For the “commenter” on the live feed chat who was snarkily asking about masks and surgeries, I urge you to consider the following:
Very interesting research: [Arthur Firstenberg is the author of *The Invisible Rainbow*].
Arthur Firstenberg on facial masks:
“As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.
They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.
And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.
Their conclusion: ‘It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all’ and that wearing a mask during surgery ‘is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.’
I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease.
But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
• Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’
• Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’
• Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
• In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
• A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’
• Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’
• Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
• Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’
• Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
• Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.
• Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
• Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’
• Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’
• Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.’
Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55.
All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.
‘We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,’ writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.”
In Joost Meerloo’s analysis of false confessions and totalitarian regimes, The Rape of the Mind, he coins a phrase for the ‘dumbing down’ of critical resistance – menticide. “In the totalitarian regime,” he wrote, “the doubting, inquisitive, and imaginative mind has to be suppressed. The totalitarian slave is only allowed to memorise, to salivate when the bell rings.”
Face masks make you suggestible; they make you more likely to follow someone else’s direction and do things you wouldn’t otherwise do
Neolithic man had a similar problem dealing with his livestock. Homo sapiens’ success has relied not insignificantly on cattle – their dairy, meat, leather and manure. Yet the cow’s ancestor, the auroch, was quite a different beast. It was fast, aggressive and dangerous – hardly conducive to be corralled into predictable channels of behaviour. So, about 10,500 years ago, man started to deliberately breed the most docile aurochs for domestication.
The key word here is docile, which comes from the Latin docere, meaning “to teach” (as does, say, ‘doctorate’ and ‘document’). Being docile means being compliant and following commands, which means submitting to a system of thought.
Whereas animals, however, typically need to be bred to have a higher level of reasoning to be taught commands, human beings, already being quite smart, need to be dumbed down. You won’t disobey an order if you lack the cognitive ability to question it. This is particularly pertinent to the smooth running of a modern world system which relies on millions of individual souls, each with their own nuanced life history and perspective, thinking and acting in the same way.
The empirical literature has shown that compliance and suggestibility are negatively related to intelligence (e.g., Gudjonsson, 1991). In consumer psychology, there is even a technique called ‘disrupt-then-reframe’: bamboozle people first and they’ll be more likely to buy what you’re selling (Davis & Knowles, 1999). Ultimately, the common denominator for increasing suggestibility is switching off executive function in the prefrontal cortex – disabling the superego, the conscience, the internal monologue. Without Jiminy Cricket on his shoulder, Pinocchio would never have become a real boy – he would have always remained a puppet. Modern society is shot through with things that make us similarly dumb (literally, unable to speak).
The effect of television, for example, as Meerloo wrote, is to “catch the mind directly, giving people no time for calm, dialectical conversation with their own minds.” The mind-numbing, irrational effect of visual communication has been recognised throughout history. Not for nothing did religions talk about the word of God and forbid graven images. Unsurprisingly, empirical studies showing that watching television makes you stupid in both the short- and long-term (Hoang et al., 2016; Lillard & Peterson, 2011). This is to say nothing of pornography, which is now consumed by 98% of men but known to inhibit the part of the brain dealing with conscience and consciousness, the prefrontal cortex (Kuhn & Gallinat, 2014).
Moving from circuses to bread, alcohol, of course, reduces cognitive function in the short-term (Hindmarch & Sherwood, 1991). Even at moderate levels of consumption, it accelerates cognitive decline in older age (Topiwala et al., 2017). Junk food, likewise, makes it harder to think in the short-term (Barnes & Joyner, 2012) and harms cognitive ability in the long-term (Reichelt & Rank, 2017).
Fluoride has become something of a cliché of conspiracy theorists; being added to the public water supply in multiple countries around the world, ostensibly to reduce tooth decay. However, the evidence supporting the dental benefits of fluoridated water is poor, while many studies have shown it can damage tooth aesthetics via fluorosis (McDonagh et al., 2000). Many more studies have found that fluoridated water lowers the population’s intelligence (e.g., Borman & Fyfe, 2013; Green et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2000; Rocha-Amador et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2008).
Which brings us to face masks.
Face masks can now be added to the list of mandates that make you stupid. As if Piers Morgan feverishly promoting them weren’t evidence enough, here are the facts on why you absolutely, categorically should not wear a face mask. They make you suggestible; they make you more likely to follow someone else’s direction and do things you wouldn’t otherwise do. In short, they switch off your executive function – your conscience.
A great example comes from a study by Mathes and Guest (1976), who asked participants how willing they would be, and how much they would have to be paid, to carry a sign around the university cafeteria reading “masturbation is fun” (this being 1976, doing such a thing would be considered embarrassing; these days it will probably earn you a course credit!). The results showed that when people wore a mask, they were more likely to carry the sign and required less money to do so ($30 compared to $48, on average).
Meanwhile, Miller and Rowold (1979) presented Halloween trick-or-treaters with a bowl of chocolates and told them they were allowed to take only two each. When the children thought they weren’t being watched, they helped themselves. Children without a mask broke the rule, taking more chocolates, 37% of the time, compared to 62% for masked children. The authors concluded that masks “lead to lower restraints on behaviour”.
The effect has similarly been found online: the online disinhibition effect refers to the tendency for people to act antisocially when anonymous online (Suler, 2004). There is even an infamous trolling movement calling itself Anonymous and using a mask as its symbol.
The disinhibiting effects of wearing a mask are described by psychologists in terms of a suspension of the superego’s control mechanisms, allowing subconscious impulses to take over. Saigre (1989) wrote that masks ‘short-cut’ conscious defence systems and encourage “massive regression” to a more primitive state; Castle (1986) wrote that eighteenth century masquerades allowed mask-wearers to release their repressed hedonistic and sexual impulses; and Caillois (1962) similarly wrote about European masked carnivals involving libidinal activities including “indecencies, jostling, provocative laughter, exposed breasts, mimicking buffoonery, a permanent incitement to riot, feasting and excessive talk, noise and movement”. In the 12th Century, Pope Innocent III banned masks as part of his fight against immorality; and in 1845, New York State made it illegal for more than two people to wear masks in public, after farmers wore masks to attack their landlords.
From a neuroimaging perspective, masks are known to inhibit identity and impulse control – both associated with executive function in the prefrontal cortex (e.g., Glannon, 2005; Tacikowski, Berger & Ehrsson, 2017). In other words, masks silence the Jiminy Cricket in the brain.
It is little wonder that covering our mouths would ‘shut us up’ psychologically. Studies have shown that clothing has a powerful effect on how we think (or not), via a principal known as enclothed cognition: wearing a lab coat enhances cognitive function (Adam & Galinsky, 2012), wearing a nurse’s scrubs increases empathy (López-Pérez et al., 2016), and wearing counterfeit brands increases the likelihood of cheating in a test (Gino, Norton & Ariely, 2010). Similarly, in the world of body language, someone putting their hand over their mouth is a sign that they are listening intently: they are ready to receive information, not to question it.
While no studies have looked at the effect of masks on verbal reasoning, it is fairly safe to assume that priming a ‘shutting up’ would have a cognitive effect. For example, extraverts are less compliant than introverts (Cohen et al., 2004; Gudjonsson et al., 2004); the development of conscience in humans is heavily linked to that of language (e.g., Arbib, 2006); and inner speech is highly related to cognitive functions (Alderson-Day & Fernyhough, 2015). Crucially, verbal reasoning is strongly correlated with moral reasoning (e.g., Hayes, Gifford & Hayes, 1998): being unable to ‘speak’ makes one less able to deduce what is moral and immoral behaviour.
There is also a more basic reason masks might make you stupid: decreasing oxygen flow to the brain. Face veils reduce ventilatory function in the long-term (Alghadir, Aly & Zafar, 2012), and surgical masks may reduce blood oxygenation among surgeons (Beder et al., 2008): believe it or not, covering your mouth makes it harder to breathe. Reviewing the N95 face mask, a 2010 study (Roberge et al.) concluded that “carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards” inside the mask. A post-COVID study found that 81% of 128 previously-fit healthcare workers developed headaches as a result of wearing personal protective equipment (Ong et al., 2020).
Not only do face masks make it hard to breathe, but the evidence that they even work to stop the spread of coronavirus is limited at best. A popular brand of mask even carries a warning on its packaging that it “will not provide any protection against COVID-19”; as for preventing carriers from spreading the disease, a meta-analysis found, for example, that of eight randomised control trial studies, six found no difference in transmission rates between control and intervention groups (while one found that a combination of masks and handwashing is more effective than education alone, and the other found that N95 masks are more effective than standard surgical masks; bin-Reza et al., 2012). Non-surgical masks, such as scarfs and cloths, are almost useless (Rengasamy et al., 2010). Masks may even be unhealthy, causing a build-up of bacteria around the face (Zhiqing et al., 2018).
The fact that masks likely don’t even work brings us to the final reason that wearing one inculcates stupidity and compliance: through a bombardment of lies, contradictions, and confusion, the state overwhelms your ability to reason clearly.
As Theodore Dalrymple wrote, “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
The point of face masks is not to protect humans, but to diminish humanity – to rob people of their ego, their identity, and their autonomy. Masks are worn by disposable horror movie villains and ignorable background dancers; they make people less-than-human.
Dehumanisation is rarely followed by anything good. Face masks are another worrying portent of what’s to come, alongside a seismic shift in mainstream discourse. In an analysis of the Rwandan genocide, one of the first linguistic predictors was the tendency to look backwards, to blame, and to focus on past wrongs and injustices (Donohue, 2012), which will sound familiar to anyone unfortunate enough to have read The BBC or The Guardian recently. Similarly, where the Tutsis were referred to as cockroaches by the Hutus, and the Nazis depicted the Jews as rats, Nancy Pelosi recently promised to “fumigate” President Trump out of the White House.
It is hard to predict how the wheel of life will revolve in the coming years, but all signs point to trouble. During the crisis years of a generational cycle, only one thing can be guaranteed: the importance of a clear mind. To that end, allow yourself the dignity, identity and Logos of being human – and never, ever wear a mask.
Investment advisor and former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts says big change is ahead of the world, and “nothing will ever be the same.”
Fitts lays out the so-called “reset” you’ve been hearing about for the past few years and says,
“We are in the process that I would recall is a global reset. The entire financial system is being reset. There are two aspects of this: One is extending the old system, and the other is bringing in the new system. It’s very much being done on the fly by trial and error, but the new system is 100% digital.”
The new system, according to Fitts, will be a top down control system where “tyranny” will be the key feature. Fitts predicts,
“If you look at the tyranny they are working on delivering, I don’t think most people realize how hideous some of their plans are. So, the tyranny that’s coming and the printing that’s coming is greater than anything we have seen so far…
The Fed started a new round of QE in March, and if you look at the extent of that, it is extraordinarily inflationary. That’s because this time around, the Fed is not just doing $3 trillion in QE. What the Fed did in three or four months, what it took them to do in three to five years during the so-called financial crisis, that is an extraordinary amount. Then you combine it with fiscal stimulus because the Fed is now buying the Treasuries… and the Treasury is sending checks out to Main Street. We are seeing that money going into the economy that is extraordinarily inflationary.”
Fitts describes the overall situation, “We are basically entering into a war period, and it’s dangerous…”
“There are many different layers, but this is what World War III looks like.
The people running things and centralizing economic power and control are saying we don’t want to share the subsidy anymore with the general population…
This is a spiritual war between good and evil. Part of that war spreads out to invisible technology like mind control.”
Fitts says gold and silver will be assets to have in the future. Fitts explains,
“If you look at where they want to go, their vision is so dark that I think the more people recognize and see it, the more they are going to want simple assets they can control that are not digital and try to keep them outside the system. Globally . . . I think the pressure is going to be on to have precious metals.”
Fitts is basically predicting higher highs and higher lows for gold and silver prices for some time to come.
* * *
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, publisher of The Solari Report.
Earlier this year, astronomers announced a dazzling discovery. A fast radio burst called FRB 121102 wasn’t just repeating – it was repeating on a discernible cycle.
For around 67 days, the source is silent. Then, for around 90 days, it wakes up again, spitting out repeated millisecond radio flares before falling silent, and the whole 157-day cycle repeats.
However, fast radio bursts are extremely mysterious, and there was no guarantee that the cycle would continue. So it’s pretty exciting that the source has flared up again, right on cue – consistent with predictions of its activity cycle.
This suggests that there’s significant value in monitoring known fast radio burst sources – but also in continuing to watch FRB 121102 to try to understand what could be causing the phenomenon.
A quick refresher: fast radio bursts are, as the name suggests, bursts of radio waves that are very fast, just a few milliseconds long, coming from galaxies millions to billions of light-years away. But they’re also extremely powerful; within those milliseconds, they can discharge as much power as hundreds of millions of Suns.
Most of the time, they flare once and we have not heard from them since, making them impossible to predict and very difficult to trace. And we don’t know what causes them, although recent evidence points pretty strongly to a type of neutron star called magnetars.
But a handful of fast radio burst sources have been detected repeating, and these could be one of the keys that helps at least partially solve the mystery.
Before its cycle was discovered by University of Manchester astronomer Kaustubh Rajwade and his team, FRB 121102 was already famous for being the most active fast radio burst discovered yet, spitting out repeated bursts several times since its discovery in 2012.
Because it repeats, astronomers could watch for activity, and trace it to a source galaxy. It was the first fast radio burst to be localised, to a star-forming region in a dwarf galaxy 3 billion light-years away.
The discovery of periodicity in its activity – based on five years’ worth of data – could place some important constraints on what it could be.
For instance, high-mass X-ray binaries in the Milky Way – those that contain neutron stars – can have orbital periods of up to hundreds of days. But there are some types of binary systems with much shorter periods – these could be ruled out for FRB 121102.
And now, periodicity is supported by new sets of observations – although the timing may need revision.
A team led by Marilyn Cruces of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy detected 36 bursts from FRB 121102 using the Effelsberg 100-m Radio Telescope between September 2017 to June 2020. Combined with the data from Rajwade’s research, the team derived a periodicity of 161 days, in a new preprint paper uploaded to arXiv.
This paper gives dates between 9 July and 14 October 2020 for the source’s active period.
But Cruces and her team aren’t the only ones looking. A team led by Pei Wang of the National Astronomy Observatory of China used the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical radio Telescope to monitor FRB 121102’s location on several dates between March and August 2020.
Between mid-March and late July, they didn’t detect any bursts. But on 17 August, FAST detected at least 12 bursts from FRB 121102 – suggesting the source is once again in an active phase – although the team calculated a different periodicity from both Rajwade’s team and Cruces’ team.
“We combine the bursts collected in Rajwade et al. (2020) and Cruces et al. (2020) with these newly detected by FAST in 2019 and 2020, and obtain a new best-fit period of ~156.1 days,” they wrote in a notice posted to The Astronomer’s Telegram.
According to Wang’s team’s calculations, the active phase is due to end between 31 August and 9 September 2020. If FRB 121102 continues to show activity beyond these dates, this could suggest that either the periodicity isn’t real, or that it has somehow evolved, they noted in their post.
Of course, it’s also possible that the periodicity calculations need to be refined. Which means we should continue to keep an eye on FRB 121102.
“We encourage more follow-up monitoring efforts from other radio observatories,” the researchers wrote.
Guided by the meticulous work of Dr. David E. Martin, Plandemic II: Indoctornation, tracks a three decade-long money trail that leads directly to the key players behind the COVID 19 pandemic.
Plandemic II connects the dots between all forms of media, the medical industry, politics and the financial industry to unmask the major conflicts of interests with the decision makers that are currently managing this crisis.
Consider this film to be a “must-see” documentary that will absolutely blow your mind and forever change your understanding of the total corruption of the “science” establishment and the for-profit medical system.
In essence, a group of evil people built this virus and released it onto the world so they could crush humanity and earn billions in profits. Even more shockingly, this isn’t the first time they’ve tried this.
You can watch the first Plandemic documentary here.
Hippocratic Hypocrisy: A collaborative film by Spacebusters and Dr. Andrew Kaufman about how authentic medicine was hijacked by the power elite and turned into a deadly, sickness for profit industry.
Video Player
56:40
Written by : Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Steven S. Busters
Produced by: Spacebusters
Technical advisor: Rosco S. Busters
This tale of two snakes is the story of how medicine in the United States, and eventually the world, was subverted into a commerce business enterprise with the central goal of creating and maintaining illness throughout the population for profit.
As I promised earlier this week, most(but not all) of this week’s honorable mentions concern the planscamdemic. I’ve tried to gather the most informative, and in some cases most helpful, articles on how to fight the medical technocratic tyranny. My thanks to all the following:
The Facts:An article written by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel Ph.D. in Forbes tells readers it is dangerous to do your own research on important topics of our time. He suggests we should only listen to experts.
Reflect On:Why do we hold on to ideas even when new evidence tells us it’s time to question? What state of being identifies so strongly with ideas of the mind that we think those ideas are our identity?
In a recent article out of Forbes, scientist Ethan Siegel suggests people should not “do their own research” on topics as they are not qualified to understand, and doing that research yourself could be dangerous. Throughout the article, Siegel cites the public health disaster that he believes ensued as a result of people questioning vaccines. He also points out that people doubt the validity of water fluoridation due to their dangerous research, and now there exists people who question water fluoridation when they shouldn’t.
To both vaccines and water fluoridation, Siegel believes there is scientific consensus on safety and effectiveness, and therefore anyone doing their own research must stop, and if they come to a different conclusion than the consensus, they must be unqualified.
This is where Siegel’s lack of digging and research is revealed. There is plenty of scientific evidence that would lead any functioning individual to question the safety of both vaccines and water fluoridation. In fact, the science is on the sides of both vaccines having inherent dangers we need to come to terms with, and water fluoridation having serious effects on brain function. Thousands of scientists see this. These are not rare, internet-driven realities, they are extremely well scientifically backed, and the only thing to points to them being untrue is unbacked mainstream scientific culture.
This is though, the natural progression of information. At first, it is ridiculed heavily, even when the evidence points to the fact that we are incorrect to ridicule. It’s odd because many scientists seem to throw the scientific method out when doing their work. “Once we know something, it cannot change, even when new research comes forth” This is the unscientific sentiment it appears many are operating from. But why? Why do we get so stuck in our ideas?To
Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we’re currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Wood’s foray into the ideology of technocracy began with a chance meeting with Anthony Sutton at a gold conference in the early 1970s. Sutton has written several books about political science, primarily about the Trilateral Commission, which Wood had studied from a financial angle.
They developed a relationship and eventually wound up collaborating on a newsletter and two books, “Trilaterals Over Washington: Volumes 1 and 2,” which have recently been re-released. …
Definition of Technocracy
So, what is “technocracy”? As explained by Wood, technocracy is a movement that got started in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise was going to die, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch.
They called this system “technocracy.” It was to be a resource-based economic system. Rather than basing the economic system on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, this system is instead based on energy resources and social engineering. In a nutshell, under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.
“They actually proposed to use an energy script instead of money, and let energy be the determining factor on what was produced, bought and sold, and consumed, and so on.
…
‘Technocracy is the science of social engineering. The scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.’
First off, you’ll see that it’s the science of social engineering. That ought to be enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your head, because who wants to be scientifically engineered by somebody that you don’t know, somebody that doesn’t know you, but rather has this idea that they can reform you, remake you?
But most importantly, you see the economic aspect that they had in mind, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism — that’s all the people in society — to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.
This was an economic system from the get go, not a political system. And what’s really important to see in that — the big takeaway here — is that technocracy viewed politics and politicians as an unnecessary, irrelevant, and even just a stumbling block to getting on down the road with society.
They proposed to get rid of all the politicians. Just dismiss them. Dismiss the Senate, the Congress, all the elected officials. …
Scientists Stand Above All Other Individuals
As explained by Wood, the technocrats “had this crazy idea that they were better than everybody else.” This philosophy and mindset can be traced back to Henri de Saint-Simon, a French philosopher from around 1800. Saint-Simon is considered the father of scientism, social sciences, transhumanism and technocracy.
He said in one of his essays, “A scientist … is a man who foresees. It is because science provides the means to predict, that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.” This was the mindset of technocrats in the 1930s, and it’s the same today. In essence, science is used to manipulate society and keep the economic engine running.
Top Technocrats Rescued Through Operation Paperclip
While technocracy began in the U.S., the first country to ever implement it was Nazi Germany under Hitler. …
When technocracy first began in the U.S., it was a membership organization. At its peak, there were more than 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members in the United States and Canada. Incidentally, the head of technocracy in Canada was the grandfather of Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX. Around the same time, a technocratic organization also got started in Germany.
“As Hitler rose to power, he realized that the technocrats, as an organization, would be competitive with him becoming a dictator. So, he outlawed the Technocratic party in Germany. …It was discovered later by historians that these technocrats, who were banned from meeting, were actually very active during the course of World War II, during Hitler’s reign. They were the statisticians, the mathematicians, the physicists, the engineers for business and so on; that really enabled Hitler’s expansion and dictatorship.
…
After the war … a top-secret operation [took place] in the United States … called Operation Paperclip, which brought some 1,200 of these top scientists and engineers from Germany to the United States. They sanitized their resumes and installed them into positions of scientific prowess in the United States, like at the national technology agencies.
So, the very same people that were helping Hitler do what he did, completely bypassed the Nuremberg trial. …
Beauty and the Beast
The Trilateral Commission’s co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Columbia University professor, brought the concept of technocracy into the Commission in 1973, with the financial support of David Rockefeller.
“Brzezinski wrote this book called ‘Between Two Ages — America’s Role in the Technetronic Era.’ It caught Rockefeller’s eye. And so, Rockefeller and Brzezinski became like the beauty and the beast. They went on to form the Trilateral Commission, which declared, from Day 1, that they wanted to foster a new international economic order.
…
The Trilateral Commission more or less took over the Jimmy Carter administration, and has dominated the political structure ever since….
Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were all members. Within two weeks of his inauguration, Barack Obama appointed 11 Trilateral Commission members to top-level positions in his administration, equivalent to 12% of the Commission’s entire U.S. membership.1 …
What the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece.
Their last great power grab in the U.S. was the 9/11 tragedy. It allowed them to push through the Patriot Act, which sacrificed many of our freedoms in one fell swoop. They’re in the process of doing it again with the current pandemic. It’s quite clear the pandemic is being used to move us toward an authoritarian tyranny.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a platform that will dwarf their 9/11 power-grab and radically increase their ability to continue to erode our civil liberties and control our society. If you find this line of reasoning interesting, I think you will enjoy the video below from Really Graceful, which reviews whether or not you’d even notice if you were living under tyranny.
Technocratic Infrastructure
It’s also crucial to understand that the only reason they’ve not yet been able to overtake the U.S. is because of our Constitution. We’re the biggest barrier worldwide to implementing technocracy, which is why there’s been so much focus on dismantling the freedoms of Americans. …
Rule by algorithm. Operation by algorithm. This is the big predominant thing we see today. When something doesn’t fit into the algorithm, you’ll hear the term ‘Science says.’ We should do that thing.”
To give you just one rather hilarious real-world example of the technocratic “science says” strategy, here’s a sentence from a recent article in The Sun:3 “People who refuse to wear a face mask to reduce the risk of coronavirus have lower cognitive ability, new research has found.”
Not only is it laughable because it’s illogical, it’s also completely irrelevant, since there’s not a single well-designed study showing that mask wearing lowers the spread of viral infections. For the scoop on this, see my interview with Denis Rancourt.
Rule by Algorithm
Initially, science is used to issue suggestions, but those suggestions rapidly turn into mandates. We’ve repeatedly seen that with vaccines, for example. But the COVID-19 pandemic has also revealed there’s a much larger plan that includes implantable digital identifications, medical records and vaccine passports, digital currency and banking — all of which will ultimately be tied together so that algorithms and automation will be able to keep everyone in line, everywhere, all the time. …
Data Is the New Oil
In her book, “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,” professor Shoshana Zuboff exposes the stunning capacities currently available to surveil, analyze and manipulate our behavior. It’s crucial to realize that as bad as it is today, the predictive power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate, which means their ability to manipulate behavior is increasing at a pace we cannot fully comprehend. …
What’s the Ultimate Goal?
For instance, years ago, if you searched for a holistic medicine topic, many of my articles would appear at the top of your search. In June 2019, Google quietly started to eliminate Mercola.com from search results. I discussed this in “Google Buries Mercola in Their Latest Search Engine Update, Part 1 and Part 2.”
“You haven’t done anything different. You’re still doing exactly what you did, but Google is treating you as a non-person now,” Wood says.
Google has this power to present information that it wants you to hear or see, and they can manipulate minds and mindsets. … It’s just amazing. They even said, internally, that they believe they have the power to take the 2020 election away from Trump because of this very feature. Well, wait a minute.
If any person or organization sets themselves up intentionally to overthrow the government of the United States, I think there’s a term for that. It’s called sedition….
It doesn’t really have to do with a class of people that they’re censoring, it has to do with the topics that are being censored. That’s the key thing here to understand. One of the key topics today that they are so in love with is this idea of global manipulation of the human [gene] pool, to get the medical hooks into your body.
This is social engineering at its extreme, where they’re not only engineering the society around you, the environment around you, they also want to engineer you personally….
Sustainable Development Isn’t What You Think
Wood also explains why “sustainable development” goals, which sound like a good thing, really aren’t. The United Nations has declared that sustainable development is going to be the new economic system of the future. It’s a resource-based economic system based on energy.
“A couple of years ago, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figueres, gave a press conference in Europe and she said, ‘This is the first time in the history of mankind that we’re setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.’
…
Their vision for the future of society is this sustainable future where they will control all the resources and all the consumption. In other words, they will tell businesses what they’re allowed to build and they will tell consumers what they’re allowed to consume. …
This is the science of social engineering here. They have the science, you just have to follow and do what they tell you to do. ….”
Taking Back Local Government Is Key
Importantly, what the technocrats are doing is making an end run around national sovereignty. Rather than a frontal assault on the system, which has never been successful, they’ve simply eroded national sovereignty piece by piece. Wood also reviews what we can do to save our republic and thwart the steady march of technocracy:
“I believe very strongly that local activism is the only way to rebuild our country, if there is going to be any rebuilding at all. Local activism — because this is how they got us. They built [the technocratic system] from the bottom up. We cannot tear their house down from the top down. It’s simply is just not going to happen. They’re too powerful,” Wood says.
One of the most important elected local officials that you should concern yourself with is your sheriff. They are responsible for enforcing tyrannical edicts from local, state and federal government, and if they choose not to, government has no power. City councils also have a lot of power. They can pass binding resolutions to protect citizens against the technocratic agendas. …
What is Agenda 21? It is the keystone document for Sustainable Development. It was developed in 1992 at the Rio de Janeiro conference of the United Nations’ first Earth summit. This became the agenda for the 21st century. The doctrine that came to be known as Agenda 21 came from a book written by Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland, called “Our Common Future.”
Wood’s nonprofit organization, Citizens for Free Speech, is another excellent resource where you can learn more about your constitutional rights and how to communicate your ideas to others. For a small donation, Citizens for Free Speech also offers a laminated No Mask Card that you can wear on a lanyard, explaining your First Amendment Right to disobey local mask mandates.
Joseph P. Farrell says:
