and corporate greed.
“Despite all the lying, or maybe in reaction to it,” Tucker Carlson told me, “Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is becoming a legitimate folk hero.”
He is a folk hero because he stood up, grabbed a bullhorn and spoke truth to power. He’s risked everything. He’s realized that you either care about justice or you care about personal consequences.
And for him there have been many.
After suppressing freedom of speech for two years and defending a specific, myopic and harmful narrative, the editorial board of the New York Times decided it was the perfect time to take a strong stance against censorship and cancel culture.
The irony of the most powerful and high-profile violator of First Amendment rights lamenting the lack of free speech — and offering up ideas to protect the rights of Americans — was palpable, inescapable and despicable.
Like Captain Renault in “Casablanca,” when he closes Rick’s Café Americain and proclaims: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here,” The New York Times gladly accepts its winnings.
The paper’s profitability has soared during the worst and most pervasive period of censorship in recent American history. Its owners have done absolutely nothing to protect the free speech rights of hundreds, if not thousands, of doctors, nurses, scientists and concerned citizens who have tried to discuss views, make arguments and analyze scientific studies that challenge the prevailing COVID narrative.
The Times has silenced debate, worked tirelessly to chastise, vilify and discredit those whose positions they disagree with, and failed to investigate serious claims of government corruption.
Nevertheless, the paper claims to lament that “when public discourse in America is narrowed, it becomes harder to answer … the urgent questions we face as a society.”
What could be more important, more urgent, than the truth about corruption at the highest levels of government, about a pandemic response that led to more serious illness and death than was necessary, about the most powerful public health official in the country being more concerned with helping Big Pharma maximize return on investment and mitigate risk to industry, rather than protecting people’s lives?
As The Times wrote, the worst kind of censorship is cancel culture and the worst kind of cancel culture is the “piling on” kind.
Why then, one might ask, did the paper run a hit piece about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that covered essentially the same subject matter as a dozen other hit pieces? Why now? Why this target?
His family thinks he’s wrong about vaccines, The Times noted. His friends think he’s wrong about vaccines. Dr. Fauci thinks he’s wrong about vaccines. Ever heard that before?
Any analysis about vaccine safety? Any facts? Any citations? Any discussion of Dr. Fauci’s despicable corruption as described in “The Real Anthony Fauci”?
No, no, no, no and no.
What was The New York Times doing when the whole world was attacking Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.?
Where was The New York Times when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Judy Mikovits, Dr. Pierre Kory — and so many other impressive voices — were being stifled?
They were “piling on.” (If The New York Times really wants to do something for free speech, it should publish a book review, finally, of the runaway bestseller — “The Real Anthony Fauci.”)
The Times has stated it won’t “publish ad hominem attacks,” but it does publish hit pieces that any rational person understands are meant to discredit a book they don’t mention and obviously haven’t read.
The Times protects corrupt government officials against the unsuspecting public by forwarding policy statements or official memos their editors and reporters have not thoroughly vetted, investigated or corroborated.
The Times writers and editors are the worst kind of co-conspirators: the kind that claims to be protecting their victims.
The New York Times writes:
“At the individual level, human beings cannot flourish without the confidence to take risks, to pursue ideas and express thoughts that others might reject…. When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of the public discourse, a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and it faces the risk of political violence.”
That’s where we are in America today. There is no debate, no public discourse, and we have lost the ability to resolve conflict.
We have separated the country into two Americas, at least partially because of the policies and practices of The New York Times.
The New York Post pointed out that the New York Times “published lies to serve a biased narrative.” The Post accused The Times of “malicious misreporting” and cites a book, “The Grey Lady Winked,” by Ashley Rindsberg.
Rindsberg is quoted as calling The New York Times “a truth-producing machine.” He believes the “fabrications and distortions” they’ve peddled since the 1920s were a system of twisting facts to manipulate public opinion about everything from “Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia to Vietnam and the Iraq War.”
The “reporting” is designed to “support a narrative aligned with the corporate whims, economic needs and political preferences” of The New York Times, Rindsberg claims. He believes the paper has consistently created “false narratives.”
The New York Post says The Times has the resources to do it:
“With close to $2 billion in annual revenue, the Times has the money, prestige, experience and stature to set the narratives that other news outlets invariably follow.”
Rindsberg alleges a former Times bureau chief in Berlin was a Nazi collaborator and that another star reporter for the paper parroted Soviet propaganda to defend Stalin.
The New York Times coverage in the lead-up to the Vietnam and Iraq wars seemed like government disinformation designed to support going to war.
More recently Rindsberg points to the stories that The New York Times published about Russia putting a bounty on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, which the Biden administration later conceded was misinformation, and the story about Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick being “murdered by rampaging Trump supporters,” though it was later proven he died of a stroke.
Similarly, Glenn Greenwald accused The New York Times of participating in “one of the most successful disinformation campaigns in modern electoral history.”
The Times, which before the 2020 election dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation, recently conceded that it was authentic.
It seems likely The New York Times coverage of the COVID Pandemic isn’t any different than its coverage of Hitler, Stalin, Vietnam, the Iraq War, January 6, the Russian bounty on American soldiers or the Hunter Biden laptop.
Like most of the major Big Tech platforms, The New York Times appears to have worked closely with Dr. Fauci and others, as representatives of the U.S. government, to control and propagate a specific narrative and to do what the government can’t legally do itself — censor ideas that it disagrees with or narratives that might be harmful to its corporate partners.
As discussed above, The New York Times actively suppressed Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book and his allegations of corruption against Dr. Anthony Fauci. It defended Dr. Fauci without any investigation, without a full, free and fair discussion of what is clearly the most important book of the decade.
By ignoring Kennedy’s book, by refusing to review it, by not allowing advertisements, by misrepresenting its success on its bestseller list, the paper clearly did everything in its power to avoid any debate whatsoever about the real science behind the origins of COVID or the best practices for controlling the virus and protecting the public.
The New York Times has shown a total disregard for the scientific process, individual due process rights or for any real search for truth.
And, once again, it did all this while lecturing us about the importance of free speech.
We have arrived at George Orwell’s “1984.” Doublespeak is the universal language. The paper of record floods the world with disinformation, claims to be working tirelessly to protect the American people and has clearly become The Ministry of Truth.
Reading Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci” — the book Big Pharma, Dr. Fauci, the U.S. government and The New York Times will do absolutely anything to prevent you from reading — has become an act of rebellion, a blow to fascism and a clear message that censorship in America just doesn’t work.
Tony Lyons, president and publisher at Skyhorse publishing, and an attorney, was publisher at The Lyons Press between 1997 and 2004. He founded Skyhorse Publishing in 2006 and has been involved with every aspect of the book publishing process.
“Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours…. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility.”—Professor Neil Postman
Once again, the programming has changed.
Like clockwork, the wall-to-wall news coverage of the latest crisis has shifted gears.
Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.
This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today: as long as we are distracted, entertained, occasionally outraged, always polarized but largely uninvolved and content to remain in the viewer’s seat, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.
The more that is beamed at us, the more inclined we are to settle back in our comfy recliners and become passive viewers rather than active participants as unsettling, frightening events unfold.
We don’t even have to change the channel when the subject matter becomes too monotonous. That’s taken care of for us by the programmers (the corporate media).
“Living is easy with eyes closed,” observed John Lennon, and that’s exactly what reality TV that masquerades as American politics programs the citizenry to do: navigate the world with their eyes shut.
As long as we’re viewers, we’ll never be doers.
Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV, entertainment news included—the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.
This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully-produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day, whether it’s fake news peddled by government agencies or foreign entities.
Those who watch reality shows tend to view what they see as the “norm.” Thus, those who watch shows characterized by lying, aggression and meanness not only come to see such behavior as acceptable and entertaining but also mimic the medium.
This holds true whether the reality programming is about the antics of celebrities in the White House, in the board room, or in the bedroom.
A term coined by media scholars Brad Waite and Sara Booker, “humilitainment” refers to the tendency for viewers to take pleasure in someone else’s humiliation, suffering and pain.
“Humilitainment” largely explains not only why American TV watchers are so fixated on reality TV programming but how American citizens, largely insulated from what is really happening in the world around them by layers of technology, entertainment, and other distractions, are being programmed to accept the government’s brutality, surveillance and dehumanizing treatment as things happening to other people.
The ramifications for the future of civic engagement, political discourse and self-government are incredibly depressing and demoralizing.
This explains how we keep getting saddled with leaders in government who are clueless about the Constitution and out-of-touch with the needs of the people they were appointed to represent.
This is also what happens when an entire nation—bombarded by reality TV programming, government propaganda and entertainment news—becomes systematically desensitized and acclimated to the trappings of a government that operates by fiat and speaks in a language of force.
Ultimately, the reality shows, the entertainment news, the surveillance society, the militarized police, and the political spectacles have one common objective: to keep us divided, distracted, imprisoned, and incapable of taking an active role in the business of self-government.
Look behind the political spectacles, the reality TV theatrics, the sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions, and the stomach-churning, nail-biting drama, and you will find there is a method to the madness.
We have become guinea pigs in a ruthlessly calculated, carefully orchestrated, chillingly cold-blooded experiment in how to control a population and advance a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.
This is mind-control in its most sinister form.
How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.
In totalitarian regimes where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.
In countries where tyranny hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination, infantilism, the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.
As George Orwell recognized, “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Orwell understood only too well the power of language to manipulate the masses.
In Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.
Where we stand now is at the juncture of Oldspeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted).
Truth is often lost when we fail to distinguish between opinion and fact, and that is the danger we now face as a society. Anyone who relies exclusively on television/cable news hosts and political commentators for actual knowledge of the world is making a serious mistake.
Unfortunately, since Americans have by and large become non-readers, television has become their prime source of so-called “news.” This reliance on TV news has given rise to such popular news personalities who draw in vast audiences that virtually hang on their every word.
In our media age, these are the new powers-that-be.
Yet while these personalities often dispense the news like preachers used to dispense religion, with power and certainty, they are little more than conduits for propaganda and advertisements delivered in the guise of entertainment and news.
Given the preponderance of news-as-entertainment programming, it’s no wonder that viewers have largely lost the ability to think critically and analytically and differentiate between truth and propaganda, especially when delivered by way of fake news criers and politicians.
While television news cannot—and should not—be completely avoided, the following suggestions will help you better understand the nature of TV news.
1. TV news is not what happened. Rather, it is what someone thinks is worth reporting. Although there are still some good TV journalists, the old art of investigative reporting has largely been lost. While viewers are often inclined to take what is reported by television “news” hosts at face value, it is your responsibility to judge and analyze what is reported.
2. TV news is entertainment. There is a reason why the programs you watch are called news “shows.” It’s a signal that the so-called news is being delivered as a form of entertainment. “In the case of most news shows,” write Neil Postman and Steve Powers in their insightful book, How to Watch TV News (1992), “the package includes attractive anchors, an exciting musical theme, comic relief, stories placed to hold the audience, the creation of the illusion of intimacy, and so on.”
Of course, the point of all this glitz and glamour is to keep you glued to the set so that a product can be sold to you. (Even the TV news hosts get in on the action by peddling their own products, everything from their latest books to mugs and bathrobes.) Although the news items spoon-fed to you may have some value, they are primarily a commodity to gather an audience, which will in turn be sold to advertisers.
3. Never underestimate the power of commercials, especially to news audiences. In an average household, the television set is on over seven hours a day. Most people, believing themselves to be in control of their media consumption, are not really bothered by this. But TV is a two-way attack: it not only delivers programming to your home, it also delivers you (the consumer) to a sponsor.
People who watch the news tend to be more attentive, educated and have more money to spend. They are, thus, a prime market for advertisers. And sponsors spend millions on well-produced commercials. Such commercials are often longer in length than most news stories and cost more to produce than the news stories themselves. Moreover, the content of many commercials, which often contradicts the messages of the news stories, cannot be ignored. Most commercials are aimed at prurient interests in advocating sex, overindulgence, drugs, etc., which has a demoralizing effect on viewers, especially children.
4. It is vitally important to learn about the economic and political interests of those who own the “corporate” media. There are few independent news sources anymore. The major news outlets are owned by corporate empires.
5. Pay special attention to the language of newscasts. Because film footage and other visual imagery are so engaging on TV news shows, viewers are apt to allow language—what the reporter is saying about the images—to go unexamined. A TV news host’s language frames the pictures, and, therefore, the meaning we derive from the picture is often determined by the host’s commentary. TV by its very nature manipulates viewers. One must never forget that every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the actual event but the edited form of the event. For example, presenting a one- to two-minute segment from a two-hour political speech and having a TV talk show host critique may be disingenuous, but such edited footage is a regular staple on news shows. Add to that the fact that the reporters editing the film have a subjective view—sometimes determined by their corporate bosses—that enters in.
6. Reduce by at least one-half the amount of TV news you watch. TV news generally consists of “bad” news—wars, torture, murders, scandals and so forth. It cannot possibly do you any harm to excuse yourself each week from much of the mayhem projected at you on the news. Do not form your concept of reality based on television. TV news, it must be remembered, does not reflect normal everyday life. Studies indicate that a heavy viewing of TV news makes people think the world is much more dangerous than it actually is.
7. One of the reasons many people are addicted to watching TV news is that they feel they must have an opinion on almost everything, which gives the illusion of participation in American life. But an “opinion” is all that we can gain from TV news because it only presents the most rudimentary and fragmented information on anything. Thus, on most issues we don’t really know much about what is actually going on. And, of course, we are expected to take what the TV news host says on an issue as gospel truth. But isn’t it better to think for yourself? Add to this that we need to realize that we often don’t have enough information from the “news” source to form a true opinion. How can that be done? Study a broad variety of sources, carefully analyze issues in order to be better informed, and question everything.
The bottom line is simply this: Americans should beware of letting others—whether they be television news hosts, political commentators or media corporations—do their thinking for them.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, a populace that cannot think for themselves is a populace with its backs to the walls: mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all.
It’s time to change the channel, tune out the reality TV show, and push back against the real menace of the police state.
If not, if we continue to sit back and lose ourselves in political programming, we will remain a captive audience to a farce that grows more absurd by the minute.
Speaking at a White House business convention on 21st March 2022 the US President, Joe Biden, said:
We are at an inflection point, I believe, in the world economy [. . .] it occurs every three of four generations. [. . .] Now is a time when things are shifting, there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it and we’ve got to unite the rest of the free world in doing it.
This caused a bit of a storm because Biden, once again, used the term “New World Order” (NWO). We are told that there is no identifiable globalist project called the NWO. Apparently, the only people who think such a project exists are “conspiracy theorists.” These people are all antesemites, can’t be trusted and absolutely must not be heard, or something like that.
In his 1992 article for the Wall Street Journal titled, How I Learned To Love The New World Order, Biden spoke about “America’s proper role in the new world order.” His latest statement indicates that his concern lingers, on this occasion with good reason. The US position as nominal leaders of the NWO is under threat from Russia and China.
Politicians, oligarchs and other alleged “leading voices” keep talking about the NWO. Every time they mention it the mainstream media (MSM) immediately spring into action, eager to “dispel the myths” or “set the record straight”, defining the term for us. Why do they feel the need to keep doing this? Why are the establishment and their media so sensitive about the term “new world order?”
The NWO Is Not an Antisemitic Trope
The “new world order” is a phrase that gets flung around by all sorts of people for a variety of reasons. It is occasionally expressed in distinctly antisemitic terms.
Some people believe that the NWO is a “Jewish plot to enslave humanity.” Very few people, who have researched and studied the NWO, share this view. It is not supported by the evidence.
Nonetheless, the false allegations of antisemitism applied to anyone who talks about the NWO provides a very useful canard which “debunkers” consistently deploy. As the historian Prof. Antony C. Sutton pointed out in his exploration of Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution:
The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. [. . .] What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?
The mainstream media (MSM) role is to confuse and mislead the public. They do not want the people to know what the NWO really is. They hide its history and generally deny its existence, but if that fails they will exploit the Holocaust to bolster their disinformation.
Antisemitism means “hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people.” That hostility and prejudice led to the Holocaust. Falsely accusing people of antisemitism, simply to undermine their arguments, dilutes its true meaning. Doing so shows a lack of respect for the victims of the Holocaust and a casual disregard for Jewish people and their history.
The MSM insist that when US Presidents talk about the NWO they are simply referring to changes in the behavioural norms, regulations and laws that broadly shape international relations. This may be the case, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the NWO has a precise historical meaning.
Given that it is a heavily charged term, is it likely that senior politicians, foreign policy strategists and national leaders would routinely use it unwittingly, without understanding what it means? Perhaps so in some cases but not in all. It is clear than many presidents, prime ministers and geoplitical experts have referred to the NWO in its proper context.
The Term “New World Order” As Propaganda
In a typical example of MSM disinformation, the UK’s Independent newspaper attempted to cover up Biden’s slip by trotting-out the usual denials and obfuscations. They claimed that Biden was simply referring to the “shifting sands of geopolitical relations.”
The Independent did not divulge the reality of the NWO to their readers. Instead it relied upon the tired slurs and allegations traditionally used to discredit those who discuss the NWO. The Independent alleged:
[P]ost-war paranoia tapped into much more ancient social anxieties about the possibility of shadowy secret covens engaging in evil [. . .] The Illuminati, the model for all subsequent sinister behind-closed-doors cabals feared by conspiracy theorist [. . .] traces its origins to the German Enlightenment of the 18th century. Belief in such a group plotting insurrection to realise its “new world order” first gained real prominence in the US among anti-government extremists in the 1990s. [. . .] The movement brings together American right-wing militant instincts with Christian fundamentalist doom prophecies [. . .] and has exploded over the last three decades in tandem with the growth of the internet. [. . .] Conspiracy theories have now become a form of mass entertainment on social media. [. . .] [Z]ealots, bored in lockdown during the pandemic, blended ancient anti-Semitic smears with quest narrative mythologies and pop cultural borrowings to worrying ends.
The so-called “newspaper” followed all of the state approved propaganda to the letter. Mixing genuine history—yes, the Illuminati really did exist—with total gibberish—there is no “movement” of NWO-exposing “extremists”—the Independent managed to fuse “conspiracy theory” with “right-wing” extremism and antisemitism. This is the standard approach to NWO denialism.
By linking the whole hodgepodge together, in a word-salad of misdirection and innuendo, the Independent were able to deliver their essential message: people who talk about the NWO do not trust government and questioning government can only lead to “worrying ends.”
The Independent didn’t offer any evidence to substantiate its conclusion, but informing readers wasn’t the point of the article. Claiming that NWO investigators are all antisemites who believe in “lizard men” allows the reader to safely discount the historians and geopolitical analysts, who have published NWO research, as crazy people.
According to the Independent, no one would even bother talking about the NWO were it not for the Internet. By claiming that questioning government policy online is “extremism,” the Independent offered its support for the government’s proposed censorship of the Internet.
Ironically, the best NWO historians published their work long before the Internet was invented. As pointed out, in one of the many contradictions in the Independent’s article, the NWO was a hot topic of conversation decades before we took to our keyboards and devices.
Introducing The New World Order
Contrary to the opinions of propagandists and debunkers, the NWO is a defined globalist project. The objective is to establish global governance. It was inaugurated more than 100 years ago and it has undergone numerous changes over subsequent generations.
While it wields immense political influence it is not “all powerful.” The NWO is tyrannical and oppressive by nature, hence the need for subterfuge and concealment. Its architects cannot simply enforce their dictatorship and expect to get away with it. We would resist, and if we did so in sufficient numbers there’s not much the NWO could do about it.
Therefore we need to be controlled by other means. Education, society, culture, economics, party politics, finance, applied psychology, behaviour modification, censorship, propaganda, war and crisis management are all used to manoeuvre us into accepting the NWO’s policy agendas. We persistently fall into this trap because we imagine our “elected” leaders are making the ‘big’ decisions: they’re not.
The New World Order (NWO) is an idea that was first proposed by Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table Movement. It was envisaged as a secret system of global governance led by an anglo trans-Atlantic alliance. It didn’t stay “secret” for very long.
Not only have politicians and the leaders of industry, commerce and finance frequently spoken about it, it has also been thoroughly exposed by historians and researchers. Perhaps most notably by Professors Carroll Quigley and Antony C. Sutton.
Even in the early 20th Century, when it was first devised, the concept of the NWO wasn’t a particularly novel idea. It was simply an attempt, by a Western hegemonic power-bloc, to establish global dominion. It is an extension of the age-old game of empires.
Rhodes’ NWO project was itself built upon pre-existing global power structures. The Venetian bankers and the other private enterprises, such as the British East India Company, had already surpassed nation states in terms of their resources, wealth and global political control. Rhodes’ vision was to convert this private financial power, which he possessed in abundance, into one, cohesive system of global rule.
The NWO model, which emerged after Rhodes’ death in 1902, immediately came unstuck. Rhodes was a British imperialist who, alongside his fellow Brits, bemoaned the loss of “their” American colony. The NWO was supposed to re-assert British control in the US, with the city of London ruling Wall Street. This is not how the US contingent viewed the burgeoning trans-Atlantic alliance and it is they who would soon come to the fore. Internecine struggles have been a consistent feature of the NWO throughout its history.
It was led from the centre by “the Society of the Elect” who would oversee, and be protected, by the first ring of power called “the Association of Helpers.” Consecutive rings were then established, affording NWO control of financial institutions, multinational corporations, governments, intelligence agencies and militaries, etc.
Only the members of the “Society” and the “Association” had a full grasp of the entire NWO project. Conceptualisation of the whole system, among the members of each subsequent ring, progressively diminished as their positions moved away from the centre of power. NWO controlled assets, placed in key administrative, academic, military, media or political roles, only knew enough to be able to perform their required tasks and report accurately back to their handlers.
There’s Nothing “New” about the NWO
Tyrants have always sought to impose their authority upon as many people as possible. Just like Sumerian kings or Roman emperors, the leaders of the NWO sought exactly the same despotism, though on a grander scale. As technology has advanced the goal of centralised authority over a global governance structure has become more attainable.
While the manipulation and control techniques have advanced, the goal hasn’t changed. This ambition is as old as civilisation itself. There have always been people who wish to rule and many more who are content to be ruled.
Our collective obedience to authority guarantees tyranny. The NWO is by no means the first kleptocracy to have cultivated and exploited our compliance.
Like all the empires that preceded it, from its inception the proposed NWO was designed to take the form of a public-private partnership between government and an immensely wealthy “Superclass.” Often these individuals and family dynasties came from the world of international finance or banking, but leading industrialists and media moguls were also prominent.
They formed the hand behind the throne. As Prof. Quigley noted in 1966:
There really is a “world system of financial control in private hands” that is “able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world.” [. . .] They now control every major international institution, every major multinational and transnational corporation both public and private, every major domestic and international banking institution, every central bank, every nation-state on earth, the natural resources on every continent and the people around the world through complicated inter-locking networks that resemble giant spider webs. [. . .] They were responsible for World War I, World War II, [. . .] They have created periods of inflation and deflation in order to confiscate and consolidate the wealth of the world. [. . .] This wealth is now being used to construct and maintain the World Empire that is in the last stages of development. [. . .] The chief architects of this new World Empire are planning another war—World War III—to eliminate any vestiges of political, economic or religious freedom from the face of the earth. They will then completely control the earth and its natural resources.
Elected politicians, and the governments they formed, were always the junior partners in this network. Many were hand picked for their malleability, predisposition to corruption or loyalty to the NWO project. With the intelligence and security agencies thoroughly co-opted, the deep state—the “state within the state” or “shadow state”—flourished.
The Party Political system was permitted because it ensured that electorates could never derail the NWO project. They could be placated with a misplaced sense of democratic oversight. Party politics also kept the masses occupied and distracted, leaving the NWO to get on with business unhindered .
Policy agendas were set and then political puppets were installed to sell the desired policies to the people, no matter who they voted for. Quigley explained the NWO’s approach to party based, representative democracy:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is [. . .] a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
The Leaders of the New World Order
The self-proclaimed leaders of the NWO are drawn from the so-called “Superclass.” Their only distinguishing attributes are immense private wealth, a ruthless willingness to act and an unshakeable belief in their divine right to rule.
The “old money” dynasties, sometimes referred to as the Black Nobility, have maintained their financial and monetary control for nearly a thousand years. They have been joined, in recent centuries, by banking families, industrialists and latterly the “new money” from the post WWII entrepreneurial, billionaire set.
The notion of a “Superclass” was proposed by Prof. David Rothkopf. As a member of the deep state think-tanks the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), among others, Rothkopf was well positioned to be personally acquainted with the robber barons he eulogised:
We’re not looking at just the wealthy; we’re looking at power. And so, the definition that we used was people who influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis. [. . .] It’s a tiny, tiny fraction of the people of the planet Earth. [. . .] [T]he really defining characteristics of this group is the nature of the networks, that networking is the force multiplier in any kind of power structure[.]
The “people who influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis” have gone by many names. “The Rhodes Crowd,” “All Souls Group,” “the Cliveden set,” “the Pilgrims” and many more. Today we often refer to them as oligarchs, thought leaders or stakeholders. No one elected Rothkopf’s “Superclass” to power.
Their wealth is often inherited from their forefathers’ war profits, often it’s the product of nepotism or profits accrued from more recent military interventions. Others have enriched themsleves from the exploitation of slave labour, rigged markets, resource theft, the drug trade, financial crime or usury, etc. The “parasite class” is a more accurate description.
The New World Order Today
It isn’t clear if the “Society of the Elect” or the “Association of Helpers” still remain. What can be said is that the current global management network is a compartmentalised, authoritarian structures. Everything first proposed by Rhodes’ pilgrims remains on track and appears to be nearing completion.
The NWO has been through several iterations and has been re-marketed in different forms. The COVID-19 pseudopandemic has seen the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset come to public attention. This is simply a new brand for the NWO as the WEF makes its bid to be the central pillar of the Global Public-Private-Partnership (G3P). The G3P represents the current management structure of the NWO.
The proposed operating system for NWO global governance is Technocracy. There are a number of key elements which, once installed, will end the last vestiges of human freedom and place the world’s population under the totalitarian control of the technocrats. In turn, the technocrats will serve the interests of the parasite class, not humanity.
Democracy will continue in name only, reassuring the masses for a while, in the form of a communitarian “civil society.” Government, working in partnership with private corporations, will encourage civil society groups to “debate” policies. Every single one of those policies will be pre-selected by the technocratic state (Technate). The apparent political choice will remain an illusion.
The global economy is currently being transformed as new markets are created. As outlined in the 1992 UN Agenda 21 document (section 8.41), the “basis for action” has already been established. A global accountancy system for all business will use stakeholder capitalism metrics to rate assets, ensuring “the integration of sustainability into economic management.”
The rating mechanisms, such as environmental, social and governance ratings (ESG’s), will enable centralised global economic planning. It will determine which ventures receive or do not receive investment. Favoured corporate partners within the G3P will do very well, as long as they promote G3P goals. Those who don’t will go bankrupt without question.
The ratings system provides a “better measurement of the crucial role of the environment as a source of natural capital.” Natural Asset Companies will transform forests into ‘carbon sequestration services’ and natural water sources into ‘human settlement resource services,’ or some such thing.
By claiming that they own nature, the G3P will create new markets worth a projected $4 quadrillion. Thereby removing oil, as the base commodity of value, and replacing it with nature (natural assets). This transformation is called “sustainable development.” It has nothing to do with environmentalism or combatting “climate change.”
The notion of uniting all of humanity to work together to solve the “climate crisis” is a contrivance to facilitate global governance. It was fabricated in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s by the globalist think-tanks that set the world’s policy agendas.
The Club of Rome, the think-tank which greatly influenced the nascent WEF, took credit for imagining the perfect global crisis. In their 1991 publications The First Global Revolution, on page 75 under the heading “the common enemy of humanity is Man,” the Club of Rome wrote:
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. [. . .] All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
This statement expresses two of the parasite class’ core beliefs. The assumed legitimacy of their claim to rule, which enables them to imagine they have the right to “designate” a global enemy, and their shared commitment to population control. They herd us like cattle, as they decide how to change our attitudes and behaviour to suit their objectives.
The International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) has also undergone a transformation. With the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) it will be revolutionised. CBDC currency will be issued by central banks as their liability. They are solely responsible for that liability. CBDC will always be their money.
CBDC is electronic money, it is therefore programmable money. This means the central banks will have complete control over every unit of CBDC currency. Whether it is in your wallet or not, it is the central bank’s money and they will permit or deny every transaction you make with it.
For example, the decisions you currently make about where you travel have already been restricted by the global policy response to a fake pandemic. If CBDC is fully adopted, you will no longer have any choice at all.
CBDC will enable your central bank’s AI algorithm to decide where you can go and when. If CBDC becomes the only form of currency available to us, none of us, no matter how much money we think we have, will have any financial freedom.
In order for Technocracy to operate, every citizen must be continually surveilled and controlled by the state (Technate). The technology capable of doing this is already being distributed globally as part of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution (4ID).
The Internet of Things (IoT) will see every device that we use report that use back to the Technate’s data centres. The Internet of Bodies (IoB) will enhance the Technates ability to monitor us in real time. Combined with the Digital-ID, that every nation is rushing towards, the surveillance and control of every individual “global citizen” will be centrally managed at the global governance level.
The New World Order, under the current management structure of the Global Public-Private Partnership, is nearing completion. It is a truly global system of governance. There are no leading governments anywhere on Earth opposed to it. All are racing ahead to adopt it with equal enthusiasm.
The Way Forward For The NWO
With Russia’s recent military operation in Ukraine, it has been suggested by some that the Russian and Chinese governments are not prepared to accept the imposition of the NWO. We can only be guided by their major policy statements and their actions. If these are anything to go by, both governments are fully on-board with the NWO agenda.
Both Russia and China are absolutely committed to sustainable development, Digital ID, 4ID, COVID biosecurity and vaccine-passports. Russia is ahead of most Western nations with regards to CBDC and China has surpassed Russia, having already started to use CBDC on a significant scale.
On 4th February Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued a joint statement on the future relationship between Russia and China. It read, in part:
Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. [. . .] of the global governance architecture and world order. [. . .] The ongoing pandemic of the new coronavirus infection poses a serious challenge to the fulfilment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [. . .] In order to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the sides call on the international community to take practical steps in key areas of cooperation such as poverty reduction, food security, vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity. [. . .] [We] will further increase cooperation in the development and manufacture of vaccines. [. . .] Russia and China intend to encourage interaction in the fields of public health, digital economy, science, innovation and technology, including artificial intelligence technologies [. . .] Particular emphasis will be placed on the fight against the novel coronavirus infection pandemic and economic recovery, digitalization of a wide range of different spheres of life.
There is no evidence to suggest that either Russia or China wish to derail the objectives of the WEF’s Great Reset. On the contrary, the evidence points towards Russia and China as perhaps the most enthusiastic and aggressive advocates for the NWO agenda. China is the world’s first Technate and Russia is a major WEF partner, most notably on cybersecurity.
Much has been made of the WEF’s decision to distance itself from Russia and sanctioned individuals. Notably this is a “temporary” freeze and smacks more of political expediency and PR, rather than any genuine severance.
There is no aspect of the NWO, G3P managed agenda that either Russia or China stand against. Their joint statement read like a Great Reset checklist.
Perhaps this is all a cunning deception. Part of a “secret plot” by Russia and China to fight the NWO. However, it looks far more like a pact between two powers bidding for political leadership of the NWO.
There is no doubt that the NWO was conceived as a project of Western based oligarchs. In the post WWII era it has bared its teeth on the geopolitical stage as the “international rules-based order.” This unipolar order, centred around the G7 group of nations, with the US led NATO alliance providing the muscle, has been dominant within the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P).
Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, and the G7/NATO alliance response to it, appears to be a watershed moment. Together, Russia and China are challenging the G7 clique with a BRICS based, G20 focused, multipolar model. It seems they are determined to seize primacy within the G3P management structure.
As a paid spokesperson for the G7 rules-based order, Joe Biden anxiously observed “there’s going to be a new world order out there, and we’ve got to lead it.” The US-led alliance’s problem is that Russia and China, in league with their BRICS partners, are pursuing exactly the same objective.
So what does President Joe Biden want the sanctions imposed on Russia to do? Think back to the 1990s and what the US-NATO imposed no-fly zone and sanctions did to the people of Iraq? The results were almost 1 million Iraqis dead, according to the website GlobalIssues.org.
Over at truthout.org, Jake Batinga reported that President Joe Biden strongly supported those sanctions as a US senator and recently has turned a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Afghanistan: “Senator Biden strongly supported the sanctions and advocated for even more aggressive policies toward Iraq. Biden was not then, and is not now, known for his humanitarian impulses or dovish foreign policy stances.”
Batinga also notes that: “More Afghans are poised to die from US sanctions over the next few months alone than have died at the hands of the Taliban and US military forces over the last 20 years combined— by a significant margin. Yet, as journalist Murtaza Hussain recently wrote, US establishment politicians and intellectuals who decried the humanitarian crisis during the fall of Kabul are seemingly unbothered by imminent mass starvation, imposed by us.”
The Biden administration— which routinely laments human rights violations perpetrated by China, Iran, Russia, and other adversaries— is ignoring desperate pleas from humanitarian organizations and UN human rights bodies, choosing instead to maintain policies virtually guaranteed to cause mass starvation and death of civilians, especially children. Yet it is important to note, and remember, that as a matter of policy, this is not particularly new; the US has often imposed harsh economic sanctions, causing mass civilian death. A previous imposition of sanctions resulted in one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes, one largely forgotten in mainstream historical memory.
In 1990, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq through the UN following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. These sanctions continued for more than a decade after Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, and had horrific humanitarian consequences eerily similar to the imminent mass starvation of Afghan civilians. The sanctions regime against Iraq— which began under President George H.W. Bush but was primarily administered by President Bill Clinton’s administration— froze Iraq’s foreign assets, virtually banned trade, and sharply limited imports. These sanctions crashed the Iraqi economy and blocked the import of humanitarian supplies, medicine, food, and other basic necessities, killing scores of civilians.”
BRIC’s made of straw
The BRIC nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China have been in the news lately and for good reason. There is talk, and talk is cheap of course, of China and Russia creating an alternative payment system to the US dollar dominated international payments system SWIFT.
Already Russia has joined China’s Cross Border Interbank Payment System Payment as an alternative to SWIFT, along with joining China’s UnionPay credit card system which serves as an alternative to Visa and Master Card who, along with dozens of other Western country businesses (Europe, USA plus Japan and South Korea), bolted Russia’s marketplace after its military operation got started in Ukraine in late February.
India apparently is trading with Russia in a rupee, ruble swap but that seems ad hoc, at best. And there is news of Saudi Arabia cutting a deal with China to use the yuan as an exchange currency. Brazil has enough internal problems to deal with: crime, disease, Amazon deforestation.
Chinese leaders must realize that if Russia falters in Ukraine which means it is unable to liberate the Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk, gain international recognition of Crimea—and maintain territorial gains made on the coast of the Black and Azov Sea’s—and/or President Putin is removed from office and Russia destabilizes, the United States will chop up Russia into separate republics, steal its resources and cancel the billions in deals signed with China for oil, gas, and grains
The United States will bring the NATO military alliance to China’s doorstep and likely put on show trials in the International Criminal Court arguing that Putin and his general staff are war criminals, which would be utter nonsense given US policies and actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
China is trying to placate the US because it still fears US economic and military power. Its party officials probably figure that they can keep building up the People’s Liberation Army, Navy, Air Force and Strategic nuclear capability and when there is enough firepower, will be able to challenge US dominance in the Pacific. But how?
The PLA forces have no modern combat experience to speak of and their plan seems to be; well, no plan at all. They are faced with the combined forces of the USA that are building new aircraft carriers, submarines and long distance B-21 bombers, along with upgrading all three legs of its nuclear TRIAD.
Which brings us back to Russia and the economic support it needs so that Biden’s sanctions don’t end up killing a million Russians. Because that is what Biden intends and his track record on supporting sanctions is disturbingly clear. When China looks at what the USA-NATO have done to the Russian economy, they are looking at their own future.
Hypocrisy
Joe Scalice at the World Socialist Website notes the hypocrisy of the USA-NATO and the compliant MSM Western media:
“The wars of aggression of Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump contained the accumulated evil of the torture in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the drone bombing of children at play, villages leveled by precision missiles and refugees drowned in the Mediterranean. Baghdad crumbled beneath the shock and awe of unstinting US bombing; Fallujah burned with white phosphorus.
The American mass media is complicit in these crimes. They never challenged the government’s assertions, but trumpeted its pretexts. They whipped up a war-frenzy in the public. Pundits who now denounce Putin were ferocious in demanding that the United States bomb civilians.
Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times in 1999 of the bombing of Serbia under Clinton, “It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted… [W]e will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too.” [Biden supported bombing Belgrade]
Biden labels Putin a war criminal in the midst of a new media hysteria. Never referring to the actions of the United States, never pausing for breath, the media pumps out the fuel for an ever-expanding war. Hubris and hypocrisy stamp every statement from Washington with an audacity perhaps unique in world history. Its hands bathed in blood up to the elbows, US empire gestures at its enemies and cries war crimes.”
Tactics
Indeed, the media have capitulated to the war propaganda narrative of the Biden Administration. The US MSM relies almost exclusively on Ukrainian sources for its error filled reporting. If you are reading the New York Times or the Washington Post, you aren’t getting the full story. Pro-Russia sites like Southfront, Newsfront, War Gonzo and others tell a different story. For example, the Retroville Mall destruction on March 21 was reported in the West as a wanton and random attack on a shopping place. In fact, the below-building parking lot was home to Ukrainian military vehicles clearly shown by a set of photos that appeared on Newsfront. Residential buildings are clearly being used by the Ukrainian forces to hide their weapons or launch anti-tank attacks from apartment building roofs or top floor apartments. That’s a tactic that makes sense. The Russians know that.
You’ve got to look at all the news sources, even the ones you don’t want to view, in order to be informed about this conflict.
Is “Natural Born Killers” an indictment of our current society that is so completely fascinated with crime, criminals and everything that waxes dramatic? Or, is it simply a glossy, stylized romp through random acts of violence?
Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” takes the life of two of society’s rejects, Mickey and Mallory, and allows them to fall in love and embark on a nationwide killing spree that becomes fodder for the press, an obsession for law enforcement and, ultimately, they become folk heroes to the common man across America.
The film, which on the surface appears to be incredibly and over-the-top violent, is actually far less violent than many films with a lesser rating. While we see shootings and killings, the vision is seldom graphic in nature. These events are much more about attitude and atmosphere than they are the violence itself.
The word “intoxication” is the word I think of most when I think of the film “Natural Born Killers.” Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) become intoxicated by killing and the fame it brings…Reporter Wayne Gale (Robert Downey, Jr.) becomes intoxicated by the story, the ratings, the spotlight…Warden McClusky (Tommy Lee Jones) is intoxicated by his power and justice.
The script, by Stone and Quentin Tarantino, vividly brings to life this intoxication in scenes that often resemble television shows and other times take on such a psychedelic feeling that it almost feels like we’re in the middle of one of those lava lamps where you look through the hole and you see different visions every time you look in it.
“Natural Born Killers”, for me, is a visionary film because it sees the truth of our society and where we are headed. We are living in a world where celebrity allows you to get away with most anything, such as in the O.J. Simpson trial, and where even the most heinous criminal becomes an overnight celebrity. In “Natural Born Killers,” Stone and Tarantino are, to me, clearly saying that we can’t just blame the criminals for the deterioration of our society…it’s all of us who buy into the drama, the glamour and the excitement that allows the cycle to perpetuate.
Stellar performances, a powerful, insightful script, groundbreaking camerawork and the unique vision of Oliver Stone combine to make “Natural Born Killers” a bold, visionary film that may shock, may offend, may alienate…but, in the end, it is a film you will remember.
“…A very small group of criminal collaborators are at the top of the Great Panic of 2020. Using disciplined network analysis, the players and patterns emerge right before your eyes…According to the anonymous IT specialist who created the document, the core of this “COVID criminal network,” around whom most everything revolves, is no larger than 20 or 30 people”
The video above is in German. Click on “Settings” to change the subtitles to English via auto-translate feature.
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
> The German Club of Clear Words takes a deep dive into the network of individuals and organizations responsible for the COVID scam
> Whether blatantly visible or not, you can identify just about any network by connecting dots between individuals and organizations. Who’s working with whom, where, and why? Who’s paying whom? And once you’ve done that, you can more clearly identify the motivations behind various decisions
> The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears to be near the top, or the center, of this COVID plandemic network. Gates is also a major funder of mainstream media, and his network extends into global food and climate change policy
> The Gates Foundation, through its funding of the WEF, also plays an important role in The Great Reset, which was officially unveiled during a WEF summit in May 2020
> Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan. Ultimately, that’s where this criminal COVID enterprise is trying to take us
The video above, by the German Club Der Klaren Worte, or the Club of Clear Words, takes a deep dive into the network of individuals and organizations responsible for the COVID scam. The audio is in German but there is a captioned translation at the bottom of the video.
The review is led by journalist and filmmaker Markus Langemann. As noted by Langemann, it’s not necessarily the people with the best ideas who win in life. Rather, the winners are those who are in the “right” network — a network with people in the right places. Never underestimate the power of a network.
Some networks are visible. One example would be an alumni network that you can join and use to promote your career. Other networks are more hidden, secretive and exclusive, and can only be entered into by select invitation by another member.
Whether blatantly visible or not, you can identify just about any network by connecting dots between individuals and organizations. Who’s working with whom, where, and why? Who’s paying whom? And once you’ve done that, you can more clearly identify the motivations behind various decisions.
A Global Network Revealed
In this video, Langemann presents “a network document that is unique in the world and which for the first time shows you the complex network of relationships, from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), companies, documents and people.”
The 170-page document details more than 7,200 links between 6,500 entities and objects, including payment flows and investments.
“In the case of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, already on page 4 of the document, you see that this foundation spent $43 billion [note that is billion with a “b”] in the U.S. alone in the period from 1994 to 2001, and distributed around half a billion dollars in Germany during this period,” Langemann says.
You can review and download the document here.1 The document is mostly in English. It’s incredibly comprehensive in scope, detailing a global network that is working behind the scenes to influence global health, finance and governance.
As an interesting aside, the document was actually created using software that investigators and detectives use to help them identify hidden connections between potential suspects. All of the data points, documents, payment data and so on, are publicly available.
Red arrows are used throughout the document to indicate money flows, such as grants, donations and other payments. As one example, as shown on page 3 of the document, at least 21 U.S. universities are financed by and through just three key organizations:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Open Philanthropy project, a research and grantmaking foundation, which is linked to the WEF
The Wellcome Trust, the world’s second-largest health foundation, located in the U.K.
A Small Tight-Knit Group
According to the anonymous IT specialist who created the document, the core of this “COVID criminal network,” around whom most everything revolves, is no larger than 20 or 30 people. Several of them appear on page 36.
They got together May 8, 2019, at a CDU/CSU event where they discussed how to strengthen global health and implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The CDU/CSU is a political alliance of two German political parties, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU). Attendees included:
Hermann Gröhe, Christian Democration Union (CDU) member and former Minister of Health
Ralph Brinkhaus, Parliamentary leader of the CDU
Dr. Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany and a CDU member
Ilona Kickbush, Ph.D., Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO
Dr. Christian Drosten, a German virologist who in early 2020 created the COVID PCR test
Dr. Clarissa Prazeres da Costa, microbiologist and infectious disease specialist
Joe Cerrell, managing director for Europe, the Middle East and East Asia for The Gates Foundation
Professor Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust
Dr. Georg Kippels, CDU member
Jens Spahn, CDU member and a former Minister of Health
From that May 2019 meeting onward, these individuals are found again and again, in overlapping working groups. You also find them rubbing elbows in the past.
For example, Farrar, Drosten and Kickbush were all present at a February 14, 2019, tabletop exercise on International Response to Deliberate Biological Events, held at the Munich Security Conference, as shown on page 124. Individuals from the Robert Koch Institute, the Chinese CDC and the Gates Foundation were also present.
In 2017 and 2018, Kickbush, Drosten and Farrar were added as members to the International Advisory Board on Global Health. Farrar and Kickbush also joined the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, a joint arm of the WHO and the World Bank, formally launched in May 2018. (Dr. Anthony Fauci is another member of this board.) Two other key persons within this network are:
Dr. Chris Elias, president of the Global Development Program at the Gates Foundation. He too is on both the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board and the International Advisory Board on Global Health, together with Kickbush, Drosten and Farrar.
Dr. Peter Piot, a Belgian-British microbiologist known for his research into Ebola and AIDS, a professor of global health, director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, a senior fellow with the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Program, and former undersecretary-general with the United Nations.
Key Organizations
Due to the complexity of the network connections, there’s really no easy way to summarize them here. You simply have to go through the document, page by page. That said, key organizations, whose networking connections are detailed, include:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Wellcome Trust, an organization funded by and strategically linked to GlaxoSmithKline (a vaccine maker in which Bill Gates is financially invested)
The World Health Organization
The Rockefeller Foundation
The World Bank Group
The World Economic Forum (WEF)
GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, founded by the Gates Foundation
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), founded by the governments of Norway and India, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and WEF
The Global Fund
Forum of Young Global Leaders, founded by WEF in 2004
FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics, seeks to ensure equitable access to reliable diagnosis around the world
Big Pharma
Johns Hopkins University
Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin
The Robert Koch Institute
The European Commission
The European Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products
The German Global Health Hub
Of these, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation appears to be near the top, or the center, of this criminal network, depending on how you visualize it. Gates is also a major funder of mainstream media which, of course, is important if you want to ensure one-sidedly good press.
Gates’ Media Control
In the past, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded the placement of “educational” messages in popular TV shows such as “ER,” “Law & Order: SVU” and “Private Practice,” including topics such as HIV prevention, surgical safety and the spread of infectious diseases, i.e., vaccinations.2 But that was only the beginning.
Via more than 30,000 grants, Gates has contributed at least $319 million to the media, including CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS, The Atlantic, Texas Tribune (U.S.), the BBC, The Guardian, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), El País (Spain) and global broadcasters like Al-Jazeera.3
More than $38 million of Gates’ money has also been funneled to investigative journalism centers. The majority of that money has gone into developing and expanding media in Africa.4 As you might suspect, Gates’ donations come with strings attached. As reported by Columbia Journalism Review:5
“When Gates gives money to newsrooms, it restricts how the money is used — often for topics, like global health and education, on which the foundation works — which can help elevate its agenda in the news media.
For example, in 2015 Gates gave $383,000 to the Poynter Institute, a widely-cited authority on journalism ethics … earmarking the funds ‘to improve the accuracy in worldwide media of claims related to global health and development.’ Poynter senior vice president Kelly McBride said Gates’s money was passed on to media fact-checking sites …
Since 2000, the Gates Foundation has given NPR $17.5 million [now up to $24.6 million6] through 10 charitable grants — all of them earmarked for coverage of global health and education, specific issues on which Gates works.”
Who Else Controls the Media?
Gates’ power over the media is immense, but he’s a not a sole actor. Other players in media control include BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world, which also control Big Pharma.7 They’re at the top of a pyramid that controls basically everything, but you don’t hear about their terrifying monopoly because they also own the media. As noted in the video, “The Puppet Masters Portfolios,” Vanguard and Blackrock:8
“… own the news that’s been created, they own the distribution of the news that’s been created, they own the lives of the reporters that are reporting the news that’s being distributed that’s being created on your TV screen. CBS, FOX, ABC, it doesn’t matter which you’re watching.”
As it stands, it’s important to be aware that conventional media are under the control of powerful influences — be it Bill Gates, BlackRock or Vanguard — and their primary intent isn’t to give you objective information but, rather, to further the agendas of those influences.
Who Really Owns the World?
BlackRock and Vanguard also own shares in an impossibly long list of virtually every major company in the world. Aside from world media, the companies controlled by Blackrock and Vanguard span everything from entertainment and airlines to social media and communications9 — quite literally everything you can think of, and much that you can’t.
Together, they form a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings, and through their influence over our centralized media, they have the power to manipulate and control a great deal of the world’s economy and events, and how the world views it all.
In all, BlackRock and Vanguard have ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. When you add in the third-largest global owner, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.10
Interestingly, Vanguard also holds a large share of Blackrock. In turn, Blackrock has been called the “fourth branch of government” by Bloomberg as they are the only private firm that has financial agreements to lend money to the central banking system.11
Owners and stockholders of Vanguard include Rothschild Investment Corp,12 Edmond De Rothschild Holding,13 the Italian Orsini family, the American Bush family, the British Royal family, and the du Pont family, the Morgan, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller families.14,15
Gates Dictates Global Food Policy Too
In addition to his grip on global health and media, Bill Gates’ network also includes global food and agricultural policy. He’s even one of the largest farmland owners in the U.S.16 Were Gates a proponent of organics, his land ownership would probably be seen as a good thing, but he’s anything but.
On the contrary, not only is he a longtime proponent of GMOs and toxic agricultural chemicals, he’s also gone on record urging Western nations to switch to 100% synthetic lab-grown imitation beef, and has railed against legislative attempts to make sure fake meats are properly labeled, since that will slow down public acceptance.17
Not surprisingly, Gates is financially invested in most of his proposed “solutions” to the world’s problems, be it hunger, disease, viral pandemics or climate change.18
It’s these kinds of self-serving endeavors that have earned Gates the unofficial title of the most dangerous philanthropist in the world. As noted by AGRA Watch,19 Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., and others, Gates’ philanthropy creates several new problems for each one he promises to solve, and can best be described as “philanthrocapitalism.”
Again and again, Gates’ globalist approach to farming has had devastating consequences for food and environmental sustainability in general and local food security in particular. It is profitable for Gates and his corporate allies, though, and furthers the technocratic plan to control the world by owning all the world’s resources.
The WEF, founded by technocrat figurehead Klaus Schwab, is just one of the global nongovernmental agencies that help promote Gates’ destructive agricultural and fake food agenda.
The Great Reset of Life as We Know It
The Gates Foundation, through its funding of the WEF, also plays an important role in The Great Reset, which was officially unveiled during a WEF summit in May 2020. As reported by The Defender, the Great Reset:20
“… is a vision for transferring the world into a totalitarian and authoritarian surveillance state manipulated by technocrats to manage traumatized populations, to shift wealth upward, and serve the interests of elite billionaire oligarchs.”
Every conceivable aspect of life and society is scheduled to be “reset” according to their plan — including global food policies. Leading that specific charge is an organization called the EAT Forum, cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which describes itself as the “Davos for food.”
The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. Project partners in this venture include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and Google. EAT also collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.
As you can see, no matter what network you’re looking at, be it global health, finance, media, environmental policy or food, the Gates Foundation, WEF and Wellcome Trust are there, and tying it all together is The Great Reset plan, with its Fourth Industrial Revolution (another Schwab concoction), which is the transformation of humanity itself into internet-connected cyborgs.
Ultimately, that’s where this criminal COVID enterprise is trying to take us. To prevent that dystopian nightmare from becoming our lot, we need to see the hidden networks working behind the scenes.
We need to recognize that decisions are not made by chance. There’s a plan, and decisions in seemingly disparate areas actually have the identical aim. You can’t see that if you’re thinking that people, organizations and even countries are working independently.
They are in fact networked, which is what makes them so powerful. The thing that can interrupt or break that power is public insight into these networks, and understanding that the ultimate goal of all of them is to “reset” and “rebuild” civilization (“Build Back Better”) into one of their own making.
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Not wanting to sound hyperbolic, but I am starting to conclude that the nuclear madmen running the U.S./NATO New Cold War they started decades ago are itching to start a nuclear war with Russia. Their hypocrisy and nihilistic thirst for death and destruction are so extreme that it boggles my mind. They accuse Russia of starting a New Cold War when they did so decades ago and have been pushing the envelope ever since. Now they act shocked that Russia, after many years of patience, has struck back in Ukraine.
In 2017, Oliver Stone released his four part interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Putin Interviews were conducted between 2015, the year after the U.S. engineered the coup d’état in Ukraine installing Nazis to power in that country bordering Russia, and 2017. Stone was of course bashed for daring to respectfully ask questions and receive answers from the Russian leader who the American media has always cast, like all the mythic bogeymen, as the new Hitler intent on conquering the world, when it is the United States, not Russia, that has over 750 military bases throughout the world and has attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria – the list is endless.
In his Putin interviews, Oliver Stone, a man of truth and honor, lets viewers catch a glimpse of the real Vladimir Putin and the matters that concern him as the leader of Russia. In 2018, I wrote of those interviews:
. . . he [Putin] makes factual points that should ring loud and clear to anyone conversant with facts. One: that the U.S. needs an external enemy (“I know that, I feel that.”). Two: the U.S.A. engineered the coup d’état in the Ukraine on Russia’s border. Three: the U.S. has surrounded Russia with US/NATO troops and bases armed with anti-ballistic missiles that can, as Putin rightly says to Stone, be converted in hours to regular offensive nuclear missile aimed at Russia. This is a factual and true statement that should make any fair-minded person stand up in horror. If Russia had such missiles encircling the United States from Cuba, Mexico, and Canada, what American would find it tolerable? What would CNN and The New York Times have to say? Yet these same people readily find it impossible to see the legitimacy in Russia’s position, resorting to name calling and illogical rhetoric. Russia is surrounded with U.S/NATO troops and missiles and yet Russia is the aggressor.
In the years since those interviews, U.S./NATO has consistently tightened the noose around Russia, including fueling the Ukrainian attacks on the Donbass, killing thousands, all the while pleading innocent and expecting no reply. Now the reply has come.
Although I have no inside information, I get the sense that the Western Empire is planning/initiating counter-measures far more extreme than the highly publicized economic sanctions. While it is true, as many commentators such as Ray McGovern and Pepe Escobar have pointed out, that a paradigm shift is underway and the once dominant U.S./NATO bully boys must now contend with the Sino-Russian alliance that has ushered in a dramatic change, nevertheless, as in the past decades, the so-called leaders of the U.S. are a dumb bunch driven by unquenchable demons. As McGovern says:
Yet, there remain unsettling indications coming from Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, Antony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan that senior administration ‘dolts’ (copyright North Korean leader Kim Jong Un) in the Washington Swamp still don’t get it.
I’m afraid they don’t and never will. That is what frightens me. While it seems counterintuitive and totally irrational that these people would be planning to use some type of nuclear weapon in this current situation, I am not so sure. They obviously pushed Russia to have no alternative but to attack Ukraine, and now that they have accomplished that goal, it seems to me that they will up the ante. Diplomacy is not their way; violence is.
This is what happens when a bunch of ragged hyenas, jackals and tiny rodents poke The Bear: a new geopolitical order is born at breathtaking speed.
From a dramatic meeting of the Russian Security Council to a UN history lesson delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the subsequent birth of the Baby Twins – the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk – all the way to the breakaway republics’ appeal to Putin to intervene militarily to expel the NATO-backed Ukrainian bombing-and-shelling forces from Donbass, it was a seamless process, executed at warp speed.
The (nuclear) straw that (nearly) broke the Bear’s back – and forced it to pounce – was Comedian/Ukrainian President Volodymy Zelensky, back from the Russophobia-drenched Munich Security Conference where he was hailed like a Messiah, saying that the 1994 Budapest memorandum should be revised and Ukraine should be nuclear-rearmed.
As usual, his analysis is correct, but it may fail to grasp the unspeakable nature of the madness that drives desperadoes. If those running U.S. foreign policy feel that a new geo-political order is being born “at breathtaking speed” as a result of Russia’s move into Ukraine, then they are capable of extreme acts. And they have all the mainstream western media behind them, barking out their non-stop propaganda.
We are inexorably moving toward a global war that will become nuclear if an international movement doesn’t quickly arise to stop it. Most people bemoan the thought of such a war to end all wars, but refuse to analyze the factors leading to it. It seems so unimaginable, but It happens step-by-step, and many steps have already been taken with more coming soon. It’s so obvious that most can’t see it, or don’t want to. The corporate main stream media are clearly part of the continuation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, and those who still rely on them for the truth are beyond reach. We need to use all alternative means to raise the alarm and make sure the ultimate nightmare never occurs.
Perhaps hyperbole is the only way to do so, for it may be closer to the truth than we want to believe.
I and many others have been arguing, almost since the inception of the covid planscamdemic, that sooner or later the narrative would fall apart, and be revealed for the vast fraud and human experimentation project that it was and is.
As it turns out, life insurance and the companies offering it may be in the forefront of ruining the narrative, and exposing the fraud. And correct me if I’m wrong, but does not fraud remove liability protections from companies?
But I digress. In France, a court has apparently sided with an insurance company which refused to pay out on a life insurance policy on someone that was quackcinated:
The UK government now oddly admits that vaccines have damaged the natural immune system of those who have been double-vaccinated.
The UK government has admitted that once you have been double-vaccinated, you will never again be able to acquire full natural immunity to Covid variants… or possibly any other virus.
Do we now get a “real” pandemic? In its Week 42 “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report”, the UK Department of Health admits on page 23, that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who become infected after two doses of vaccination.”
It goes on to say that this drop in antibodies is essentially permanent. What does this mean? We know that vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus (indeed, the report elsewhere shows that vaccinated adults are now much more likely to be infected than unvaccinated ones).
The Brits now find that the vaccine interferes with the body’s ability to make antibodies after infection not only against the spike protein but also against other parts of the virus.
In particular, vaccinated people do not appear to form antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein, the envelope of the virus, which is a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people. In the long term, the vaccinated are far more susceptible to any mutations in the spike protein, even if they have already been infected and cured once or more. The unvaccinated, on the other hand, will gain lasting (if not permanent) immunity to all strains of the alleged virus after being naturally infected with it even once.
Thank you Zero Hedge for telling it like it is: these are not vaccines in any traditional sense (after all, they had to change the definitions of vaccines in dictionaries so that the new experimental drugs – thank you Donald Trump – could pass for vaccines.
But in addition to the above news, there’s this:
The court allegedly justified its ruling as follows:
The side effects of the experimental vaccine are published and the deceased could not claim to have known nothing about it when he voluntarily took the vaccine. There is no law or mandate in France that compelled him to be vaccinated. Hence his death is essentially suicide.
The court had this to say:
The court recognizes the classification of the insurer who, in view of the announced side effects, including death, legally regards participation in the phase three experiment, whose proven harmlessness is not given, as voluntarily taking a fatal risk that is not covered by the contract and legally recognized as suicide. The family has appealed. However, the insurer’s defense is recognized as well-founded and contractually justified, as this publicly known fatal risk is legally considered suicide, since the customer has been notified and has agreed to voluntarily take the risk of death without being obliged or compelled to do so.
As mentioned last week, insurers, or should we say the quants in cardigans, couldn’t and can’t adequately assess the risk associated with an experimental drug, and as such can’t insure against it.
And note the implications (and again, thanks to Zero Hedge for spelling them out clearly:
While this is all playing out there are hundreds of other medical professionals noticing the same things.
Well, I can think of a couple of things. One is that the insurance industry isn’t going to let itself be hampered by political correctness and obfuscating the fact that the vaccines are experimental and that some of the short-term side effects are stated and known.
So this means that health insurance policies will come into question for those who thought they were covered but realise now they’ve jeopardized their policies. I can certainly imagine those who were coerced by employers to turn around and sue their employers for compensation, even if nothing happens to them.
Consider the case referenced above and now consider that precedent is set. Any employee that has been forced by their employer to effectively void their life insurance policy may have recourse to sue their employer for compensation.
The US, being more litigious than a trophy wife to an old rich guy, seems like it’s primed for this. Time will tell, but this could become an entire fustercluck to US companies that forced employees to experiment with drugs. (Boldface added in some cases for emphasis)
And yes, in my opinion, that includes the media which seldom, if ever, covered adverse reactions or gave equal time to doctors pursuing other therapies… and let the linked article sink in: AIDS is now appearing in the triple quackcinated…
And what do the covid planscamdemic and the 1980s AIDS crisis have in common?
After the Crash 