Whose Mind Is It, Anyway?

Part II of an open-ended series on the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial, the Covid-19 experiment, and what it means for the future of the human species

The Nuremberg Codes officially mandated informed consent for human participants in medical experiments following a trial that began 75 years ago in the aftermath of World War II. Normally eager for the reliable morale boost that comes from comparing one’s own work with Nazi atrocities, the narrative managers have instead decided to sit this 75th anniversary out, and even seem inclined to memory-hole the whole affair. It’s easy to see why they don’t want ordinary people reading up too much on the Doctors’ Trial - the parallels between the experiments conducted under cover of Covid-19 and the Nazis’ eugenic misadventures are too numerous to count, though I outlined some of the more glaring evidence in Part I of this series. But while their willing participation in what was for the test subjects a wholly non-consensual series of damaging if not deadly pandemic “experiments” has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is these technicians’ plans for the future that should really give us pause.

like this, but with fact-checkers

(for some background, read Part I: the Big Lie & its architects, the greatest psychological experiment in the world, and the little bioweapon that could)

Experiment #3: Internalizing the thought police

Surely our would-be global overlords have enough bioweapons to render us all quivering hunks of viscera before we tweet about it, you might say in response to the previous discussion of the role of fact-checkers in burnishing the Big Lie. But the focus is not simply mine. No less than the United Nations issued a communique earlier this month through its UNESCO subsidiary targeting “conspiracy theories” - not Covid-19, not famine, not even its favorite bogeyman climate change - as Public Enemy Number One. The paper described a growing proclivity for conspiratorial thinking, calling the trend “worrying and dangerous” and supplying dutiful group thinkers with “prebunking” and “debunking” tools to neutralize any conspiracy theorists they may find in the wild. The materials even deployed the ubiquitous “stop the spread” trigger found on Covid-19 propaganda, equating conspiracy theories about Covid to the virus itself - repeating them is “spreading hate,” which can kill you just as dead as any germ by inspiring “violent extremism.” Even the notion that a significant minority of Americans aren’t sure so-called conspiracy theories about the vaccines are false keeps these people up at night, as the reaction to the poll indicating as much revealed.

unauthorized thinking is like playing with matches - you might learn something

The tone of the UN appeal confirms that years of intensifying social media censorship culminating at the pinnacle of Covid-19 hysteria in a literal plea to don’t look at the science or you’ll turn to stone have left the Facebook-bound masses completely unprepared to deal with unfamiliar or contrary ideas. Dissent was left out in the cold as users retreated inside their protective filter-bubbles. Schools shut down debate clubs when words became “literally violence,” and the UN now warns its would-be Young Pioneers it’s no good to fight the conspiracy theorists on their own turf - they’ll think you are part of the plot, or worse, convert you. The interloper must first be neutralized, smeared as a loony, a crank, an antisemite or Nazi, whatever works best to “inoculate” the community against the ideas they are seeking to spread. Those in doubt are urged to consult the fact-checkers or Wikipedia, which, UNESCO insists, is never, ever wrong (nowhere is it mentioned that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales’ wife Kate Garvey co-founded the PR firm responsible for pushing the UN’s saccharine Global Goals campaign, or that the organization has a stated interest in taking over education via its relationship with UNESCO). When in doubt, the social media user adrift on the currents of misinformation should just report the offending post, lest some tempting tidbit ensnare a less vigilant user and turn them into a superspreader. The end goal is to mass-produce internet users who enter the infosphere already protected with an internal “disinformation guard” constantly on the lookout for unauthorized ideas and prepared to beat them into submission at the first approach.

The ideological defenselessness of most social media users in the era of “fake news” poses no small threat to the narrative managers’ dominance. The average reader is so gullible that fact-checkers regularly “correct” satirical sites like the Babylon Bee, ‘serious’ medical publications issue public service announcements that trying not to defecate for an entire month might be a bad idea, Telegram spoofers posing as alt-media figures frequently dupe those figures’ long-time followers into forking over thousands of dollars for crypto investment scams, and some people still religiously follow the deliberately obtuse dribblings of Israeli intelligence psy-op QAnon despite Donald Trump having left the White House over a year ago. As the control of online information tightens and internet users’ ideological immune systems weaken further, the narrative managers may decide that putting humans on the front lines of the War on Disinformation - whether as “fact-checkers,” paid “experts,” or astroturfed troll armies - is simply too risky. What happens if they start “questioning themselves” on UNESCO’s orders and accidentally get in touch with their inner conspiracy theorists?

any resemblance to the Voight-Kampff test is entirely coincidental

Unable to ensure full spectrum dominance in the marketplace of ideas due to the dismal quality of their in-home propaganda, governments around the world (the UNESCO campaign is co-sponsored by the EU, along with Twitter and the World Jewish Congress) are attempting to legislate online “misinformation” out of existence, despite the difficulty of defining the term in a way that doesn’t criminalize journalists making genuine errors (or publicly-derided “conspiracy theorists” whose “theories” turn out to be true) and thus run afoul of human rights conventions. While threatening the megaplatforms with billions of dollars in fines if “hate speech” or other offensive content is allowed to remain visible has been the status quo for years in Europe, the US has only truly gone to Defcon 1 in the last few months, tearing up what was left of the First Amendment in order to denounce those with the wrong political opinions as the chief cause for the nation’s troubles. Washington now threatens individuals who once might merely have been merely deplatformed from Twitter or Facebook with ruinous FDA investigations, heavily-armed IRS audits, the loss of medical or other professional licenses, and even jail time. The Biden administration has a direct line reminiscent of Obama’s weekly “kill list” to both Facebook and Twitter to tell them who to suspend today, one which they deployed liberally during the pandemic to nuke civilian wrongthink-purveyors like former New York Times journalist Alex Berenson alongside heretic doctors like Joseph Mercola.

Toward a Thought-Police State

If the narrative managers cannot keep the thought criminal off the internet, they have no choice but to safeguard his victim, and the experimental technicians are building in multiple layers of protection so that in the case of “breakthrough” infodemic infection, carefully manufactured consent is not lost. Even as ideologically “inoculated” individuals watch over their information-naive brethren, both groups browse the internet under the watchful eye of super-censors like NewsGuard, founded by biometric passport pioneer Steven Brill to carefully masticate current events and lovingly regurgitate them to the masses like a mother bird to her child. Backed by the deep pockets and monopolistic market-share of Microsoft and advised by a coterie of unreconstructed alphabet-agency thugs who believe a free internet is one of the greatest threats to the American Way, NewsGuard discards the story-based fact-checking model in favor of a reputational model, assigning color-coded “nutritional value labels” of green, yellow or red based on how faithfully they adhere to the establishment narrative. But while the typical fact-checker must at least feign concern for “journalistic integrity” via appeals to authority and expertise, NewsGuard has leveraged its intelligence agency and industry connections to become a formidable bouncer for the media establishment.

gee, that’s a nice website you got there. would be a shame if something happened to it

Having “labeled” what it claims is 95% of news media consumption in the US, it throttles not just information but money, with spinoff BrandGuard (which threatens companies that advertise on “red” sites by informing them that association with purveyors of “fake news” could be very bad for their bottom line) and legislative support, with ElectionGuard (which prohibits unwanted narratives from spoiling a favorable news climate come voting season and which was ultimately a rousing success in keeping Hunter Biden’s genitals off ‘reputable’ news sites during the 2020 season). It has become the official auditor of scientific information for the European Commission and the unofficial net-nanny for over half a billion Microsoft users for whom it comes as standard equipment installed on the default Edge browser. Generous gifts from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ensure Microsoft machines with NewsGuard-enabled browsers dominate library systems and cash-strapped public schools across the US, meaning any site that runs afoul of the fact-checking industrial complex is blacklisted for a vast subset of the US population. It was only natural for NewsGuard to partner with the WHO in 2020 to safeguard the integrity of the pandemic narrative while its internet ghettoization model allowed the narrative managers to quarantine infodemic “outbreaks” without risking the contagion spreading to the entire herd. Did you volunteer to participate in this experiment? Did your children?

Because of the way the immune system works, shielding the digital cattle from ideological challenges only makes them more helpless if they do encounter a wild idea, and even the most self-contained system is not foolproof. Just as the physical softening of western populations for whom adversity is a distant generational memory has led to unprecedented military buildup in the US’ sphere of influence, the gradual relaxation of our mental defenses has been accompanied by militarization of the infosphere. The very concept of “truth” has been warped into a new front in the War on Terror, which like all major conflicts before it has seen international financial cartels pouring funding into both sides. Military contractor Sean Gourley, who programmed AI engines for the US military to hunt down Iraqi insurgents during the Bush years, declared years ago that by the end of 2020 “computational warfare and disinformation campaigns will…become a more serious threat than physical war” and predicted that the Pentagon would “begin to weaponize truth” via a sort of “Manhattan Project for truth” that would leverage the terabytes of data already sitting in allies’ intelligence hoards. Gourley was at the time said to be working on a machine learning platform for the military to “automatically identify and assess suspected disinformation,” which could presumably then be quarantined and ultimately destroyed (along with the unfortunate soul who birthed it). Halfway through 2020, the Pentagon joined forces with NewsGuard to realize Gourley's dream, bringing the plugin’s database of “misinformation fingerprints” (a list of supposed hoaxes, “conspiracy theories,” and other wrongthink memes) to bear in combination with machine learning AI technologies to combat Covid-19 “misinformation” using the same methods deployed by the Anti-Defamation League’s “Online Hate Index” and the EU’s Article 13 to supposedly solve the problems of bigotry and copyright infringement, respectively (more on these later). Far from shutting down disinformation merchants, the militarization of the information space is designed to maintain a constant state of fear and confusion, just like the original War on Terror. One need only look at how liberally the term “disinformation” is currently applied to a broad selection of facts that do not suit the narrative managers’ worldview. The nebulous boundaries of what constitutes “disinformation” (and its even more elastic cousins “misinformation” and the baby of the family “malinformation”) are a feature, not a bug.

Townhall.com @townhallcom

PSAKI: If you're banned on one social media platform, you should be banned on other social media platforms.

The major social media platforms have been hiring former FBI and other intelligence agents at a rapid rate since the pandemic began, suggesting that in addition to acting as an agent of the state capable of an end-run around the Bill of Rights, these platforms have literally become an arm of the state. Either way, the threadbare defense of their politicized censorship against First Amendment claims - “it’s a private company!” - is woefully outdated. Big Tech and Big Brother have merged completely, fulfilling the promise of DARPA’s LifeLog project with Total Information Awareness thrown in for good measure. Your Facebook “trust score” and your YouTube strikes will be as important as your tax history and your arrest record when your social credit score is calculated, whether you consent to this behavioral experiment or not. As former White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki revealed not long before fleeing the sinking ship of the Biden administration, being banned from one platform will soon result in being banned from all platforms, and perhaps from the internet altogether. While the UN has declared online access a human right, that designation has never stopped governments from stripping their citizens of such basic dignities in the past, and with countries like Macron’s France floating the idea of ending internet anonymity for all, it’s only a matter of time before getting convicted of thoughtcrime bars you from the information superhighway forever.

This unprecedented power grab would not be possible if not for the climate of emergency that was universally agreed upon as a base experimental condition by the architects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Ordinarily rational human beings regressed into neurotic backbiting reptiles eager to rat out their neighbors for an extra square of chocolate, abandoning even rational self-interest in their compulsion to follow orders, “safe” in the magical-thinking construct that obedience alone could save them from the invisible enemy. It’s not yet clear if the transformation is reversible, either - lockdowns have left families and relationships in ruins as surely as they destroyed individuals, and one can still see depatterned fear addicts slouching dead-eyed through any city, masked up alone in their cars, swapping ‘long Covid’ symptoms like trading cards on social media, impatiently lining up to be tested for the latest variant and have their existence validated for that much longer. The experimental technicians would be hard-pressed to explain how every single one of the conditions for thought reform outlined in cult expert Steven Hassan’s “BITE” model (behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional control) just happened to arise organically in the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak.

no mask? burn the heretic!

Nor would this complex psychological manipulation be possible without the terabytes of data they collected on us during the early months of the infodemic, during those first key experiments which supplied a detailed understanding of just how much oppression we would tolerate at once. Flimsy as the official narrative was, their non-consensual experimentation proved that the stories we tell ourselves - the narratives that constitute our identity - are often even flimsier and require the tacit approval or at least acknowledgement of our fellow human beings. This is by design - we are social animals, after all, and have been trained beyond mere instinct to search for meaning outside ourselves. But as a result, we are out of our element when locked in with nothing but four walls. Whatever anemic shadowplays we’re able to conjure alone pale in comparison to the tempting glow of the TV. The rise of Zoom “parties,” Zoom “dates,” and other two-dimensional facsimiles of human connection made it clear the extent to which we were willing to go to pretend we hadn’t suffered a grave rupture to our way of life, but trying to draw strength from “relationships” that had in many cases already been reduced to hollow pageantry in which opportunities for performative virtue were prioritized over meaningful connection and basic human dignity left us feeling isolated and terrified. Cue the corporate state’s “we’re all in this together” celebrity-quarantine lovefest. The narrative managers were thrilled to discover how easy it was to keep everybody in line during what our would-be Plague Pope Bill Gates calls “Pandemic 1.” They certainly aren’t going to stop now.

Why Memory-Hole Nuremberg?

The point of neutralizing Nuremberg is not merely to cover ruling class ass. The experimental technicians hope to open the door to further intrusions into our free will and humanity in the name of scientific advancement and the Public Good. Bill Gates, never one to rest on his bloodstained laurels, is funding the development of experimental vaccines that spread like malaria in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, drugs that are literally transmitted via bites from altered insects through human populations. When was the last time a mosquito asked you to sign an informed consent form before jamming its blood funnel into your skin?

This isn’t Gates’ first nonconsensual rodeo by any means. In addition to his sterilization adventures in Kenya, in 2014 he funded the development of a remote-access fertility manipulating device which allowed any thoughtful technocrat to manage the fecundity of the natives from a safe distance for a whopping 16 years. But this mosquito-borne model is a next-level intrusion into bodily autonomy, a concept which would only be possible had the Nuremberg Codes been forever walled off in the dark recesses of the 1940s. There is no world in which people can consent to being bitten by a genetically-modified blood-sucking insect carrying a payload of experimental liquid (but not that other insect that looks just like it whose payload is merely the malaria parasite). One certainly can’t back out of the experiment - once that juice is in you, it’s staying there - and given Gates’ history with attempting to vaccinate against mosquito-borne diseases, it’s all but guaranteed to kill a lot of people.

Gates’ swarms of airborne needles are far from the only medical monstrosity the media establishment’s crusade against the Nuremberg norms has midwifed into the real world. Bayer Pharmaceuticals president Stefan Oelrich recently acknowledged (while speaking to investors, not peons) that the mRNA shots - which the media has been turning blue in the face trying to convince their recipients can’t hack your DNA - are, in fact, a “cell and gene therapy” being sold as “vaccines” in order to soften the public up to the concept. This is the opposite of informed consent.

Oelrich, clearly used to getting away with murder, chuckles that “If we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate.”

Moderna is moving away from informed consent at warp speed, remaining silent about the fact that the mRNA in its new omicron boosters is being made by National Resilience, a brand-new company thick with military-industrial complex ties, including deep connections to the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. Founder Robert Nelsen’s venture capital firm funded Nanosys, Epstein-linked Harvard scientist Charles Lieber’s nanotech firm - which was also funded by In-Q-Tel. Lieber’s inventions include a nano-scale polymer ‘invisibility cloak’ that dupes human cells into embracing foreign material - including graphene and carbon nanotubes - as if it was organic and incorporating it into the cell, as well as nanowires capable of recording and transmitting information about biomarkers and physical responses on a cellular level. One would have to be hopelessly naive to believe that Moderna, whose founder boasted freely about “hacking the software of life,” would not welcome a chance to test out some of National Resilience’s cutting-edge nanotech in the 66 million doses the Biden administration has ordered of its new formula. Now that the media establishment is freely admitting this round of shots are hitting the market without completing human trials, are we allowed to call them experimental? Moderna has made no secret about its plans to offer mRNA jabs for whatever diseases are trendy next season - the flu, mysteriously absent these last three years as the CDC classified all respiratory ailments as Covid-19; monkeypox, plagiarizing its fear profile wholesale from ‘80s AIDS propaganda absent any real body count; and the as-yet unrealized treasures from years of amped-up gain of function microorganisms developed under Fauci, Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak, and the rest of the Covid-19 all-stars, all disguised as novel zoonotic infections. There’s no experimental data indicating how all these half-baked science projects will interact, and no one seems to care. The only thing that matters is that you line up to get yours.

Meanwhile, the WEF and its pet governments are getting us comfortable with discarding the notion of consent - informed or otherwise - in their experiments with the aim of coercing the test subjects into taking on aspects of the experimenter’s role and automating the rest. This minimizes potential conflict and creates a false sense of agency in the test subject, who has none. To ensure behavioral compliance, the WEF has outlined a “solution” to online “abuse” that sounds exactly like the “Online Hate Index” program previewed by the Anti-Defamation League in 2018: an AI engine trained on comment sets from reddit and Wikipedia that gradually learns how to detect, parse, and classify the basic components of “hate speech”/“abuse” and eventually to block them from being published. This starts with encoding the offending material and its component parts as hashes in an upload filter, which prevents identical and even similar content from passing through - a setup familiar to anyone who’s ever tried (and failed) to reply to a news article’s comments section with profanity. But eventually, the AI (which, spoiler alert! has some human help) learns to short-circuit the thought-criminal’s desire to even express such views, taking action before fingers hit keyboard. Their expression is discouraged through financial terror campaigns, social ostracism, guilt by association and even bold-faced libel; negative neural feedback loops can be relied upon to do the rest. Because the words a person uses influence their thoughts, the less they express an idea, even one that which was once vitally important to their self-concept, the less it drives their thinking. Every time you self-censor, you are taking part in their obedience training program.

Companies like Microsoft are working on quantifying this process at the molecular level, going full Pavlov with a patented punishment/reward system for thinking the correct thoughts. Get a warm fuzzy feeling when you see Bill Gates in his sweater vest sticking African kids with needles? Great, here’s a cryptocurrency token - run and get yourself a BioMilq™ ice cream cone. Feel the bile rising in your throat as he giggles about injecting “genetically modified organisms” into the arms of small children? Sorry, no food for you. The WEF’s Klaus Schwab gushes about technological advances that will allow his global corporate state to “intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior,” and while the fact checkers are correct when they say that Bill Gates doesn’t want to “chip” us, it’s only because he doesn’t have to. Microchips are old news - the FDA approved pills equipped with transmitters capable of alerting a third party when the patient takes their meds nearly five years ago, while DARPA developed “neural dust,” millimeter-scale wireless transmitters powered by ultrasound and capable of altering nerve signals i.e. literally changing your mind - a year before that. When the military-industrial-intelligence complex has such a tool, they don’t sit on it. If it works, they will use it, which means they already have used it. Lieber’s advances in nanotech mean smart dust has gotten smaller and smarter, weaseling its way into the very fabric of consciousness with the ultimate purpose of teaching us that we cannot hide our thoughts and emotions from Big Brother. Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution is all about tearing down the last walls between the will of the individual and that of the corporate state - and then convincing the individual the two territories are the same.

Now that most countries have embraced the idea that a mandate (“no jab, no job”) that doesn’t literally involve being hauled off to jail or stabbed with a needle if we say “no” isn’t really a mandate, and public health officials will insist that bribing a broke single mother $500 to take a Moderna dose you know will sterilize her isn’t really picking up right where the eugenicists left off, the victims of these “public health interventions” are being not just incentivized but coerced to take up the role of their own torturer. Without regulations like the Nuremberg Codes, if human experimentation can be recast as “healthcare,” consent becomes a mere formality. If you have to go to bed with Alan Dershowitz to get your Universal Basic Income so you can eat, that does not mean you consent to having sex with him. But Dershowitz and his WEF counterparts will gaslight you within an inch of your life to make you believe it does, and while some might write off the comparison between mandatory vaccination and rape to be melodramatic, an “appeal to emotions” in the terminology of the fact-checkers and therefore beneath consideration, there are more similarities than you might expect. Dershowitz, for the record, has gone out of his way to defend coerced penetration - by penis, vaccination needle or torturer’s tool - for the greater social good.

Your world Is their Petri dish

Just as the Bush War on Terror’s Authorization for Use of Military Force allowed the US to go to war anywhere in the world without regard for national boundaries so long as they could claim some kind of terrorist group somehow related to al-Qaeda (itself a CIA creation) was operating there, the new pandemic-inspired anti-wrongthink laws are supposed to enable a response to an informational threat affecting the entire world. The WHO’s global pandemic treaty, still being negotiated by member countries, already includes the groundwork for the kind of reality enforcement that will be mandatory in a global technocracy, conferring upon itself the power to “manage” disinformation and infodemics - a task that will presumably include quarantining, if not euthanizing, their perpetrators to contain outbreaks of fear, uncertainty and doubt and avoid poisoning the new generation upon which so many resources have been lavished to lock in the new green utopia (more on what’s in store for them in part III). There are few precursors for the kind of coordinated international rollback of human rights in the name of the Greater Good that the treaty entails, though the most recent example is 2019’s Christchurch Call. This nebulous pact brought together an unabashedly fascist coven of Big Tech and Big Brother luminaries with the blessing of Big Philanthropy, their stated goal nothing less than “to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online” following the Christchurch mosque shooting, which was blamed on 4chan, its Qtard cousin 8kun, and other deliberately-outrageous “edgelord” message boards as well as alternative social media platforms like Bitchute and Gab as the shooter’s meme-soaked manifesto gave “democratic” governments the opening they needed to choke off free expression. Working together through member countries’ legal loopholes, they couched this policy coup in squishy responsibility-to-protect doublespeak so as to outwit any human rights watchdogs not already with the program.

The Call’s point-woman, New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, truly outdid herself just a few years later by setting her government up with a monopoly on reality for Kiwis during the Covid-19 lockdown, and thanks to the draconian internet control rules adopted in the wake of the shooting, they actually had some of the tools to enforce it. “We will continue to be your single source of truth. Dismiss anything else. Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth,” she told her subjects in one of many straight-out-of-Hunger-Games addresses.

Bernie's Tweets @BernieSpofforth

New Zealand’s PM Jacinda Ardern stating only government information can be trusted. Right out of 1984. “Dismiss anything else, we will continue to be your single source of truth” #COVID19

Under the new regime, those who disobey will accrue such horrific penalties that “consent” - let alone informed consent - becomes immaterial. Financial terrorism of the sort already wielded against wrongthinkers by PayPal, Chase Bank, and Toronto Dominion (one of several Canadian banks which froze the assets of people accused of contributing funds to the Freedom Convoy truckers’ protest against the country’s draconian and proudly unscientific vaccine mandates earlier this year) becomes much deadlier in a cashless society, and the arrival of central bank digital currencies means every transaction you’ve ever made is squirreled away in a blockchain ledger. The cashless future is already being rolled out in dozens of countries, and the blacklists used to exclude thought-criminals from this system are already biometrically-equipped - how many times do you pay for something on your phone with just your fingerprint or your face? When a Universal Basic Income linked to a social credit score is the only way to buy and sell, a person’s will to resist the experimental condition - whether it’s the latest vaccine, an insect-based diet, or climate lockdowns - withers.

Lest you think you can privately nurture your rebellion while navigating this brave new world, the WEF wants a smartphone in your body by the end of the decade, and not having such a implant won’t just mark you as a luddite - it will render you incompatible with modern life. The lackluster rollout of the Internet of Things was always just a pretense for our ascension to the Internet of Bodies, a transhumanist dystopia powered by near-instantaneous communication via ubiquitous 5G technology. Charles Lieber’s all-pervasive network of nano-tubules snakes through every organism in the biosphere to create a next-level biometric surveillance Panopticon that allows ruling class stakeholders to jam their blood funnels into your neck with the kind of precision IBM could only have dreamed about during the Third Reich. Merely unlocking the door of your smart home will require a sensor, so don’t think you can avoid it, and hiding out in abandoned “dumb-homes” will not be feasible as the IRS, ATF and other detachments of snitch corps are sent into the hinterlands equipped with penetrating infrared radar that can smell your fear.

Pelham @Resist_05

Yuval Noah Harari… Total Biometric Surveillance… “With this kind of surveillance, you can detect dissent”…

WEF advisor and transhumanism acolyte Yuval Noah Harari has openly acknowledged that the same technology used to monitor vital signs during the pandemic can be (and therefore is already being) used to monitor infodemic-imperiled populations for signs of dissent, and while he feigned concern that such tech might be weaponized by security services, his vision of a technocratic utopia involves the very fabric of reality being repurposed as “security services,” fitted out with tiny sensors and feedback circuits so as to be constantly monitoring and shaping the lived experience of every organism on the planet. Such totalitarian immersion renders the boot stomping on the human face superfluous. At this point, with every bodily function tracked, shared, archived, analyzed, and monetized, life itself becomes an experimental condition, with no way to leave the trial except suicide. Even then, it’s possible that your Neuralink, hooked in to your bank account and every other aspect of the Known Traveler Digital Identity, will intervene, stopping you from pulling the trigger if you haven’t paid off your credit card debts.

As this form of “new normal” sets in and we become accustomed to having our bodies and brains fought over by data-hungry vulture corporations, dissenting words will increasingly be treated as the literal equivalent of a virus, causing social dis-ease, its intrusion into a space co-owned by an individual and Big Brother amounting to no less than a contamination of the commons. We can expect more ludicrous worksheets from UNESCO telling us we have laws to stop corporations from polluting our water supply - shouldn’t we have laws to stop conspiracy theorists from polluting our information supply? Dissidents will be publicly, brutally silenced. After all, they carry the plague. We had to cull them, you see, or they’d infect us all. Don’t you ever want to be able to go outside again?

The only way these war criminals - and they are war criminals, because this is nothing short of an all-out war on humanity - can hope to triumph in the event of a second Doctors’ Trial is to convince the population that dissenting words aren’t just literally violence - they’re terrorism. The US Justice Department criminalized deliberately spreading Covid-19 in the early days of the lockdown, helped along by a laughable FBI report that claimed “white supremacists” were encouraging their infected pals to cough on cops and Jews. Given the extremely experimental legal climate presented by the pandemic, especially in the US, where the FBI is hallucinating “violent extremism” in the speech of ordinary Americans and the president is declaring half the electorate a threat to democracy itself, it’s not a great leap for them to claim an infodemic can kill more quickly than a pandemic. This rationale will be used to retroactively justify every cruel psychological experiment conducted on the population in the same way 9/11 was used to justify the most obscene violations of privacy, years later, despite the programs in question never catching a single terrorist. They will say that the spread of “disinformation” is an existential threat to trust in our hallowed institutions and thus to our way of life; that not only did they have no choice but to retire the concept of national sovereignty to stop an ideological apocalypse, they had to act quickly to enshrine these emergency superpowers in a permanent piece of supranational legislation, a form of global epistemological martial law, to take effect whenever an infodemic is declared. Like the WHO’s global pandemic treaty itself, once it is cemented in place with no recourse to outside authority, humanity is trapped. The narrative managers know this and can sense how close they are to the finish line; as of June, they’d handed the World Bank a $1 billion tip to make sure there are no unpleasant surprises ahead. This fund, intended to be used for “disease surveillance” and “pandemic support,” has already changed the WHO’s mind on biometric vaccine passports, which it once opposed; what other crimes against humanity will go from unspeakable to indispensable before this is all over?

Impunity?

A second Doctors’ Trial is not a certain victory. The Nuremberg Codes merely require that medical experiments “conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally,” which means that securing a conviction for many of the architects of the Covid-19 campaign would require the prevailing opinion of their peers to turn against the current medical model. Doctors have proven willing, even eager to turn on dissidents within their ranks - one need only look at MMR vaccine skeptic Andrew Wakefield, or AIDS heretic Peter Duesberg - and they usually spare their most vicious attacks for the apostates, those trained in pharmaceutical medicine but whose work transcends the disease-centric model. As the Covid-19 experiment unfolded, however, the pressure on the in-group grew to embrace lockdowns as useful, masks as protective, and the highly nephrotoxic antiviral remdesivir as the only drug treatment that could help Covid-19 patients until the vaccine came along. Those who didn’t, who quietly treated their patients with hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin despite disapproving murmurs from colleagues, even those who merely disdained the use of masks as protective talismans quickly found themselves in the same no-man’s-land where so many of their fellows had been consigned over the years for questioning various aspects of the CDC’s packed-to-the-gills childhood vaccination schedule: deplatformed, stripped of their medical license or even their freedom for speaking out.

Even now as more doctors are finally coming forward with concerns about the effects of the mRNA bioweapon - after a certain point it becomes impossible to hide the bodies - the process of manufacturing consent within the medical profession is only accelerating. Late last year, a group of Hollywood-pretty “doctors” and “nurses” called No License for Disinformation began booking appearances on every Pfizer-funded media platform that would have them to fake grassroots support for yanking doctors’ medical licenses if their advice for treating or avoiding Covid-19 deviated from the establishment narrative. The health policy think tank that bankrolled the group commissioned a poll to claim 78% of the public supported professional sanctions against these medical deviants. Captured regulators like the American Medical Association and the Federation of State Medical Boards published position papers talking up the need for stricter punishments. Congress’ most notorious Pharma-whores - creatures like California’s Richard Pan - began to work their legislative magic behind closed doors. A year later, Pan’s home state is poised to pass a law that will require the California Medical Board to consider stripping doctors of their medical licenses if their orders or opinions deviate noticeably from the “standard of care” - medical groupthink - or are “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus.” And some public health “experts” aren’t even content with that - concerned about potential legal challenges to misinformation bans on First Amendment grounds, they want to scrap the First Amendment.

So much of the public sentiment needed to hold a successful trial relies on the prevailing opinion of the medical profession turning against the bad actors in their own ranks. Given that laws passed under cover of the pandemic “emergency” immunized medical professionals from liability for any destructive act committed in service of “treating” Covid, doctors with their peers’ approval risk nothing, no matter how heinous their crimes. The corruption and financial entanglements of the reigning public health dictatorship are too entrenched to be fixed through traditional legal means. The sheer volumes of private sector cash that have enveloped the American medical system mean regulators once tasked with keeping patients safe now safeguard the dividends of Big Parma’s shareholders, and when the latter is the largest lobby in government, it becomes hard to imagine any force powerful enough to derail this gravy train.

The disease infecting modern medicine has unfortunately gone systemic, from the vaunted “public health professionals” who locked down the world to the humble family doctors who deployed bespoke concoctions of fear and shame to con worried parents into poisoning their children. Hospitals took huge payouts from the CDC to murder healthy people by shoving ventilator tubes down their throats while their “medical ethicists” gave thoughtful interviews to the media that was selling this type of expensive and deadly “intervention” as necessary. Whistleblowers reporting from inside the Covid-19 charnel houses told of mercenary nurses killing each other’s patients when their backs were turned, fudging vital statistics to justify pulling the plug, and otherwise adopting the techniques of medical murder as standard operating procedure. Pharmacists became enforcers of the “let’em die” treatment modality, encouraged by state and local authorities to refuse to dole out legal prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, nurses looked the other way as drug reps tested their wares on ventilated Covid-19 patients, and epidemiologists swept the whole mess under the rug by declaring the post-vaccination surge in all-cause non-Covid mortality rates “Sudden Adult Death Syndrome.”

move along, nothing to see here

It says everything one needs to know about modern medicine that the World Medical Association adopted a statement in September 2021 regarding doctors convicted of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. While the paper’s first bullet point declared no one convicted of such crimes should be allowed to practice medicine, the second stressed that one must be convicted - merely being accused doesn’t even merit a period of pause while the details are sorted out. That spreading “disinformation” on Covid-19 should inspire more sanguine calls for delicensing than being charged with literal crimes against humanity bodes ill for Nuremberg 2.0.

Since the rise of “Rockefeller medicine” in the early 20th century, the profession’s focus on maintaining health has been eclipsed by the universal corporate imperative to maximize profits for shareholders. Synthetic pharmaceuticals became a gold mine limited only by the number of conditions doctors could devise to prescribe the pills for. Until Covid-19, the opioid pain reliever was the crowning achievement of this system: a synthetic drug to treat a subjective condition (pain) whose characteristic physical and psychological dependency ensured the patient would be as motivated as the doctor to keep returning to their office. The mRNA “vaccines,” which gradually strip their victims of their natural immune defenses through a carefully engineered plan of attack, take the opioid model one step further, because while the OxyContin addict may feel like they’re going to die if they don’t get their pills, the mRNA addict could literally drop dead. Every booster shot strengthens the microscopic replica of Big Brother, whose needs are not your needs but which you learn to service as if they were your own. This is not medicine, this is parasitism.

(In Part III: early adopters for the New Normal, the doormen of perception, & the vertically-integrated human suffering industry)

(note: I will be reposting my Wikipedia articles from 2018-2019 over at the Helen of desTroy Archive for those who are interested in where NewsGuard et.al. got their ideas. It says a lot about the perseverance of these scumbags that all three of the sites that originally published those articles no longer exist!)