LewRockwell.com

The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”

“The Great Reset” is the latest deceptive euphemism for totalitarian socialism that is being promoted by yet another group of wealthy corporate elitists who think they can centrally plan the entire world economy.  They are essentially the ideological heirs of Frederick Engels and his intellectual puppet Karl Marx.  “The Great Reset” follows in the rhetorical footsteps of such euphemisms for socialism as “economic democracy,” “social justice,” “liberation theology,” “progressivism,” “market socialism” (an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp” or “military intelligence”), “environmentalism,” “fighting climate change,” “sustainable development,” and “green new deal,” to mention just a few.

The main figure of this movement is wealthy German engineer Klaus Schwab, founder of the “World Economic Forum,” who champions what he calls “transhumanism,” the integration of nanotechnology into the human body so that humans can be controlled remotely by the state.[1] As Ron Paul has noted, “Included in Schwab’s proposal for surveillance [of every citizen] is his idea to use brain scans and nanotechnology to predict, and if necessary, prevent, individuals’ future behavior .  This means that anyone whose brain is ‘scanned’ could have his . . . [constitutional] rights violated because a government bureaucrat determines the individual is going to commit a crime.”[2]

Schwab, KlausBest Price: $9.95Buy New $10.69(as of 05:40 EDT - Details)Placed in the hands of politicians, this would create a level of totalitarianism the Soviets could only have dreamed of.  In other words, Schwab is reminiscent of that famous twentieth-century German who also fantasized about creating a master race and ruling the world.

This is nothing new, Antony Mueller points out, as eugenics, which was all the rage among so many ruling class elitists of the early twentieth century “is now called transhumanism.”[3]  Among the most prominent late nineteenth-and twentieth-century eugenicists were H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Charles Darwin’s son Leonard, John Maynard Keynes, Irving Fisher, Winston Churchill, and Bill Gates, Sr.  Bill Gates, Jr. is an enthusiastic funding source for “transhumanism” research and, like his father, is fond of eugenics.

During a recent “Ted” talk Gates, Jr. complained that “The world today has 6.8 billion people . .. that’s headed up to about 9 billion.”  Have no fear, he said, because if “we” do “a really great job on vaccines [with anti-fertility drugs? Poisons?] health care, reproductive health services [including abortion?], we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.”[4]  That in turn will lower carbon dioxide levels on the planet and address “climate change” as well, said Gates.

Keynes was treasurer of the Cambridge University Eugenics Society and director of the Eugenics Society of London.  He called eugenics “the most important and significant branch of sociology” [Eugenics Archive].  Irving Fisher, icon of the Chicago School of Economics, literally wrote the book on the subject, entitled Eugenics.

When he was the British Home Secretary (1910-1911) Winston Churchill advocated “the confinement, segregation, and sterilization of a class of persons contemporarily described as the ‘feeble minded’” [International Churchill Society].  His stated goal was “the improvement of the British breed”.  Accordingly, he supported “compulsory detention of the mentally inadequate”; the “sterilization of the unfit”; and “proper labor colonies” for “tramps and wastrels.”

World Government, Anyone?

Birdzell Jr., LEBest Price: $1.58Buy New $11.21(as of 04:39 EDT - Details)Antony Mueller also wrote of how the first attempt to create some kind of global governing institution to centrally plan the world was the League of Nations (1920), followed by the United Nations in 1945 under the leadership of Stalin, FDR, and Churchill.[5]  Although Churchill was fond of citing F.A. Hayek, especially The Road to Serfdom, FDR was essentially a fascist whose domestic policies differed very little from fascist Italy and Germany, and of course Stalin was a mass-murdering communist.

Churchill was voted out of office and replaced by the socialist Labor Party’s Clement Atlee in 1945.  The three “allied powers” of World War II were then led by two socialists and the political heir to FDR’s economic fascism, Harry Truman.

The U.N. immediately created UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the World Health Organization (WHO), whose stated goal was to “manipulate human development.”  Eugenicist Julian Huxley was the first director of UNESCO who lamented that Marxism’s attempt to create a new type of human (“socialist man”) had already failed because it lacked a “biological component.”

Neo-Malthusianism and the Birth of “Environmentalism”

[S[ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . .  [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.”

– Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990

The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.  The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing.  But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of “environmentalism.”

Menger, Carl MengerThe basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s.  It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.

In 2019 the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) published “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions” by Myron Ebell and Steven Milloy.[6]  The study is a compilation of reprints of newspaper and magazine articles that illustrate the seemingly never-ending false scare stories spread by the “environmentalistS” and their media puppets.  The real founder of the modern environmental movement was entomologist Paul Ehrlich, not Rachel Carson, author of the widely-cited novel, Silent Spring.  Ehrlich was supported by a group of wealthy socialists known as “The Club of Rome.”  His book, The Population Bomb, was incredibly successful, selling millions in just a couple of years, warning that the entire world will soon be destroyed by capitalism unless it is ended NOW and “severe” regulatory measures are taken.

The first article displayed by CEI was from the November 17, 1967 Salt Lake Tribune announcing that Professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford said the “time of famines” is upon us and will be “disastrous” by 1975 because of over-population.  Such talk was a resurrection of the hoary, thoroughly-discredited Malthusianism of the nineteenth century, cloaked in the words of “modern science.”  Birth control may have to be made “involuntary, said Ehrlich, and accompanied by “putting sterilization agents into staple foods and drinking water.”  The Catholic church needs to be “pressured” by government to support his, said Ehrlich, who became one of the most celebrated, rich, and famous academics of the twentieth century.

The New York Times quoted Ehrlich on August 10, 1969, as predicting that “unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam n 20 years.”

Ice Age Hysteria of the ‘70s

Von Mises, LudwigBest Global cooling that would create a new ice age was the next scare tactic.  An April 18, 1970 Boston Globe article quoted “pollution expert” James P. Lodge, Jr. as saying “air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the next century.”

Ehrlich chimed in, naturally.  An October 6, 1970 Redlands, CA Daily Facts article quoted him as predicting that “the oceans will be . . . dead . . . in less than a decade” because of pollution caused by capitalism.  And they will be frozen over.  A July 9, 1971 Washington Post article quoted a Dr. S.I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University who said that pollution will cause an average temperature drop of as much as ten degrees that “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!”

On December 3, 1972 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sent a letter to President Nixon predicting a “global deterioration of climate” never before seen by “civilized mankind” that would lead to a new ice age.

A January 29, 1974 article in The Guardian was headlined, “Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast.”  This was followed by a June 24, 1974 Time magazine article warning that “telltale signs are everywhere” that we were already in a new ice age.  Global cooling hysteria was still alive and well in 1978.  A January 5, 1978 New York Times article was headlined, “International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere.

Pivoting on a Dime:  Global Warming Hysteria

By 1988, after more than a decade of warnings of a new ice age unless capitalism is destroyed failed to produce the desired result, many of these same “scientists” and bureaucrats all of a sudden began warning of an earthly apocalypse caused by global warming.  The “greenhouse effect” of pollution was discovered/invented, with nationwide warnings like one in the June 24 Miami News declaring that “’88 On Way to be Hottest Ever as World Temperatures Up Sharply.”  James Hansen of NASA warned in the Lansing State Journal on December 12, 1988 that Washington, D.C. would “go from its current 35 days a year over 90 degrees to 85 days a year” and “the level of the ocean will rise” by as much as six feet.  “Rising seas could obliterate nations,” a “U.N. official” informed the Associated Press on June 30, 1989.  In reality, as CEI points out, is that the number of 90+ degree days in Washington, D.C. peaked in 1911 and continues to decline. )

By 2000 the mantra of the global warming hysterics included predictions that “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” The Independent announced on September 12, 2015, quoting another environmentalist “expert” from the University of East Anglia.

By 2013 “the Arctic will be free of sea ice” predicted James Hansen in 2008, as reported by The Argus Free Press of Owosso, Michigan.  In the same year Al Gore informed us that “the North polar ice cap would be gone,” as reported by the Associated Press on June 24, 2008.   For such predictions Massachusetts Senator ed Markey designated Hansen as “a climate prophet.”

The renowned atmospheric scientist Prince Charles told The Independent on July 9, 2009 that “the price of capitalism and consumerism is just too high.”  The planet will be destroyed by 2017 if capitalism is not essentially destroyed immediately, said the mega-wealthy prince whose preferred method of travel is by gas-guzzling Rolls Royce and private jet.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown outdid the prince by informing The Independent on October 20, 2009 that “we have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe.”  When New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez publicly announced in 2019 with perfect certainty that the world will end in in twelve years, she was referring to a 2018 United Nations “study” of “climate change” that said the same thing.[7]  The world will likely end in twelve years, said the U.N. bureaucrats, unless the U.N. is given vast new governing powers over all countries of the world, and vast sums of additional tax revenue.

NONE of these widely-touted and celebrated predictions came true.  Birds did not even disappear from the planet as predicted in Silent Spring.   capitalism was not replaced by worldwide socialist central planning; so the environmental “scientists” pivoted on a dime once again and adopted the language of climate change.  It now does not matter whether the climate’s temperature is increasing or decreasing; either will cause a “catastrophe” that can only be avoided by replacing what’s left of capitalism with some kind of worldwide socialist central planning, they inform us.

A quarter of a century of “climate change” hysteria has still not led to the desired result.  The next step in this more-than-a-century-old political crusade for worldwide socialism, therefore, is “The Great Reset.”Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr

The Great Nonsense of The Great Reset

Klaus Schwab holds doctorates in engineering and economics, although he seems ignorant of the most elementary economic concepts when he contends that the entire world economy can somehow be stopped by a god-like hand, pushbutton style, and “reset” and “built back better,” one of his favorite slogans.   He is the founder of the “World Economic Forum,” touted as an organization that promotes “Public-Private Cooperation.”  As Ayn Rand once said, however, whenever the private sector “partners” with government, government is always the senior and controlling partner.

Schwab seems totally unaware of how the institutions of capitalism have evolved over the centuries by ingenuity and efforts of millions and were not magically set or reset by any single man or government committee.[8]  Money evolved on the free market and did not originate from governmental edits.[9] Even language evolved, and was not invented by any government bureaucracy.  There is no recognition at all in any of Schwab’s books that he understands (or cares) anything about the spontaneous order of markets, the importance of private property and free-market prices, the economy-smothering effects of government bureaucracy, or the economic reasons for the inevitable failures of socialism.  Like all other socialist ideologues, he does not even bother to address the critics of socialism as he blindly makes his case for world socialism.  It can work, he insists, if only he and his corporate elitist comrades could be in charge.

The “logic” of The Great Reset can be stated in a syllogism:  1.  Socialism has failed disastrously everywhere it has been implemented; 2) Everyone knows this; 3; Therefore, what the world needs is more socialism on the biggest scale ever.

Schwab is an engineer and believes that world society can be socially “engineered” by corporate elitists like himself.  The Soviets would label this kind of thinking “scientific socialism.”

Destructionism

Like all socialist ideologues, Schwab’s starting point is what Ludwig von Mises called “destructionism.”  All socialists, Mises said, advocated the destruction of the existing institutions of society, especially capitalism, the family, and religion, all of which form a barrier between the individual and the controlling dictates of the state. Only then can society be “reset” to create a socialist utopia.  For “Socialism is . . . the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created.  It doesn’t build; it destroys.  For destructionism is the essence of it . . . each step leading towards socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.”[10]

This is why Schwab, Gates, Biden, and other proponents of “the great reset” so enthusiastically celebrate the lockdowns that occurred during the so-called pandemic of 2020 and declare that it is time to “build back better.”  Destroy what exists, they tell us, and then trust them to “build back” the entire planet “better.”  In fact, they were caught on video at their annual World Economic Forum meeting in early 2021 cheering a video of empty city streets and closed-down businesses caused by the government-mandated lockdowns that plunged literally millions into poverty worldwide. The lockdowns are “improving cities around the world,” said Schwab.[11]  They may even moderate “climate change,” he triumphantly chortled.  The unemployed and impoverished residents of those devasted cities would obviously disagree with this rosy scenario.

A “team of researchers” at the University of East Anglia, an institution that is notorious for its “studies” of global warming/cooling/climate change hysteria, has also chimed in to advocate a “global lockdown” every two years to supposedly reduce carbon dioxide emissions as required by the “Paris Climate Accord.”[12]  These lockdowns would not be related to any virus but would simply be designed to intentionally destroy much of the world economy, leaving millions in abject poverty, causing untold illness and death, for the sake of “fighting climate change” and of course, to achieve their real objective of destroying capitalism and adopting a version of worldwide socialist central planning.

Abolition of Private Property

The Word Economic Forum (WEF) socialists reveal themselves as classic Marxists in the sense that many of them call for the abolition of private property which, coincidentally, was the first plank of the ten planks of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.  Former Danish Minister of the Environment Ida Auken was given a platform at a WEF event to explain her definition of “a good life” that entailed the abolition of private property:

“Welcome to the year 2030 . . . . I don’t own anything, I don’t own a car.  I don’t own a house.  I don’t own any appliances or any clothes . . . someone else is using our [house] whenever we do not need it . . . .  I have no real privacy . . . everything I do . . . is recorded [by the state].  All in all, it is a good life.”[13]

Auken here is obviously dreaming of “a good life” where governments own all property and rent or lease everything to their subjects.  Of course, that means that politicians will decide for you what you need.  There would be no such thing as consumer sovereignty any more than there was in the Soviet Union (apart from the black markets).  And as Hayek famously said, in such a system the only power worth having would be political power.  Bribery, corruption, and rent seeking run amok would be pervasive in any such society.

They want to spy on your every move, using the latest nanotechnology which probably means implanting devices into your body.  There will no privacy, and that’s all good with Ida Auken and her WEF colleagues.

Auken speaks fondly of how, if she wasn’t “using” a room of her house, it would be perfectly fine for strangers to occupy it in her absence.  Government-approved strangers, of course.  This is eerily reminiscent of how the Soviets socialized housing and forced strangers to live in extremely cramped spaces in communal housing.  It is easy to imagine an Auken army doing the same in the name of “sustainability.”

After receiving criticism of this outrageous view, Auken attempted to soft pedal and disguise her true beliefs by saying that such a world was not actually her “utopia” but only what she believes is the inevitable.  This is another old socialist gimmick – to argue that socialism is inevitable, and it is therefore futile to oppose it.  Her argument that she was just explaining an inevitable future is not believable.

In fact, the inevitability gimmick is the main theme of all of Schwab’s books on the subject.  They tend to go into excruciating detail about the digitalization of life, nanotechnology, etc., portray it all as “inevitable,” and then make a pitch for why this supposedly means that centralized political control of all societies is necessary .

Exactly the opposite is true, however.  As Hayek pointed out in almost all of his life’s work.  The more complex society becomes, the greater is the need to rely on voluntarism, private property, and free markets, the only known means of achieving an effective use of knowledge in society.  Complexity requires the use of many minds (and bodies) to make effective use of increasingly complex knowledge in order to advance.  Not only many minds, but many minds in a regime of economic freedom is necessary — again the polar opposite of “the great reset” ideology.

The Soviet Union had many brilliant people but they were largely forbidden to apply their talents in a way that would improve the lives of their fellow citizens.  They were viewed by the state instead as tools to aggrandize the state, not to serve the citizenry. To deny this is to engage in what Hayek called a “fatal conceit.”[14]

The “Stakeholder” Subterfuge

The WEF elitists also employ another subterfuge as a means of essentially abolishing private property.  They do this by advocating the replacement of corporate shareholders with “stakeholders,” which includes just about every type of group of individuals in any community which are said to have a “right” to affect corporate decision making on a day-to-day basis.[15]  Such groups usually involve various left-wing political pressure groups such as labor unions, environmentalists, the “civil rights”/affirmative action lobbyists, ad infinitum.  Libertarians and free-market economists never seem to appear on the lists of “stakeholders” that are espoused by leftist stakeholder theorists.

Public choice economics teaches us, however, that such large groups tend to be disorganized because of their size, diversity, and consequently high decision-making costs and are therefore rarely effective.  It would also subject corporate decision making to profit-destroying bureaucracy and indecision, effectively turning corporations into versions of say, the Department of Motor Vehicles or the U.S. Postal Service in terms of efficiency.

The “stakeholder” advocates surely understand this, which is why they propose that people such as themselves serve as unelected spokesmen for all the various “stakeholders.”  This will require the heavy hand of government to empower them to order corporations to do as they say, not as their customers and shareholder owners say.  It is de facto nationalization, in other words, an effective abolition of private property in corporations.

In addition to offering no clue that he understands elementary economic principles, Schwab also seems completely clueless about the long history of classical liberal ideas such as private property, free markets, limited constitutional government, decentralized government, the rule of law, and much else.  Or, he simply doesn’t care because he is a megalomaniacal tyrant.  He is no different, in other words, than all the other twentieth century socialists who were either ignorant of these things or openly attacked them as barriers to their totalitarian intentions.

Moreover, Auken’s utopian daydream is reminiscent of the late nineteenth century book, Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy.  This was another utopian socialist daydream in the form of a novel whereby one Julian West falls asleep in 1887 and awakens 113 years later in the U.S. in the year 2000 when the country had been turned into a socialist utopia.  Auken apparently believes it would only take a single decade to achieve her (and Schwab’s) socialist utopia, however.

The Great Reset as Super Fascism

The World Economic Forum claims to exist in order to promote an integration of private enterprise and the state.  This is a perfect definition of economic fascism.[16]  Economic fascism in Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany allowed ostensibly private enterprises to exist (unlike the Russian socialists), but only if it was subjected to a totalitarian regulatory regime that forced all production to serve “the common good” as defined by the political ruling class, not the ruled. Consumer sovereignty was not at all a concern.  Schwab uses this same language of “the common good” to describe his “great reset” agenda.

It is basically a plea to turn the entire world economy into a version of Chinese fascism.  In the past several decades the Chinese communist government allowed more and more private enterprises to exist, but they are all still very heavily regulated, regimented, and controlled by the state.  Of course, the same can be said of the U.S. economy; it’s all a matter of degree.  As Robert Higgs has said, the American economic system is a system of “participatory fascism,” by which he meant a combination of economic fascism and democracy instead of dictatorship.

After claiming that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” in the form of the “digitalization” of just about everything is inevitable, and arguing that that means there is a need for the most centralized government the world has ever known, Klaus and his associates drag out the same tired, old socialist platitudes that Leftists have been promoting for generations as the alleged answers to all of society’s problems.  They advocate shutting down more and more of the world economy with more lockdowns (destructionism); a huge expansion of the catastrophically-failed welfare state with the unlimited printing of money by central banks in order to hand out “universal basic income” to everyone; the eventual abolition of beef in order to fight “climate change” allegedly caused by cow flatulence; the abolition of virtually all other kinds of meat, replacing it with grass and insects as part of the average diet (presumably not their diet, however); the abolition of the energy industries and their replacement with windmills and solar panels; communal housing, Soviet style; the “leveling” of wage differences by regulating labor markets essentially null and void, which would create communistic chaos; and the effective nationalization of whatever is left of private society with a 400% increase in taxation (for starters).

There is supposed to be no opposition to this recipe for totalitarian utopia because it is all being done in the name of “equity and inclusion” (the mating call of Leftists everywhere), “sustainability,” and “the common good.”  To oppose this latest proposal for a totalitarian world order is, therefore, to be an enemy of society.  The “common good before individual good,” by the way, was also the explicitly-stated theme of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform.[17]  According to the World Economic Forum crowd this is the “new” ideology that is supposed to lead us all through the twenty-first century’s “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

—

[1] Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (New York: Currency, 2016); Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, COVID-19: The Great Reset (Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2020).

[2] Ron Paul, “The Great Reset is about Expanding Government Power and Suppressing Liberty” (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/01/ron-paul-the-great-reset-is-about-expanding-government-power-and-suppresing-libety/).

[3] Antony Mueller, “The United Nations and the Origins of ‘The Great Reset’” (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/antony-mueller-/the-united-nations-and-the-origins-of-the-great-reset/).

[4] Gary D. Barnett, “Eugenics is Alive and Well, and the ‘COVID-19’ Scam is the Engine for Accomplishing Depopulation” (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/gary-d-barnett/eugenics-is-alive-and-well-and-the-covid-19-scam-is-the-engine-for-accomplishing-depopulation/).

[5] Antony Mueller, “The United Nations and the Origins of ‘The Great Reset’”.

[6] Myron Ebell and Steven Milloy, “Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-Pocalyptic Predictions,” (https://www.cei.org/wong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-population-predictions/).

[7] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, “The World is Going to End in Twelve Years if We Don’t Address Climate Change” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/264281002/).

[8] Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell, Jr., How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation of the Industrial World (New York: Basic Books, 1987).

[9] Carl Menger, “On the Origins of Money” (https://mises.org/library/origins-money-0).

[10] Ludwig von Mises, Socialism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), p. 457.

[11] Jim Holt, “World Economic Forum Deletes Latest Video After Cheering Global Lockdowns that Pushed 100 Million Humans into Extreme Poverty” (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/world-economic-forum-deletes-latest-video-after-cheering-global-lockdowns-that-pushed-100-millio-humans-into-extreme-poverty/).

[12] Helen Buyniski, “Global Lockdown Every Two Years Needed to Meet Paris CO2 Goals” (https://www.rt.com/news/517146-climate-lockdowns-every-two-years/).

[13] Ida Auken, “Welcome to 2030:  I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differetly-we-live-in-2030/?sh=3d95793e1735).

[14] F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

[15] See George Reisman, “Shareholders Not Stakeholders” (https://misesorg/wire/shareholders-not-stakeholders); and Gary Galles, “Why Shareholders are Better Than Corporate ‘Stakeholders’”(https://mises.org/library/why-shareholders-are-better-corporte-stakeholders).(https://mises.org/library/why-shareholders-are-better-corporte-stakeholders).

[16] Lew Rockwell, Fascism versus Capitalism (Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, 2013).

[17] https://historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo

SOURCE ARTICLE

FEBRUARY 19, 2021CategoriesBiopolitics

‘For whether or not the age of revolutions is over, the age of state-formation has only just begun.’

— T. J. Clark, Farewell to an Idea, 1999

Table of Contents

1. What We Know
2. The Conspiracy Paradox
3. The Power of Nightmares
4. Capitalising on the Crisis
5. Disruption and Redeployment
6. The Emerging Ideology
7. Biosecurity as Cultic Practice
8. The Authoritarian State
9. Brave New World
10. The Time Given to Us

Hegel remarks somewhere that the owl of Minerva only spreads its wings with the fall of night. By this he meant that history is always written in retrospect about an already realised world. In 1940, no-one could know what every school-child knew in 1945: who won the Second World War. In five years’ time, perhaps, everyone will know the outcome of the current revolution in Western capitalism. But by then it will be too late. The owl of Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, will be on the wing, and we will be left in the darkness. But if we are to keep the light of knowledge burning in her lamp, we can at least try to awaken from the sleep of reason into which we have fallen, and try to anticipate what monsters will emerge from the dark.

1. What We Know

We are approaching the first anniversary of the coronavirus crisis in the UK, and more and more people — on the Twitter account of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the Facebook pages set up to share censored interviews with scientists, in the online platforms not yet shut down for discussing the evidence against lockdown, in the illegal meetings of friends in the homes of the people that host them, in the thousands of discussions and exchanges that happen at every act of resistance, every demonstration, every march — know that this crisis has been manufactured. But what else do we know?

• We know now that Government strategies for responding to a viral epidemic that had been in place for years were abandoned in favour of the historically unprecedented policy of national lockdown.
• We know that Government contracts for the campaign of propaganda worth £119 million were signed with PR firms 3 weeks before the first lockdown.
• We know that, in April 2020, the Cabinet Office approved over £216 million for advertising on what it called the ‘COVID-19 Campaign 20/21’.
• We know that the criteria for attributing deaths to COVID-19 were changed back in March to exaggerate the official number of fatalities.
• We know that 95 per cent of the deaths attributed to the disease are of people with pre-existing health conditions like cancer, dementia, heart disease or diabetes.
• We know that 84 per cent are over 70 years of age, and that the average age of those whose deaths are attributed to COVID-19 is the average age of death in the UK.
• We know that, a year into this so-called ‘pandemic’, just over 600 patients under the age of 60 without a pre-existing health condition have had their deaths in English hospitals attributed to COVID-19.
• We know that, in April last year, the World Health Organisation issued instructions to medical practitioners that, if COVID-19 is merely the ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ or ‘assumed’ cause of death, it must always be recorded as the ‘underlying cause’ on death certificates, whether this is ‘considered medically correct or not.’
• We know that the WHO’s recommendations on the use of face masks by the public changed in June following political lobbying by the governments of, among other countries, the UK, and that even then it was primarily to encourage compliance with other restrictions on our rights and freedoms.
• We know that the first and only randomised control trial of the effectiveness of face masks in stopping coronavirus transmission, which was rejected by several leading medical journals, when finally published reported that the benefits were ‘not statistically significant’.
• We know that, for a long time, the UK Government deliberately exaggerated the number of so-called ‘COVID-19 deaths’ by including anyone who has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, no matter how long afterwards they died and of what illness.
• We know that, even now, anyone who tests positive within 28 days of their death is still recorded as a ‘COVID death’.
• We know that, since August 2020, anyone who tests positive within 60 days of their death is also recorded as a ‘COVID death’.
• We know that, according to the WHO, 30 per cent of infections, even in high GDP countries like the UK, are contracted in intensive care units, meaning anyone dying in a UK hospital has an equivalent chance of being designated a ‘COVID death’.
• We know that, even with the withdrawal of medical care for nearly 68 million people for the best part of a year, the age-adjusted mortality rate in 2020 was the highest in only 12 years, and that the population fatality rate from the coronavirus ‘epidemic’ is equivalent to a bad season of influenza.
• We know that, as even these inaccurately identified deaths have fallen, the Government has turned to the promotion of RT-PCR tests for the virus that, according to its own advisors at SAGE, have a false-positive rate higher than the percentage of the UK population testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with these tests.
• We know that between 20 and 80 per cent of infections with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic, and therefore calling them ‘cases’ is medically inaccurate.
• We know from a study of nearly 10 million residents in Wuhan, the epicentre of the infection in China, that asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is statistically non-existent.
• We have known for the past 55 years that at least four coronaviruses circulate freely in UK on a seasonal basis, providing prior immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in around 30 per cent of the population before it reached these shores.
• We know that any RT-PCR test reliant on encoding the spike protein unique to coronaviruses can incorrectly detect as SARS-CoV-2 anyone having a common cold from other coronaviruses at the time of sampling or carrying traces of dead and therefore non-infectious virus.
• We know that, despite this, the governments of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are using these meaningless statistics to impose tiered lockdowns across the UK, in further violation of our human rights and civil liberties.
• We know that this is being done under legislation that only authorises such actions when justified by medical evidence that has not been produced for Parliament but merely alluded to in press conferences.
• We know that the predictions of escalating infections and increased numbers of deaths by senior medical figures employed by the Government have been shown time and again to be wildly inaccurate fabrications based on predictive models challenged by the most eminent scientists around the world.
• We know that, as of publication, 351 coronavirus-justified Statutory Instruments have been made into law without a draft being presented to Parliament in advance for debate, without medical or other proof being provided of their justification or proportionality, and without an assessment being made of their impact, and that every one of these pieces of legislation requiring it has been rubber stamped in retrospect by virtual sittings of that Parliament.
• We know that £22 billion of public monies has been awarded in coronavirus-justified contracts without prior competitive tender to privately-owned companies with financial links to members of Parliament, the Government and their business colleagues.
• We know that more and more of the functions of the state are being outsourced to private companies unaccountable to the public that provides the money with which they are paid.
• We know that the coronavirus-justified restrictions imposed on the UK population since March 2020 have cost the country £280 billion, the equivalent of £4,112 for every man, woman and child in the UK.
• We know that, in contrast, the wealth of the world’s 2,200-plus billionaires increased by 20 per cent and US$1.9 trillion in 2020, more than in any previous year in history.
• We know that, by the end of 2020, the number of people in low to middle-income countries facing acute food insecurity will double to 265 million as a result of coronavirus-justified restrictions.
• We know that, under the cloak of this crisis, the Government and its financial partners have massively expanded the surveillance, monitoring and control of UK citizens through regulations, programmes and technologies that are implementing the UK biosecurity state.
• We know that, at the peak of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in April, more than 40 per cent of acute care beds in NHS hospitals were unoccupied.
• We know there is strong evidence that, at a conservative estimate, at least half the 80,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 were caused by lockdown restrictions that denied UK citizens emergency, elective, social and community care in order to free up hospital beds for an epidemic that was never in danger of arriving.
• We know that the renewal of lockdown over the winter of 2020-2021 is killing thousands more.
• We know that this lockdown was decided back in July, before the manufactured rise in so-called ‘cases’ consequent upon a huge rise in RT-PCR tests producing an even greater rise in false positives.
• We know that over the next five years, hundreds of thousands more people in the UK will fall into poverty, unemployment, bankruptcy and despair that will shorten their lives by many tens of thousands of years because of restrictions justified by these manufactured figures.
• We know that, although the GDP of the UK is rising slowly back to pre-crisis levels, the restrictions that continue to be imposed on the population are redistributing wealth from the public purse into the pockets of the rich and the powerful on a scale never before seen even in the UK.
• We know that the mental health of millions of UK citizens is being deliberately and systematically attacked through Government-funded campaigns of terrorism, fearmongering and lies designed to reduce the population to compliance, obedience, resignation and despair.
• We know that self-harming and thoughts of suicide, particularly among British children, are increasing.
• We know that the fines for the newly-created crimes of not wearing a mask, meeting friends or leaving our home without permission have been raised and will continue to be raised to levels sufficient to financially ruin anyone who disobeys Government regulations.
• We know that non-compliance with certain coronavirus-justified Regulations can now be punished with up to 10 years in prison.
• We know that the Government has looked at the legal barriers to making vaccination compulsory for a disease with a fatality rate of 0.23 per cent across the population and 0.05 per cent for those under 70, and has not ruled out making taking such a vaccine a condition of access to public life.
• We know that UK police forces are being given more power with reduced accountability to enforce these regulations with increased brutality and greater impunity from prosecution.
• We know that the legal profession, the media, the press, academia, the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, the financial and banking sector, the passenger transport industry, the civil service, the security services, the armed forces and every other public institution are collaborating in affecting the revolution of the UK into a biosecurity state.
• We know that this state is being implemented through the private sector as much as through the public sector, with the information technology industry, the healthcare industry, the education industry, the tourism industry, the hospitality industry and the retail industry all being compelled by coronavirus-justified regulations to enforce compliance with the technologies and programmes of the biosecurity state as a condition of using their services.
• We know that these technologies will not stop there, but under the guise of monitoring and protecting our biosecurity, not only from SARS-CoV-2 but from any other virus designated a threat to public health in the future, are penetrating and influencing every aspect of our private life, biological existence and social behaviour.

We know all this and more. But the question more and more people are now asking is: why? Why is this being done, and to what end? Of what benefit, and to whose benefit, is the impoverishment of the population of the UK and of most other Western liberal democracies around the world? Why would the governments of capitalist economies deliberately set out to bankrupt millions of small businesses and drive tens of millions of workers into unemployment and destitution? And what, if anything, can we do to resist it? This article is my attempt to respond to these questions, although not necessarily by answering them.

2. The Conspiracy Paradox

Cui bono, in Latin, means ‘to whom is it a benefit?’, or more colloquially ‘who benefits?’ It was a phrase associated with the Roman consul, Lucius Cassius, known in the Republic as an honest and wise judge, who when trying to identify the perpetrator of a crime always asked who stood to gain from it being perpetrated. Unsurprisingly, it’s a question that is being asked with greater insistence as the evidence of the crimes committed under the cloak of the coronavirus crisis mounts up, and the hitherto hegemonic facade of deception is beginning to crack. But there is still a barrier to the wall of lies behind it being torn down, and that is the question of who could possibly benefit from the destruction coronavirus-justified restrictions are inflicting on the populations on which they are being imposed by their governments, justified by their media and enforced by their police and security forces.

On the one hand, the question seems almost childishly naïve, like asking why the New Labour Government of Tony Blair fabricated the so-called ‘dodgy’ dossier that justified the UK forming a coalition with the US to invade Iraq on the threat of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that never existed. The fifth largest oil reserves in the world is the short and simple answer. But that answer, which every school child in the UK today knows, was apparently sufficiently unknown — or insufficiently believed — by the British public in 2003 to stop the UK Government and media collaborating to take us into one of the most disastrous military invasions in recent history. I’ve no doubt that in a decade the children of Britain will know why they spend their days masked before an Apple computer, have to update their biometric data into an Android phone every week, have everything they read censored by Facebook and everything they write monitored by Twitter, everywhere they go recorded by Google, and everything they earn and buy overseen and approved by Amazon; but by then it will be too late. We need to know now.

And yet, despite the apparent obviousness of the answer, it is not easy to put into words that everyone can understand and accept. The reason for this, as I want to show in this article, is because it is the wrong question. The current framing of this question offers only two responses, and in doing so has successfully divided the country into two hugely unequal camps. Either we are, in reality, facing a civilisation-threatening virus to which our governments are responding with degrees of incompetence and opportunism but to a genuine and real threat to public health; or the whole thing has been manufactured by a conspiracy of powerful individuals and organisations whose names and initials we are all familiar with by now, and whose immense wealth and influence enables them to grind the organ to which our various governments are dancing.

I don’t believe either of these answers to be correct. I have spent the past year showing why the statistical data, medical reports and coronavirus-justified legislation do not corroborate the veracity of the first answer. But I also don’t believe that the refusal to believe this blatant lie means believing the easily-dismissed second answer that there must — therefore — exist a conspiracy of political, economic and technological powers which have either manufactured this deadly virus in a secret lab in Wuhan or fabricated the effects of a virus whose genome still hasn’t been sequenced. On the contrary, I believe it is this binary response — a deadly virus or an even deadlier conspiracy, neither of which is supported by what we know about the world in the early Twenty-first Century — that has stopped the truth about this crisis appearing to those who are looking for it.

My answer to the question — Cui bono? — rests on a paradox. Its initial premise is a widely-accepted one: that, rather than explaining this crisis, the various conspiracy theories about COVID-19 — like most conspiracy theories — are a product of this crisis. But the paradox I derive from this, which draws attention to what we mean by a ‘product’, is less commonly proposed: that, far from undermining the ideological hegemony of the official narrative about COVID-19, these conspiracy theories are a crucial part of the construction of that hegemony. It is not by examining their claims, therefore, but rather their functions — beginning with the question of whom they benefit — that we can begin to understand what is happening, how it is happening and, maybe, why it is happening.

3. The Power of Nightmares

I want to begin by challenging the explanatory power of conspiracy theories in general, with the hope that, by doing so, it will undermine the foundation on which the coronavirus crisis has been constructed. The best place to start is with one of the most widely accepted and institutionally supported propagator of conspiracy theories, Adam Curtis. So embedded are his theories in our culture that I imagine most people would not regard him as a conspiracy theorist, a term they would reserve for believers in the ‘Illuminati’ or a ‘flat-earth’. But the reduction of all conspiracy theories to occult or scientifically-disproved beliefs is part of the function of what might be called the ‘discourse’ of conspiracy theory that is increasingly being used to dismiss all ideas and beliefs not sanctioned by the institutions of the state, whether political, scientific, religious or cultural. It has always struck me as curious that, despite the content of his numerous and award-winning television programmes — all of which, on the face of it, contradict and undermine what such institutions tell us about the world and recent historical events — rather than being banned or censored or marginalised are available on an almost permanent basis on mainstream broadcasting platforms like the BBC, where they are categorised as ‘documentaries’ and never bracketed with other ‘conspiracy theories’. This has led me to ask, Cui bono? — who benefits from the production, televising, and availability of these apparently subversive accounts of everything from the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the causes of the Iraq War to the power of the media and the 2008 financial crisis.

What all of Curtis’s accounts share in common is this: that history is made by a small group of individuals in positions of political and corporate power, usually putting into practice ideas he traces back to theoretical concepts developed years earlier by intellectuals and only later made possible by advances in technology. It’s a persuasive model of history whose theoretical simplicity is concealed behind the myriad of intuitive and tenuous connections Curtis draws between public and private organisations, whether Governments or corporations, and the secret dealings of their leaders. Indeed, his latest series, Can’t Get You Out of My Head, which is available to view on the BBC now, is an account of the rise of conspiracy theories told through barely articulated connections between individuals and events driven or guided by never identified forces. Significantly, though, over the more than 8 hours of its 6 episodes, the coronavirus crisis warrants only the briefest of mentions 10 minutes from the end, where Curtis merely repeats the standard liberal response about COVID-19 exacerbating inequalities in Western democracies. Some conspiracy theories, it seems, are off-bounds even to a BBC producer.

In this respect, although more credible than, say, Hitler’s conspiracy of Jewish bankers for Bolshevism, Curtis’s histories, in both their theoretical model of change and in the methodology of their telling, with archive footage bringing a veneer of history to historically meaningless generalisations, are exemplary of conspiracy theories in general. Power is located in the hands of a few individuals, who are limited to the intellectuals and mavericks who formulate the ideas, the scientists and engineers who develop the technology that allows those ideas to be realised, the CEOs and bankers who fund their implementation or the politicians and generals who put them into practice. Like the old histories of kings and queens and the wars they started, this is a history of the elite. The masses appear only as the object of their manipulations, the foot-soldiers they send to war, the victims they killed, and the civilians back home who waved their national flags and corporate logos and cheered. What this model of history does is two things.

First, such immense power and influence is attributed to this elite that they are depicted as more than kings, almost as gods, employing all the rapidly-evolving power of technology, whether that’s computers, robotics, the internet of things, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, quantum computing or the military hardware they drive. All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is the title of Curtis’s 3-part film, televised on the BBC in 2011, about the power of computers to create our perception of the world. Second, and as a consequence of this depiction, the rest of us, the masses of Western democracies, are depicted not only as powerless but also as drained by this depiction of any historical agency whatsoever. The spectacle of our own impotence in the face of the depicted nexus of political, military and technological power becomes the object of filmic consumption. And as the German critic, Walter Benjamin, wrote of the spectacle of war under fascism, our alienation from ourselves has reached such a degree that even the depiction of the annihilation of our agency is now experienced as an aesthetic pleasure. Everything is Going According to Plan is the title of Curtis’s 2013 film about how technocrats and global corporations have established an ultraconservative norm behind the fake, enchanting prison of the internet.

This, I believe, is why Curtis’s otherwise so traumatic accounts of our manufactured impotence are so popular, so available for viewing on mainstream media platforms that otherwise refuse to report on what is happening in the world, so readily consumed by a UK public otherwise indifferent to the suffering our Government inflicts on other countries and peoples, and why they have become the primary model by which the world is now explained and understood. In a choice between being told that we are flies to the wanton boys running the world and blank incomprehension at the vast and terrifying complexity of that world, it seems we overwhelmingly prefer the first story for our evening’s television. The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear is the title of another 3-part film, televised on the BBC in 2004, about how the US created a mythical enemy out of Islam in order to drum up global support for its military interventions in the oil-rich Middle East. So what’s wrong with this model of history, and what does it have to tell us about the latest incomprehensible event by which we are being terrorised into apathy and compliance?

Perhaps I should start by saying that I imagine the organisations and individuals named in Curtis’s programmes, like the ones named in the conspiracy theories about COVID-19, do all behave like conspiracists. I haven’t forgotten the distinction made by an unnamed senior adviser in the George W. Bush administration between a ‘reality-based community’ and a ‘faith-based presidency’. This was reported in the New York Times Magazine in October 2004, the same month the Lancet medical journal estimated that 100,000 ‘excess’ Iraqi deaths from all causes had occurred since the U.S. invasion began:

‘The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community”, which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality”. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore”, he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”’

This is straight out of the dystopian accounts of the power of nightmares to create reality that is the bed and butter of Curtis’s phantasmagoria. And just as the coronavirus crisis has produced a spate of conspiracy theories about its origins, authors and ends, so the threat of their irresistible power has given rise to an opposed phenomenon, which the current crisis has formed into the some of the most bizarre statements to be published in even the UK press. Since this crisis has begun, anyone who attributes any influence or deliberation or intentions to any organisation — whether that’s to previously less well-known organisations like the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or to organisations that have been at the forefront of recent political debates, like the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, or indeed the UK Government itself — is immediately denounced as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Faced with evidence of the power of these organisations to ‘create our own reality’, our first resort, it seems, is to denounce their existence, like children who hope that, by closing their eyes, the monster at the bottom of their bed will disappear.

It’s not as famous or as often quoted as the line about philosophers interpreting the world rather than changing it, but in the same text Marx wrote that ‘all mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of that practice’. So I want to start our awakening from the sleep of reason by looking at the social practices of the coronavirus crisis, and at how this can correct the conspiracy theory of an elite with their hands, like the Wizard of Oz, on the gears of history. Let’s pull back that curtain and look at the machine of history. We all know its name, and despite all the renewed predictions of its death it hasn’t gone away. On the contrary, it’s just going through a revolution — perhaps one worthy of a new prefix — but its name is still the same. Capitalism.

Marx was right. When the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production — in legal terms its property relations — a period of social revolution begins. ‘With the change of the economic foundations’, he wrote, ‘the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.’ The expansion into new markets of the neoliberal capitalism that has dominated Western democracies for the past 40 years no longer has to accommodate liberal democracy. What we are undergoing — what we are colluding in producing — are the new political, legal and social forms for a multinational biosecurity state. And no elite, no matter how powerful, is in control of it, for the simple reason that, despite the proliferation of immensely powerful international organisations increasingly divorced from and opposed to the democratic process, capitalism is a dynamic process that develops by conflict and contradiction.

Capitalism has a grip on the world the like of which it has never had before, and as it faces the long-heralded limits to that expansion it is developing new forms and powers to extend that grip further over the world’s diminishing resources. But there is no single government or corporation ruling the globe, no secret society whose members sit on every cabinet and board. The US Government is the greatest military power the world has ever seen, and the United Nations has long been superseded by far more unaccountable coalitions of state and corporate powers whose activities are largely secret and getting more so. And the power of technology to monitor and control the world’s populations is expanding at an exponential rate in both breadth and depth. But the world is not a single, supra-political block. There is no invisible hand of the market-god ruling over us, for good or for evil; there are only devils competing for his crown. The world undergoing this revolution in capitalism remains a conflict whose battleground, now and for the immediate future, is the coronavirus crisis. What makes that conflict new for Western democracies is that the war being waged is a civil one, of governments against their own people, rather than against other countries. By looking at how this civil war is being waged, therefore, we can begin to understand to what ends it is being fought. And, hopefully, from better understanding the field of battle and our place on it, we can stop being the canon-fodder of dictators both known and unknown, desert the ranks of compliance, and start deciding ourselves what battles we want to fight, how and against whom.

4. Capitalising on the Crisis

What is lacking in Curtis’s model of history — the conspiracy theory of history — is its mediation through capitalism — what the German philosopher and sociologist, Theodor Adorno, would have called its ‘dialecticisation’. In conspiracy theories, capitalism is the producer of the wealth whose accumulation is the basis of power, the source of the technology by which we are deceived, the cause of the periodic crises that further tighten its grip on the world, the origin of the wars fought for its expansion; but capitalism is never a site of conflict itself. In conspiracy theories, the agents of history — whether it’s the CIA, the WHO or the G7 — always act directly upon it. Their agency is abstracted from the material relations of capitalism and hypostasised as ‘power’. But nightmares, to refer back to Curtis’s programme, do not drive the world, however much conspiracy theorists like to attribute such influence to those that produce them for our consumption. The material productive forces of capitalism drive the world, and unless a nightmare benefits those having it, they will wake up and the nightmare will vanish into the night. No war has ever been fought that did not make those declaring it richer and more powerful; and for a year now, despite the Government and its advisors repeatedly telling us that ‘no-one wants lockdown’, enough people have been benefitting from the coronavirus nightmare to keep the Western democracies of capitalism asleep and terrified. Without those benefits, all the power of nightmares at the disposal of all new technology wouldn’t be enough to keep us dreaming. So let’s see if we can wake from the sleep of reason and look with open eyes at whom it is benefitting.

I’m not going to discuss the corruption that most people in the UK are aware of without it changing their opinion of the Government’s narrative about the virus or answering their question of whom this crisis benefits. I’ve recorded examples of this corruption throughout my previous articles, whether it’s the tech companies being awarded untendered contracts for the various programmes of the biosecurity state, the manufacturers of medical supplies newly formed by Government ministers to make and distribute masks and other requirements of Government policy, or the pharmaceutical companies set to make billions from the Government making vaccines mandatory. Benito Mussolini reportedly defined the fascist state as when a cigarette paper cannot be passed between the interests of the government and corporate interests. But corruption in the UK is not only commonplace, it’s the norm. There’s nothing new about Government contracts being awarded to the friends of ministers and donors to the Conservative party. Such practices don’t reflect a new stage in capitalism but, rather, a further stage in the descent into the nepotism and unaccountability of what is now a constitutional dictatorship. Instead, I’m going to talk about the systemic changes to the superstructure — our political, legal and social forms — that are both accommodating and implementing this new revolution in capitalism. Because these changes are being implemented not through sweetheart deals between political parties and their corporate backers, but at a lower and far more pervasive level of capitalism.

Capitalism is typically understood as being derived from the noun ‘capital’, meaning the funds or stock that are the basis for commercial or financial operations, and a ‘capitalist’ as someone in possession of sufficient capital to use it in business enterprises. But capitalism is also a cognate of ‘capitalise’, which means not only to convert into a capital sum but also to use to one’s advantage, in economic terms to make capital out of; and it’s in this sense that the function of the coronavirus crisis within the changing relations of production and ownership in Western capitalism is best understood.

As a registered community interest company, Architects for Social Housing is contacted daily by a myriad of companies seeking to capitalise on this crisis. These include architectural practices promoting ‘COVID-secure’ designs of the new office space if and when we’re permitted to return to work; designers promoting reconfigurations of residential spaces into a space in which we can ‘work from home’; various regulatory bodies informing us of the obligations of businesses towards their staff in a ‘post-COVID world’; law practices selling seminars in the changes to employment law in the wake of the latest bit of coronavirus-justified legislation; financial advisors keeping us up to date with the various Government grants available to businesses negatively impacted financially by the imposition of coronavirus-justified lockdown; medical suppliers advertising the latest, most effective and most fashionable ‘COVID-compliant masks’ for our employees; pharmaceutical companies selling cheap, easy and reliable RT-PCR and Lateral Flow antigen tests for the regular screening of staff; sellers of antibacterial door handles and touchless coffee machines; invites to symposia in which figures in the industry will explain the commercial possibilities of housing provision within the changed economic landscape; tech companies promoting the safety, security and benefits of conducting business meetings by their particular video communications package; marketing companies offering a free consultation in expanding our client base into the homes of a newly relocated workforce; management consultants offering interactive online seminars on the impacts of COVID-19 on the contractual obligations of employer and contractor and how to manage risk; businesses advertising ‘webinars’ offering advice, support and guidance for small businesses ‘during the pandemic’; debt collectors offering ‘no collection, no commission’ deals for companies falling into insolvency ‘due to the pandemic’; retraining programmes for industry professionals on furlough under the Government’s Job Retention Scheme; private health practitioners offering to help us overcome the challenges of staying healthy under lockdown restrictions; recruitment agencies with guides to how to provide effective mental health care for employees ‘during the outbreak’; IT companies renting hosted desktop bundles to run our main line-of-business applications in the cloud since ‘it looks like businesses will continue to ask their employees to work from home if they can for the foreseeable future’; online continual professional ‘lockdown learning’ sessions on emergency lighting, cavity trays aluminium roof tiles and concrete repair; interactive online seminars on delay and extension of contracts caused by uncertainty during the pandemic; ‘coronavirus hubs’ for the latest news and support for small businesses; newly launched pharmacies run by banks to deliver repeat prescriptions to our door safely together with ‘a reminder of when to take our medicine’; concerned enquiries into how we are finding the latest lockdown restrictions from a business listings company; an interactive online seminar on how to complete a ‘robust COVID-19 risk assessment before re-mobilising your workforce’; purveyors of a ‘mobile COVID-19 barrier’ made to professional and commercial standard and ‘suitable for any space that requires distancing measures for personal or public protection’; first aid training courses for employees to ensure our organisation is ‘compliant with current legislation’; leaflet distribution as the most effective way of advertising during the ‘current restrictions’ when more people are working at home; IT solutions allowing employees to work from home under lockdown or if we’re giving up renting office space for good; covert installation of tracking devices for company vehicles featuring ignition start alerts, driver monitoring, geo-zones and route violation, panic alerts, road-speed limit alerts, virtual odometer, animated replays and more; and invites to a virtual summit on how to ‘build back better’ for our ‘post COVID recovery’.

That’s just in the last couple of weeks, and just for our small company; but it conveys, I hope, something of how all UK companies are now attempting to capitalise on this crisis by offering new services responding to the opportunities created by coronavirus-justified restrictions. The word ‘lockdown’ has only negative connotations, and the media is full of stories about the jobs lost, the businesses gone into receivership, and the entrepreneurs declaring bankruptcy. That’s all true, but, once again, it paints a distorted picture of what is happening with the economy, much like Adam Curtis’s depictions of the unassailable power of a secret elite. And like his films, this inaccurate depiction of the changes to capitalism under its newly emerging superstructure forces us to ask why this transformation of our political, legal and social forms has been imposed and, at the same time, prevents us from answering that question. And the desired result is that we are faced, once again, with a choice between, on the one hand, a civilisation-threatening virus and the unprecedented changes they necessitate and, on the other, a secret conspiracy designed to destroy capitalism for unclear ends.

But the truth is that capitalism is not being destroyed. Rather, capitalism is going through what Marx called ‘an epoch of social revolution’, when the once dominant but increasingly redundant forms of its political, legal and social superstructure have finally come into direct contradiction with its economic development, and are now being disposed of with a rapidity that has shocked the populations of Western liberal democracies into acceptance. But with that rapid acceptance has come an equally as rapid collusion.

One of the barriers to answering the question of why this is being done, if not in response to a civilisation-threatening virus, is a misunderstanding of agency. When we ask who is doing this and to what ends, we implicitly frame the answer around a group of individuals, corporations, governments or international organisations all working in collaboration towards an agreed, desired and planned end. And that, unsurprisingly, is not believable except to those who understand the world according to the conspiracy theory of history. It was precisely this that was meant when, in response to my last article, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Manufacturing the Crisis, which analysed how a virus with the infection fatality rate of seasonal influenza has been turned into a civilisation-threatening pandemic, a reader responded with the rhetorical question: ‘Are you suggesting a worldwide conspiracy to subjugate humanity?’

It should be clear by now that I am not suggesting this, while not denying that, by definition, the foremost concern of those in power is to subjugate those who are not. But the question, which is not unique to this reader, does more than answer itself (for the only answer to this question can be ‘no’). In addition, it constrains the answer to a binary choice, neither of which is supported by the way capitalism has become the dominant economic system in the world, by asking the wrong question. What this question does is mistake agency with intentionality, effect with motivation. ‘What is the motivation? With what long-term objective? And by whom?’ was what another reader asked me. My approach to answering this question — and the title for this article — was suggested by another reader, who wrote: ‘The question that I always come back to is why? Cui bono?’ It’s a better question, because unlike the first it doesn’t offer an obviously unacceptable answer; but asking ‘why’ this is being done is not the same as asking ‘whom does it benefit’.

Benefit, whether financial or in power, may explain, as Lucius Cassius believed, who committed an act, and especially a crime, but it does not explain why something has happened. The man who sold his shares in a pharmaceutical company the day its vaccine was announced to have an efficacy of 95 per cent can with some assurance be identified as having an interest in circumventing the normal procedures for establishing the safety of that vaccine; but it does not explain why the vaccine rose in value sufficient to make him, as it did the CEO of Pfizer, three-quarters of a million dollars in profit in a single day. Dr. Albert Bourla did not conspire with the US Government, the US Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organisation or any other organisation to create the circumstances under which his company could sell over a billion doses of an uncertified vaccine to the governments of the world on the back of this crisis. On the contrary, he did what every other business writing to the e-mail of Architects for Social Housing has done: he sought to capitalise, both as a shareholder in and the CEO of the company, on the existing market condition. Of course, as the second biggest pharmaceutical company in the world, Pfizer has far more money with which to lobby the UK Ministers who award the Government contracts, far more capital to invest in producing a product accepted by them in record time, far greater access to the media that creates the climate of hysteria and fear in which that product is demanded and accepted by the public, and far more funding to invest in the regulatory bodies agreeing to bypassing normal safety measures to authorise the use of their hastily developed product. As I have documented in my article, 

By Brandon Smith
Alt-Markert.us
March 13, 2021

I suspect a large portion of the public is at least partially aware when they are being pushed or lured into a specific way of thinking. We have certainly had enough experience with institutions trying to manage our thoughts over the years.  Governments and mainstream media outlets in particular have made the manufacture of public consent their top priority. This is what they spend most of their time, money and energy on. All other issues are secondary.

The media does not objectively report facts and evidence, it spins information to plant an engineered narrative in the minds of its viewers. But the public is not as stupid as they seem to think. This is probably why trust in the media has plunged by 46% in the past ten years, hitting an all time low this year of 27%.

Except for pre-election season spikes, mainstream outlets from CNN to Fox to CBS to MSNBC are facing dismal audience numbers, with only around 2 million to 3 million prime time viewers. There are numerous YouTube commentators with bigger audiences than this. And, if you sift through the debris of MSM videos on YouTube, you’ll find low hits and a majority of people that are visiting their channels just to make fun of them.Immunity Boost Supplem...Buy New $24.99 ($0.28 / Count)(as of 03:49 EDT - Details)

The MSM is now scrambling to explain their crumbling empire, as well as debating on ways to save it from oblivion. The power of the “Fourth Estate” is a facade, an illusion given form by smoke and mirrors. Bottom line: Nobody (except perhaps extreme leftists) likes the corporate media or activist journalists and propagandists.

One would think that media moguls and journos would have realized this by now. I mean, if they accepted this reality, they would not be struggling so much with the notion that no one is listening to them when it comes to pandemic mandates and the covid vaccines. Yet, journalists complain about it incessantly lately.

In fact, half the media reports I see these days are not fact based analysis of events, but corporate journalists interviewing OTHER corporate journalists and bitching to each other about how Americans are “too ignorant” or “too conspiratorial” to grasp that journos are the anointed high priests of information.

I actually find this situation fascinating as an observer of oligarchy and being well versed in the mechanics of propaganda. The fundamental narrative of control-culture is that there are “experts” that the establishment chooses, and then there is everyone else. The “experts” are supposed to pontificate and dictate while everyone else is supposed to shut up, listen and obey.

Media elitists see themselves in the role of “the experts” and the public as devout acolytes; a faithful flock of sheep. But what happens when everyone starts ignoring the sheep herders?

The Parable explaining this reality

^165:2.4 "The true shepherd gathers his flock into the fold for the night in times of danger. And when the morning has come, he enters into the fold by the door, and when he calls, the sheep know his voice. Every shepherd who gains entrance to the sheepfold by any other means than by the door is a thief and a robber. The true shepherd enters the fold after the porter has opened the door for him, and his sheep, knowing his voice, come out at his word; and when they that are his are thus brought forth, the true shepherd goes before them; he leads the way and the sheep follow him. His sheep follow him because they know his voice; they will not follow a stranger. They will flee from the stranger because they know not his voice. This multitude which is gathered about us here are like sheep without a shepherd, but when we speak to them, they know the shepherd's voice, and they follow after us; at least, those who hunger for truth and thirst for righteousness do. Some of you are not of my fold; you know not my voice, and you do not follow me. And because you are false shepherds, the sheep know not your voice and will not follow you."

The other day I came across this revealing interview on CBS news about a poll of Americans showing at least 30% will refuse to take the covid vaccine outright. The interview is, for some reason, with another journalist from The Atlantic with no apparent medical credentials and no insight into the data surrounding covid.

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare, The Tempest

.

Mike Yeadon is a soft-spoken microbiologist and a former Vice President of Allergy and Respiratory Research at Pfizer. He spent 32 years working for large pharmaceutical companies and is a leading expert on viral respiratory infections. He is also a man on a mission, and his mission is to inform as many people as possible about the elite powerbrokers that are using the pandemic as a smokescreen to conceal their real objectives. Here’s Yeadon in a recent interview:

“If you wanted to depopulate a significant portion of the world, and to do it in a way that wouldn’t require destruction of the environment with nuclear weapons, or poisoning everyone with anthrax or something, And you wanted plausible deniability, whilst you had a multi-year infectious disease crisis; I don’t think you could come up with a better plan of work than what seems to be in from of me. I can’t say that’s what they’re going to do, but I cannot think of a benign explanation for why they are doing it.” (“Interview with Dr Mike Yeadon“, The Delingpole Podcast; Minute 44: 25)

“Depopulation”? Who said anything about depopulation? Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to go from a mass vaccination campaign to allegations of a conspiracy to “depopulate a significant portion of the world”?

Indeed, it is, but Yeadon has done extensive research on the matter and provides compelling evidence that such a diabolical objective may, in fact, be the goal. Moreover, it is not for lack of proof that people are not persuaded that Yeadon is right, but something more fundamental; the inability to grasp that men are capable of almost-unimaginable viciousness and cruelty. Here’s Yeadon again:

“It’s become absolutely clear to me, even when I talk to intelligent people, friends, acquaintances … and they can tell I’m telling them something important, but they get to the point [where I say] ‘your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death and that of your children,’ and they can’t begin to engage with it. And I think maybe 10% of them understand what I said, and 90% of those blank their understanding of it because it is too difficult. And my concern is, we are going to lose this, because people will not deal with the possibility that anyone is so evil…

“But I remind you of what happened in Russia in the 20th Century, what happened in 1933 to 1945, what happened in, you know, Southeast Asia in some of the most awful times in the post-war era. And, what happened in China with Mao and so on….

“We’ve only got to look back two or three generations. All around us there are people who are as bad as the people doing this. They’re all around us. So, I say to folks, the only thing that really marks this one out, is its scale.

“But actually, this is probably less bloody, it’s less personal, isn’t it? The people who are steering this … it’s going to be much easier for them. They don’t have to shoot anyone in the face. They don’t have to beat someone to death with a baseball bat, or freeze them, starve them, make them work until they die. All of those things did happen two or three generations back… That’s how close we are.

“And all I’m saying is, some shifts like that are happening again, but now they are using molecular biology.” (“Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death.“, LifeSite News)

He’s right, isn’t he? Whereas, a great many people know that the government, the media and the public health officials have been lying to them about everything from the efficacy of masks, social distancing and lockdowns, to the life-threatening dangers of experimental vaccines, they still refuse to believe that the people orchestrating this operation, might be pushing them inexorably towards infertility or an early death. They cannot imagine anything so demonic, so they stick their heads in the sand and pretend not to see what is going on right beneath their noses. It’s called “denial” and it is only strengthening the position of the puppetmasters that are operating behind the scenes. Here’s more from Yeadon:

“…In the last year I have realized that my government and its advisers are lying in the faces of the British people about everything to do with this coronavirus. Absolutely everything. It’s a fallacy this idea of asymptomatic transmission and that you don’t have symptoms, but you are a source of a virus. That lockdowns work, that masks have a protective value obviously for you or someone else, and that variants are scary things and we even need to close international borders in case some of these nasty foreign variants get in.” (“Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death”, Lifesite News)

Many readers may have noticed that this interview appeared on a small Christian website, called “Lifesite News”. Why is that? Shouldn’t the informed observations of a former Pfizer vice president appear on the front pages of the New York Times or Washington Post? Wouldn’t you expect the big cable news channels to run a hot-button interview like this as their headline story?

Of course, not. No one expects that, because everyone knows that the media honchos reflexively quash any story that doesn’t support the “official narrative”, that is, that Covid is the most contagious and lethal virus of all time which requires a new authoritarian political structure and the wholesale evisceration of civil liberties. Isn’t that the underlying storyline of the last year? Covid skeptics and naysayers, like Yeadon, are not allowed to refute the official propaganda or debate the issue on a public forum. They’re effectively banned from the MSM and consigned to the outer reaches of the Internet where only a scattered few will what they have to say. Here’s more:

“Everything I have told you, every single one of those things is demonstrably false. But our entire national policy is based on these all being broadly right, but they are all wrong.”

“But what I would like to do is talk about immune escape because I think that’s probably going to be the end game for this whole event, which I think is probably a conspiracy. Last year I thought it was what I called ‘convergent opportunism,’ that is a bunch of different stakeholder groups have managed to pounce on a world in chaos to push us in a particular direction. So, it looked like it was kind of linked, but I was prepared to say it was just convergence.”

“I [now] think that’s naïve. There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. One of those two things is true because the reason it must be true is that dozens and dozens of governments are all saying the same lies and doing the same inefficacious things that demonstrably cost lives.

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky… “variants”… they are all saying ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.” (“Former Pfizer VP: ‘Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death”, Lifesite News)

Let’s pause for a minute, and ask ourselves why a modest, self-effacing microbiologist who operated in the shadows for his entire professional career, has thrust himself into the limelight when he knows, for certain, he will either be ridiculed, smeared, discredited, dragged through the mud or killed. In fact, he openly admits that he fears for his safety and assumes that he could be “removed” (‘assassinated’) by his enemies. So, why is he doing this? Why is he risking life and limb to get the word out about vaccines?

It’s because he feels a moral obligation to warn people about the danger they face. Yeadon is not an attention-seeking narcissist, in fact, he’d rather vanish from public-life altogether. But he’s not going to do that because he’s selflessly committed to doing his duty by sounding the alarm about a malign strategy that may well lead to the suffering and death of literally tens of millions of people. That’s why he’s doing it, because he’s an honorable man with a strong sense of decency. Remember decency?. . Here’s more:

“You can see that I am desperately trying not to say that it is a conspiracy, because I have no direct evidence that it is a conspiracy. Personally, all my instincts are shouting that it’s a conspiracy as a human being, but as a scientist, I can’t point to the smoking gun that says they made this up on purpose.” (“Yeadon Interview, Delingpod, minute 41:25)

Many of us who have followed events closely for the last year and have searched the internet for alternate points of view, are equally convinced that it is a conspiracy, just as Russiagate was a conspiracy. And while we might not have conclusive, rock-solid proof of criminal activity, there is voluminous circumstantial evidence to support the claim. By definition, a “conspiracy” is “an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.” (Dictionary.com) What is taking place presently across the western world, meets that basic definition. Just as the contents of this article meets the basic definition of a “Conspiracy theory“, which is: “an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy.” (Britannica)

We make no attempt to deny that this is a conspiracy theory, any more than we deny that senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA, DOJ and US State Department were involved in a covert operation aimed at convincing the American people that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. That was a conspiracy theory that was later proven to be a fact. We expect that the facts about the Covid operation will eventually emerge acquitting us on that account as well. Here’s more from Yeadon:

“I think the end game is going to be, ‘everyone receives a vaccine’… Everyone on the planet is going to find themselves persuaded, cajoled, not quite mandated, hemmed-in to take a jab.

“When they do that every single individual on the planet will have a name, or unique digital ID and a health status flag which will be ‘vaccinated,’ or not … and whoever possesses that, sort of single database, operable centrally, applicable everywhere to control, to provide as it were, a privilege, you can either cross this particular threshold or conduct this particular transaction or not depending on [what] the controllers of that one human population database decide. And I think that’s what this is all about because once you’ve got that, we become playthings and the world can be as the controllers of that database want it.” (LifeSite)

So mass vaccination is actually the pathway to absolute social control by a technocratic elites accountable to no one? Are we there yet?

Pretty close, I’d say. Here’s more:

“And they are talking the same sort of future script which is, ‘We don’t want you to move around because of these pesky “variants”’— (but) ‘don’t worry, there will be “top-up” vaccines that will cope with the potential escapees.’ They’re all saying this when it is obviously nonsense.”

Is he right? Is the variant hobgoblin now being invoked to prolong the restrictions, intensify the paranoia and pave the way for endless rounds of mass vaccination?

Judge for yourself, but here’s a sampling of articles that appeared in today’s news that will help you decide:

1– Reuters, South African variant can ‘break through’ Pfizer vaccine, Israeli study says

“The coronavirus variant discovered in South Africa can “break through” Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine to some extent, a real-world data study in Israel found, though its prevalence in the country is low and the research has not been peer reviewed….

“We found a disproportionately higher rate of the South African variant among people vaccinated with a second dose, compared to the unvaccinated group. This means that the South African variant is able, to some extent, to break through the vaccine’s protection,” said Tel Aviv University’s Adi Stern. (So, according to the article– the vaccine doesn’t work.)

2– The New York Times: Rise of Variants in Europe Shows How Dangerous the Virus Can Be

“Europe, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic last spring, has once again swelled with new cases, which are inundating some local hospitals and driving a worrisome global surge of Covid-19.

But this time, the threat is different: The rise in new cases is being propelled by a coronavirus variant first seen in Britain and known as B.1.1.7. The variant is not only more contagious than last year’s virus, but also deadlier.

The variant is now spreading in at least 114 countries. Nowhere, though, are its devastating effects as visible as in Europe, where thousands are dying each day and countries’ already-battered economies are once again being hit by new restrictions on daily life….

Vaccines will eventually defeat the variants, scientists say. (So, they don’t work now??) And stringent restrictions can drive down cases of B.1.1.7. (So, don’t leave your home.)..

“We’ve seen in so many countries how quickly it can become dominant,” said Lone Simonsen, a professor and director of the PandemiX Center at Roskilde University in Denmark. “And when it dominates, it takes so much more effort to maintain epidemic control than was needed with the old variant.” (In other words, we are effectively dealing with a different pathogen that requires a different antidote. It’s an admission that the current crop of vaccines doesn’t work.)

3– SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.351 and P.1escape from neutralizing antibodies, cell.com

“….our findings indicate that the B.1.351and P.1 variants might be able to spread in convalescent patients or BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals and thus constitute an elevated threat to human health. Containment of these variants by non-pharmaceutic interventions is an important task.” (Note– In other words, the new vaccines don’t work against the new Covid strains, so we might need to preserve the onerous lockdown restrictions forever.)

How can people read this fearmongering bunkum and not see that it is designed to terrify and manipulate the masses into sheeplike compliance?

There’s no denying that the variant is being used to fuel the Covid hysteria and perpetuate the repressive social restrictions. So, the question we should be asking ourselves is whether we can trust what we are being told by the media and the public health officials?

And the answer is “No”, we cannot trust them. They have repeatedly misled the public on all manner of topics including masks, asymptomatic transmission, immunity, Infection Fatality Rate, social distancing and now variants. According to Sunetra Gupta, who is Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow:

“...some of these variants could be more transmissible, but the truth is… even with a marginal increase in transmissibility… that does not have much of a material effect or difference in how we deal with the virus. In other words, the surge of the virus cannot be ascribed to a new variant….

The other question is are these variants more virulent, and the truth is we don’t know, but it is unlikely because the data don’t seem to say so despite the scary headlines…Pathogens tend to evolve towards lower virulence….because that maximizes their transmissibility…It is much more probable that these strains will not be materially so different that we would have to alter our policies.” (Sunetra Gupta: Are these new variants more transmissible?” You Tube)

So, according to Gupta, even if the new strains of Covid are more transmissible, it is highly-unlikely that they are more lethal.

Here’s more on the topic from Diagnostic pathologist, Dr Claire Craig who provides a more technical explanation:

“SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence has ~30,000 letters. Alterations in a handful of letters will not change it’s shape much – if it did it wouldn’t function properly anyway. Fear mongering about immune escape is not needed and is irresponsible especially when no evidence to support the claims.” (Claire Craig)

In essence, Craig is saying the same thing we said earlier, that the slight mutations to the infection will not impact the immune reaction of people who already had the virus. Thus, the current crop of “variants” should not be a cause for alarm. If you have already had Covid or if you already have prior-immunity due to previous exposure to similar infections, (SARS, for example) the new strain should not be a problem. It should also not be a problem if the new vaccines provide the type of broad-based immunity that one should expect of them. Again, the mutations represent only the slightest change in the composition of the pathogen (less than 1%), which means that –if the vaccines don’t work– they are, in effect, useless.

Here’s a longer explanation that some readers might find overly technical and perhaps tedious, but it’s worth wading through in order to see that the media is deliberately misstating the science to terrify the public. This excerpt is from an article by Yeadon. Here’s what he said:

“The idea is planted in people’s mind that this virus is mutating in such a way as to evade prior immunity. This is completely unfounded, certainly as regards immunity..(that is) gained naturally, after repelling the virus ….

It’s important to appreciate that upon infection, the human immune system cuts up an infectious agent into short pieces. Each of these short pieces of protein are presented to other cells in the immune system, like an identity parade. …These have a range of functions. Some make antibodies & others are programmed to kill cells infected by the virus, recognized by displaying on their surface signals that tell the body that they’ve been invaded.

In almost all cases,… this smart adaptive system overcomes the infection. Crucially… this event leaves you with many different kinds of long-lived ‘memory’ cells which, if you’re infected again, rapidly wipe out any attempt at reinfection. So, you won’t again be made ill by the same virus, and because the virus is simply not permitted to replicate, you are also no longer able to participate in transmission….

The general ‘direction of travel’ (for viruses) is to become less injurious but easier to transmit, eventually joining the other 40 or so viruses which cause what we collectively term ‘the common cold”.

What generally doesn’t happen is for mutants to become more lethal to the hosts (us). But the key point I wanted to get across is just how large SARS-COV-2 is. I recall it’s of the order of 30,000 letters of genetic code which, when translated, make around 10,000 amino acids in several viral proteins. Now you can see that the kinds of numbers of changes in the letters of the genetic code are truly tiny in comparison with the whole. 30 letter changes might be roughly 0.1% of the virus’s code. In other words, 99.9% of that code is not different from the so-called Wuhan strain. Similarly, the changes in the protein translated from those letter code alterations are overwhelmed by the vast majority of the unchanged protein sequences. So your immune system, recognizing as it does perhaps dozens of short pieces…. will not be fooled by a couple of small changes to a tiny fraction of these. No: your immune system knows immediately that this is an invader it’s seen before, and has no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with it swiftly & without symptoms. So, it’s a scientifically invalid…

… even if mutations did change a couple of these, the majority of the pieces…. of the mutated virus will still be unchanged & recognized by the vaccine-immune system or the virus-infected immune system & a prompt, vigorous response will still protect you.” (“Variants, Covid”, Michael Yeadon, My Thread Reader)

Let’s summarize:

We have presented the informed views of three reputable scientists all of who explicitly refute the idea that the so called “variants”:

1. Are more lethal
2. Have the potential to reinfect people who have already had Covid
3. Have mutated enough to reinfect people who have already been vaccinated (unless, of course) the vaccine does not provide broad-based immunity to begin with. (which is possible since Phase 3 long-term trials were never conducted.)

So, why are the public health officials and the media lying about this matter which is fairly clear-cut and uncontroversial? That is the question.

Yeadon concludes that there is something flagrantly diabolical about their denial. He thinks they are lying in order to dupe more people into getting injected with a substance that will either render them infertile, cause them great bodily harm or kill them outright. Take your pick. Here’s more:

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power and this is a really artful way of getting you to line-up and receive some unspecified thing that will damage you. I have no idea what it will actually be, but it won’t be a vaccine because you don’t need one. And it won’t kill you on the end of the needle because you would spot that.

“It could be something that will produce normal pathology, it will be at various times between vaccination and the event, it will be plausibly deniable because there will be something else going on in the world at that time, in the context of which your demise, or that of your children will look normal.

“That’s what I would do if I wanted to get rid of 90 or 95% of the world’s population. And I think that’s what they’re doing.” (LifeSite)

“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power”?

Has Yeadon gone mad? Has the pressure of the global pandemic pushed him off the deep end or is he ‘on to something’ big, something that no one even dares to even think about; a plan so dark and sinister that its implementation would constitute the most grievous and coldblooded crime against humanity of all time; the injection of billions of people with a toxic elixir whose spike protein dramatically compromises their immune systems clearing the way for agonizing widespread suffering followed by mountains of carnage?

There are others, however, who see a connection between the current vaccination campaign and “the eugenicists”, in fact, Dr. Joseph Mercola points to the link between the lead developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Adrian Hill, and the Eugenics movement. According to Mercola:

“Hill gave a lecture at the Galton Institute (which was known as the U.K. Eugenics Society) in 2008 for its 100-year anniversary. As noted in Webb’s article:8

“Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement.

The latter organization, named for the ‘father of eugenics’ Francis Galton, is the renamed U.K. Eugenics Society, a group notorious for over a century for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to ‘improve racial stock’ by reducing the population of those deemed inferior.

The ties of Adrian Hill to the Galton Institute should raise obvious concerns given the push to make the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine he developed with [Sarah] Gilbert the vaccine of choice for the developing world, particularly countries in Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and Africa, the very areas where the Galton Institute’s past members have called for reducing population growth …

Emeritus professor of molecular genetics at the Galton Institute and one of its officers is none other than David J. Galton, whose work includes ‘Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century.’

David Galton has written that the Human Genome Mapping Project… had ‘enormously increased … the scope for eugenics … because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA.’

This new ‘wider definition of eugenics,’ Galton has said, ‘would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.’ In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to ‘whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual….

“The Wellcome Centre regularly cofunds the research and development of vaccines and birth control methods with …. a foundation (name withheld) that actively and admittedly engages in population and reproductive control in Africa and South Asia by, among other things, prioritizing the widespread distribution of injectable long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

The Wellcome Trust has also directly funded studies that sought to develop methods to ‘improve uptake’ of LARCs in places such as rural Rwanda….’ LARCs afford women in the Global South ‘the least choice possible short of actual sterilization.’

Some LARCs can render women infertile for as long as five years, and, as Levich argues, they ‘leave far more control in the hands of providers, and less in the hands of women, than condoms, oral contraceptives, or traditional methods.’…

Slightly modified and rebranded as Jadelle, the dangerous drug was promoted in Africa… Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to ‘improve the biological stock of the human race.'” (“Exploring the Oxford-AstraZeneca Eugenics Links”, Mercola.com)

So, how does “eugenics” factor into the creation and distribution of the mRNA vaccine? Is there a link or are we grasping at straws?

We can’t answer that question, but a recent article by Mathew Ehret at The Off-Guardian provides a few interesting clues. Here’s what he said:

“The fact that the organizations promoting the rise of this eugenics policy throughout Nazi Germany and North America included such powerhouses as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Human Sterilization League for Human Betterment… which have all taken leading roles in the World Health Organization over recent decades is more than a little concerning.

The fact that these eugenics organizations simply re-branded themselves after WWII and are now implicated in modern RNA vaccine development alongside the Galton Institute (formerly British Eugenics Association), Oxford’s AstraZeneca, Pfizer and the…. Foundation should give any serious thinker pause as we consider what patterns of history we are willing to tolerate repeating in our presently precarious age.” (“Nazi Healthcare Revived Across the Five Eyes: Killing Useless Eaters and Biden’s COVID Relief Bill”, The Off-Guardian)

We’ll end this piece with an excerpt from a 2010 article by Andrew Gavin Marshall at Global Research
who presciently noted that:

“Eugenics is about the social organization and control of humanity…. (particularly) population control….

The ideas of Malthus, and later Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin were remolded into branding an elite ideology of “Social Darwinism”, which was “the notion that in the struggle to survive in a harsh world, many humans were not only less worthy, many were actually destined to wither away as a rite of progress. To preserve the weak and the needy was, in essence, an unnatural act.” This theory simply justified the immense wealth, power and domination of a small elite over the rest of humanity, as that elite saw themselves as the only truly intelligent beings worthy of holding such power and privilege.

Francis Galton later coined the term “eugenics” to describe this emerging field. His followers believed that the ‘genetically unfit’ “would have to be wiped away,” using tactics such as, “segregation, deportation, castration, marriage prohibition, compulsory sterilization, passive euthanasia – and ultimately extermination.”… Sir Julian Huxley was also a life trustee of the British Eugenics Society from 1925, and its President from 1959-62. … “Huxley believed that eugenics would one day be seen as the way forward for the human race,” and that, “A catastrophic event may be needed for evolution to move at an accelerated pace.”…. It is much the same with ideas whose time has not yet come; they must survive periods when they are not generally welcome.”

The 21st-century technologies are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them…. I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.

…. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite….

A horrifying vision indeed; but one which builds upon the ideas of Huxley, Russell and Brzezinski, who envisioned a people who – through biological and psychological means – are made to love their own servitude. Huxley saw the emergence of a world in which humanity, still a wild animal, is domesticated; where only the elite remain wild and have freedom to make decisions, while the masses are domesticated like pets. Huxley opined that, “Men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” (“New Eugenics and the Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship”, Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research)

We must ask ourselves whether the current mass vaccination campaign is a science-based effort to relieve sickness and disease or a fasttrack to a dark and frightening dystopia conjured up by evil men seeking to tighten their grip on all humanity?

ARTICLE SOURCE

The New America: Bio-‘Ethics,’ Death Panels, and Killing Babies and the Old

March 10, 2021

Poisonous Experimental ‘Covid’ Injection Trials on Infants Have Begun: They Should All Be Imprisoned!

March 28, 2021