In some areas of the world, together with Florida, the place I reside, life has been pretty regular for nearly a full 12 months. Restaurants opened final April, and folks have flocked right here from out of state and even from different international locations to benefit from the contemporary air and open companies. This clearly doesn’t profit the globalists’ agenda, so, proper on cue, fearmongering is ramping up one other notch. The newest concern du jour is a “double-mutation” of SARS-CoV-2, stated to focus on youthful individuals.
April 5, 2021, the New York Post1 reported the “double mutant” COVID-19 pressure has been detected in California — a state that has skilled a number of the longest and most restrictive pandemic measures in the U.S. At the time of that report, one case of the variant had been confirmed by a Stanford laboratory. Seven suspected instances had been nonetheless being screened.
- Fear Du Jour: Vaccine-Evading Variants
- ‘We’re in a Brand-New Pandemic’
- Dissenting Is Now Domestic Terrorism
- War on ‘Disinformation’ Is Really War on Dissent
- Most Americans Think Government Officials Are Lying
- Understanding the Plan Robs Their Power
- Supreme Court Justice Speaks Out Against Censorship
- Immunity Without Corresponding Responsibility
- Thomas Confirms Illegality of Government-Sponsored Censorship
Fear Du Jour: Vaccine-Evading Variants
The double-mutation virus allegedly has two mutations beforehand discovered in two separate variants, which “help it latch onto cells,” the New York Post writes.2 What they need you to concern now’s that this new variant could also be extra proof against vaccine antibodies. Younger individuals may also be extra vulnerable to it.3
According to the Observer,4 “COVID-19 variants could beat vaccines within a year if pharma policy doesn’t change.” In different phrases, they declare that except sufficiently excessive numbers of the worldwide inhabitants are vaccinated inside 9 to 12 months, the virus may mutate to evade first-generation vaccines, rendering them ineffective.
Oklahoma has additionally confirmed the presence of variants — one that originally emerged in the U.Okay., and one other that emerged in Brazil. According to The Oklahoman,5 “The faster people can get vaccinated, the slower the virus will spread and fewer people will be exposed to variant strains of the virus, said Dr. Dale Bratzler, the University of Oklahoma’s chief COVID officer.”
In different phrases, they’re placing everybody’s toes to the hearth. Hurry, hurry. Get the vaccine now. If you wait, it’s going to be your fault that the vaccine fails and everybody dies. CNN6 additionally warns that, except Americans “double down on safety measures until more people are vaccinated,” extra contagious variants will unfold like wildfire.
According to CNN, the variant referred to as B.1.1.7 “is changing the pandemic’s playbook and could spell trouble for younger groups that haven’t yet been vaccinated.”
‘We’re in a Brand-New Pandemic’
Dr. Peter Hotez went as far as to state that B.1.1.7 ought to be considered a “brand-new virus” that’s “acting differently from anything we’ve seen before.”7 This “we’re in a brand-new pandemic” narrative can also be being parroted by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy on the University of Minnesota.8 Osterholm, nonetheless, claims that present vaccines are, in reality, efficient towards the B.1.1.7 variant.
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, clusters of constructive instances amongst younger individuals have been “connected to participation in youth sports and extracurricular activities.” As a outcome, the CDC is now suggesting that such actions ought to be restricted, CNN experiences.9
If you’ve obtained the creeping suspicion that we’re about to face one other spherical of lockdowns across the U.S., your spidey senses are most likely working simply advantageous. In a latest interview, Osterholm stated:10
“There isn’t a rustic in the world proper now that has seen an enormous improve of this B117 that isn’t locking down. We’re the exception. And so the underside line message from all of those international locations is, ‘we could not control this virus until we did lock down.’
We should do a greater job of serving to the general public perceive that that is brief time period. All we’re making an attempt to do is get by means of this surge of instances which might be going to happen over the following six to eight to 10 weeks due to this B117 variant.”
Where, oh the place, have we heard that earlier than? “It’s going to be a short-term lockdown, just a couple of weeks to flatten the curve and ensure a functioning hospital system.” Right. Those short-term measures ended up lasting many months in many locations, regardless that hospitals had been at no danger of being overrun.
We now have a 12 months’s-worth of information exhibiting that lockdowns simply do not work. They trigger way more hurt than good. Yet they’re making an attempt to promote us the identical non-solution utilizing the identical justification as soon as extra. As the outdated saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Dissenting Is Now Domestic Terrorism
The downside we now face is that logical pondering is being vilified. According to pediatrician and California state senator Dr. Richard Pan, individuals who criticize the COVID-19 vaccine should be labeled as home terrorists. In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, he writes:11
“Vaccines don’t cease viruses. Vaccinations do. This widespread public well being saying means a vaccine does no good if we are able to’t get it into individuals’s arms … however the total objective of vaccinating a big majority of the U.S. inhabitants could in the end be hampered by the anti-vaccine motion except steps are taken to restrict its affect …
[T]o poison public opinion towards vaccinations, may outcome in numerous American deaths. That is akin to home terrorism … Some anti-vaccine leaders’ monetary well-being will depend on endangering everybody else’s well being and security. Social media firms shouldn’t be complicit in this harmful motion … Getting vaccinated is a patriotic act. So is talking as much as assist public well being efforts.”
With that manipulative and hostile diatribe towards law-abiding residents, Pan secures a lead function in the medical fascism directorate that’s spreading quicker than the virus.
He even stresses that native and public well being officers, not politicians, ought to be relied upon to steer us to security. In different phrases, he’s selling iatrarchy — which means authorities by physicians — which as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. factors out has been catastrophic in each occasion that it’s been tried. In his foreword to my new e-book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” Kennedy notes:
“The medical career has not confirmed itself an lively defender of democratic establishments or civil rights. Virtually each physician in Germany took lead roles in the Third Reich’s undertaking to eradicate psychological defectives, homosexuals, handicapped residents and Jews.
So many a whole bunch of German physicians participated in Hitler’s worst atrocities — together with managing mass homicide and unspeakable experiments on the dying camps — that the allies needed to stage separate “Medical Trials” at Nuremberg. Not a single outstanding German physician or medical affiliation raised their voice in opposition to those tasks.
So it’s unsurprising that, as a substitute of demanding blue-ribbon security science and inspiring trustworthy, open and accountable debate on the science, the badly compromised and newly empowered authorities well being officers charged with managing the COVID-19 pandemic response collaborated with mainstream and social media to close down dialogue on key public well being and civil rights questions.”
War on ‘Disinformation’ Is Really War on Dissent
Having a frank and open dialogue about execs and cons, dangers and advantages of vaccination or another pandemic measure is extra prone to outcome in optimum public well being than shoving only one aspect of the argument down everybody’s throat. But optimum public well being isn’t what the technocratic, globalist elite are after. Their finish objective is to govern the lots into obedience in order that they’ll purchase much more of their belongings.
As famous by Ash Staub in his article12 “The War on Disinformation Is a War on Dissent,” the phrases “disinformation” and “misinformation” are merely used “to excuse incompetence and punish opposition.” He offers a variety of examples proving that “theories or facts that don’t fit the official narrative, despite being true, are treated as misinformation or disinformation.”
I’d add that that is significantly true relating to well being information, seeing the way it’s nearly inconceivable to discover a single treatment or technique that works 100% for each single individual. There aren’t any absolute truths in medication. It all relies upon. Many particular person components come into play. Staub continues:
“Whereas misinformation merely refers to inaccurate or deceptive information, the label of disinformation implies an intent to deceive. Both have served because the supply of a lot consternation and hand-wringing from media figures and politicians alike …
While our incapacity as a society to agree on fundamental information is actually an issue, what ought to be self-evident is that misinformation and disinformation naturally abound when there may be little or no belief in sense-making establishments.
If the information sources which might be deemed ‘authoritative’ are so usually mistaken or deceptive, and encourage little public confidence, is it any marvel that individuals flip to options? Misinformation and disinformation are pure penalties of our public establishments’ inconsistency and incompetence.”
Most Americans Think Government Officials Are Lying
According to Staub, 69% of Americans “believe their government intentionally lies to them,” and 61% “believe the news media deliberately ignores certain stories or information.” These are record-low charges of confidence, and authorities and media would do properly to take discover of the truth that censorship solely erodes belief, it doesn’t construct it.
The proven fact that they flip to censorship quite than making an attempt to be extra forthright suggests they’re in reality mendacity and haven’t any intention of stopping. Since they refuse to inform the reality, the one possibility they’ve is to silence counter-narratives in the hope that, over time, objections will die out for lack of assist.
The downside is, fact has an enchantment of its personal, and so, in what seems to be a determined effort to keep up management, “disinformation” is now being referred to as out as “dangerous,” certainly a type of “domestic terrorism,” as a result of if individuals hearken to “bad” information, they may make selections that can hurt them.
Basically, they’re saying that you simply’re too silly to assume for your self. You’ll purchase no matter you’re bought, no questions requested, and they also should be sure you’re uncovered solely to information that can profit you. Everyone on the planet should be insulted by censoring, as a result of, in the end, it’s an indication that authorities and media have zero belief in your potential to make selections for your self.
“Just final month, former NSA normal counsel Glenn Gerstell called for an ‘integrated disinformation center within the federal government’ that might make use of ‘counterterrorism’ techniques to fight disinformation.
It’s not precisely clear what these counterterrorism techniques would entail, however the concept that establishments that so usually misinform the general public ought to be capable to resolve what’s and what’s not ‘disinformation,’ with the assistance of a surveillance equipment designed to fight terrorism, is really unnerving,” Staub writes.
“When the only acceptable information is that approved by the ruling administration, there can be no meaningful check on state power. Consent for the establishment agenda can easily be manufactured, and opposition can simply be deemed ‘disinformation’ and treated as ‘dangerous,’ deserving of censorship and removal. With a silenced opposition, power can therefore be exercised with impunity.”
Understanding the Plan Robs Their Power
In a nutshell, authoritarians are taking excessive steps to manage the general public discourse as a result of they know we don’t belief them. What’s extra, in addition they understand that if individuals perceive the grand plan, their energy over the individuals will likely be stripped away. The public can solely be managed so long as we don’t perceive what they’re making an attempt to perform.
So, what are they making an attempt to perform? As detailed in many earlier articles, it boils all the way down to the worldwide implementation of a brand new financial system based mostly on technocratic ideology, that can so radically rework and dehumanize society that they merely can’t “sell” it with honesty. The overwhelming majority can be horrified and refuse to go together with it.
Their solely possibility is to sneak it in below the guise of one thing else. Right now, that one thing else is the so-called COVID-19 pandemic. Under the pretext of public well being security, we’re instructed we want censorship, lockdowns, social distancing, mask wearing, new home terrorism legal guidelines and vaccine passports.
We want none of these issues in order to optimize public well being. Those issues, nonetheless, are mandatory for the swift and easeful implementation of the Great Reset.
Supreme Court Justice Speaks Out Against Censorship
Needless to say, with out Big Tech monopolies aiding and abetting, the present stage of censorship merely couldn’t happen. The excellent news is, we could slowly be inching towards an answer. As famous by The Federalist,13 “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas offered a roadmap to eliminating rampant social media censorship from online monopolies on Monday.”
They’re referring to an April 5, 2021, ruling14 for writ of certiorari on the case of President Joe Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in which Thomas weighed in on the flexibility of social media giants to manage free speech. The Federalist explains:15
“Thomas concurred in an opinion to ship the case again to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit with directions to dismiss as moot, now that Biden is in the White House.
The case, launched in August, questions whether or not the First Amendment strips authorities officers of their potential to dam third-party accounts on Twitter if the private account is used to conduct official enterprise. The decrease courtroom dominated Trump violated the First Amendment when blocking customers on the platform, which served as a public discussion board.”
However, whereas then-President Trump was discovered to have violated free speech rights by blocking sure Twitter followers, Twitter confronted no repercussions when it deleted Trump’s account in its entirety, thereby violating the First Amendment rights of 89 million individuals, which is the variety of followers he had when the account was taken down. As famous by Thomas:16
“It seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it. The disparity between Twitter’s control and Mr. Trump’s control is stark, to say the least.”
Immunity Without Corresponding Responsibility
Thomas highlights the monopoly energy of Big Tech, stressing that when an organization has unilateral management over a public discussion board, it ceases to be a public discussion board. The answer, then, is likely to be to show them into public utilities, which aren’t allowed to discriminate towards any buyer.
“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” Thomas writes.
“We will quickly haven’t any alternative however to handle how our authorized doctrines apply to extremely concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure similar to digital platforms … It modifications nothing that these platforms should not the only means for distributing speech or information.
An individual at all times may select to keep away from the toll bridge or practice and as a substitute swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether or not an organization workout routines substantial market energy, what issues is whether or not the options are comparable. For lots of at this time’s digital platforms, nothing is.
If the analogy between widespread carriers and digital platforms is right, then a solution could come up for dissatisfied platform customers who would recognize not being blocked: legal guidelines that prohibit the platform’s proper to exclude.
When a platform’s unilateral management is decreased, a authorities official’s account begins to raised resemble a ‘government-controlled spac[e]’ … This evaluation could assist clarify the Second Circuit’s instinct that a part of Mr. Trump’s Twitter account was a public discussion board.
But that instinct has issues. First, if market energy is a predicate for widespread carriers (as some students counsel), nothing in the report evaluates Twitter’s market energy. Second, and extra problematic, neither the Second Circuit nor respondents have recognized any regulation that restricts Twitter from eradicating an account that might in any other case be a ‘government-controlled space.’
Even if digital platforms should not shut sufficient to widespread carriers, legislatures may nonetheless be capable to deal with digital platforms like locations of public lodging … ‘[I]t stands to reason that if Congress may demand that telephone companies operate as common carriers, it can ask the same of’ digital platforms. Turner, 512 U. S., at 684 (opinion of O’Connor, J.).
That is very true as a result of the area constraints on digital platforms are virtually nonexistent (not like on cable firms), so a regulation proscribing a digital platform’s proper to exclude may not appreciably impede the platform from talking …
Yet Congress doesn’t seem to have handed these sorts of rules. To the opposite, it has given digital platforms ‘immunity from certain types of suits’ … with respect to content material they distribute, 47 U. S. C. §230, however it has not imposed corresponding obligations, like nondiscrimination, that might matter right here.
None of this evaluation means, nonetheless, that the First Amendment is irrelevant till a legislature imposes widespread service or public lodging restrictions — solely that the principal means for regulating digital platforms is thru these strategies.”
Thomas Confirms Illegality of Government-Sponsored Censorship
Thomas makes one other crucial level in his assertion. He factors out that whereas non-public entities are “not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment,” they’re certainly so constrained “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.”
In different phrases, a personal firm has the correct to resolve what the sorts of speech it is going to enable and which it is not going to, BUT, if authorities officers demand that they censor an in any other case lawful viewpoint on their behalf, then that firm is responsible for having violated the First Amendment.
This is pertinent proper now, as elected officers are getting ever extra belligerent in their calls for that social media platforms censor sure sorts of speech, similar to “anti-vaccine” materials. As detailed in “Free Speech Threatened by Censorship Extremists,” what they’re doing is unlawful, but they’re doing it anyway. As famous by Thomas:
“The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly … Under this doctrine, plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital platform if it took adverse action against them in response to government threats.”