social distancing…revealed.

Seems like there is no science

That’s because its pseudo science and not based on any verifiable studies. Have a laugh.


Psychopathic traits linked to non-compliance with social distancing


New research provides some initial evidence that certain antagonistic personality traits are associated with ignoring preventative measures meant to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

The study has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Social Psychology and Personality Science. It is currently available on the PsyArXiv preprint website.

“On March 31, 2020, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the U.S. government’s Coronavirus Task Force, said, ‘There’s no magic bullet. There’s no magic vaccine or therapy. It’s just behaviors. Each of our behaviors, translating into something that changes the course of this viral pandemic over the next 30 days.’ My experience as a psychological scientist as well as a practicing psychologist has convinced me that the importance of psychology and behavior in the prevention and management of a wide range of health problems is enormous,” said study author Pavel S. Blagov, an associate professor and director of the Personality Laboratory at Whitman College.

OK so let’s backtrack a little bit.

  1. Social distancing has no basis in science – you will find an abundance of information about this.
  2. The Professor whose advice the UK and Australia followed completely flaunted the rules – His views have been proven to be absolutely garbage again and again so is he a psychopath?

Therefore psychopaths are telling people who do not agree with unscientific rules and the violation of their rights that they are psychopaths!

But wait there is more. The virus is a dud and hardly worse than the flu. So do we lock down for the flu each year and observe unscientific social distancing?

who said 2 meters?

Do you remember big bad Boris smiling and shaking hands? I think he got out of line and powers above him decided to make him submit so he got sick or imprisoned. As soon as he came back he changed his tune didn’t he and plunged the UK in to the worse economic decline in 100 years and as a bonus enslaved millions in fear? Well done Boris I did like you but not so much now.

Boris the blade gets his advice from S.A.G.E who are technocrats and not qualified to make that call. Professor Carl Henghan and Tom Jefferson say the science is absolutely false. You see technocrats use pseudo science and silence the opposition but these two blokes got to speak out. Evidence is poor quality and washing hands is the way to proceed and always was. Why then do we still follow this B.S?

No evidence

just face the facts

Source : Technocracy news

This article is brilliant and well worth reading!

The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And Contact Tracing

Once upon a time, there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature, the elements, the universe, etc. It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers. They often invented cool new things as a result of their studies, but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate other people, groups or even entire societies.

Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering disciplines were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their “knowledge” to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet. 

The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.

Merriam-Webster defines pseudo-science as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”  The Oxford dictionary clarifies by stating, “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Pseudo-science quickly emerged as the principal domain of Technocrats, but they soon found that scientific debate with those promoting real science was most inconvenient to their social engineering goals. The solution was simple: claim that their own pseudo-science was indeed the real science, and then refuse debate by excluding all other voices to the contrary.

In the context of pseudo-science, this report will examine the three primary tools of fighting COVID-19: face masks, social distancing and contact tracing.

Face masks

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website plainly states that cloth face masks “Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.” 

But, what about surgical masks? OHSA is clear here also that they “will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration.”

But then right under these statements, OSHA furiously backpedaled by adding an FAQ section on COVID-19 directly underneath and stated

OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.

Consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendation for all people to wear cloth face coverings when in public and around other people, wearing cloth face coverings, if appropriate for the work environment and job tasks, conserves other types of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings where such equipment is needed most.

So, wearing a face mask cannot protect you from getting COVID, but it is supposedly able to keep someone else from getting it from you? OSHA is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. What it calls “source control” likely puts the real motive out in the open: since you are the source, it’s about controlling YOU. There is no true scientific rationale for anyone but the sick and medical workers to wear masks. 

The truly healthy have no business wearing a mask, period. 

But, what about asymptomatic carriers?

On June 8, 2020, Maria Van Herkhove, PhD., head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit released a compilation of a number of contact tracing programs from various nations and plainly stated “From the data we have, it still seems to be very rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual.” 

This writer hates to think what happened to Dr. Herkhove overnight at the hands of her WHO handlers, because the next day she also furiously backpedaled and stated “I used the phrase ‘very rare,’ and I think that that’s misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies.”

It is clear that Dr. Herkhove’s first statement that naively repeated the clear facts of the matter did not follow the WHO’s justification for non-infectious people to wear masks. In fact, the entire mask wearing narrative hangs on the single pseudo-scientific idea that asymptomatic people can spread the virus. 

In a recent Technocracy News article authored by highly-respected neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD titled Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy, he concluded, “there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus.” (Blaylock represents real science.)

Nevertheless, in the face of clear evidence of the worthlessness of face masks for preventing disease, 

  • States and municipalities are mandating that face masks be worn by all citizens when outside their home
  • Large and small companies are forcing their employees to wear masks
  • People at large are scared to death to not wear a face mask for fear of getting sick or being mask-shamed by others if they take it off. 

Breath Is Vital To Life 

Many people believe that face masks lower the percentage of oxygen available for inhaling because you rebreathe much of your exhausted breath. However,  a face mask itself does not retain a significant amount of your exhaled breath since most of it is exhaled through the mask into the open atmosphere. Furthermore, when you inhale, most of the air delivered to your lungs comes from outside the mask.

The real science is much more complicated than the amount of residual air contained within a face mask. 

The real problem with breathing through a mask is that the lungs and chest muscles must exert a lot of extra energy to inhale and exhale. In other words, you must work harder to breathe the same amount of fresh air that you would normally breathe without a mask. 

For this reason, those who already have impaired lung functions, minor as they may be, should never wear a mask unless it is for a specific purpose for a very short period of time. The older you are, especially those over 70, lung capacity and muscle strength decline rapidly. 

This writer has already encountered several retail store employees, forced by their employers to wear a face mask during work hours, who exhibit symptoms like headache, shortness of breath or dizziness. When asked if they relate their symptoms to wearing the mask, every single one has emphatically said “Yes!”.

Workers with the most physically demanding jobs are the most likely to exhibit these kind of symptoms. Other considerations are age, any preexisting conditions of the lungs (like pleurisy, COPD, chronic bronchitis, pneumonia, etc.) or chest muscles and factors like poor physical condition and obesity. Actually, any debilitating health condition should be a red flag. In other words, those who are prone to get winded without a face mask will immediately be at a disadvantage when wearing a mask. The net effect is that the lungs receive less fresh air with vital oxygen even as the body is under more physical stress. 

Every employer and government entity that mandates the wearing of face masks should be required to do two things: first, they should carefully consider each employee as an individual to determine their suitability for wearing a mask.  All factors mentioned above should be included, and in any case, no one should be required to wear a mask if it puts too much stress on their lungs.

Many state-level politicians are now mandating the wearing of face masks for all citizens in public places. They have fallen prey to pseudo-science and are now putting entire populations at risk for physical harm that has nothing to do with the COVID-19 virus.

In sum, lung strength, physical condition, age, pre-existing conditions, physical demands of the job, etc., should all be carefully considered by all. A blanket statement that all employees or all citizens should wear face masks it wholly inappropriate.

Social Distancing

Adding to the fear of contagion, people across the nation are driven to practice social distancing, or staying 6 feet apart at all times. This is practiced to excess in almost every commercial establishment with markers taped or painted on the floor and shopping isles converted into one-way travel only. 

Yet, two real scientists at the University of Oxford in Britain, Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, wrote in The Telegraph (UK) recently that “the two-metre rule has no basis in science.” Their article was titled There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule.

According to these scientists, 

The influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings. Recall bias arises in research when participants do not remember previous events accurately, and it is problematic when studies look back in time at how people behaved, including how closely they stood from others.

More concerning was that only five of the 172 studies reported specifically on Covid exposure and proximity with infection. These studies included a total of merely 477 patients, with just 26 actual cases of infection. In only one study was a specific distance measure reported: “came within six feet of the index patient”. The result showed no effect of distance on contracting Covid.

Heneghan and Jefferson further noted, 

On further independent inspection of 15 studies included in the review, we found multiple inconsistencies in the datanumerical mistakes and unsound methods in 13 of them. When assumptions over distance were made, we could not replicate any of them.

This is the hallmark of modern pseudo-science: inconsistencies in the data, numerical mistakes, unsound methods and inability to replicate results. 

What is the real purpose of social distancing? It certainly is not to curtail contagion. The only other possibility is to curtail economic activity and prevent social cohesion. Humans are social beings, after all, and lack of close proximity leads to depression, anxiety and even serious health consequences. 

Contact Tracing

Contact tracing is an established practice in modern medicine. It is useful for the early stages of serious infectious diseases like Ebola, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases like chlamydia.

Every credible expert on contact tracing says that it is effective only up to the point of mass distribution. In other words, during the early stages of a contagion or a slow moving or very serious disease.

In the case of COVID-19, the horse has already left the barn. Except to harass people, there is nothing useful that contact tracing can accomplish.

Yet, almost every state in America is implementing a wide-ranging contact tracing program that may ultimately employ some 300,000 tracers.   

The Center for Disease Control website states that “Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.”

Furthermore, CDC complete definition of “close contact” is,

Someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.

If you are “exposed” to such a person, your personal information will be collected and you will be contacted by the “tracer” to be instructed to quarantine for up to two weeks. The infected person could have been mistaken about having contact with you. They could be someone who just wants to get you in trouble. If you live in Washington state, where all restaurants are now required to record the contact information of every patron, you might not have a clue who was infected, but you will be quarantined anyway. 

Now, the CDC’s declaration of “6 feet” above takes us back to social distancing, where we just learned above that there is “no effect of distance on contracting COVID” in the first place.

Thus, find that contact tracing misses the mark on two main points: first, the virus is too widespread throughout the population to make tracing effective and second, the criteria of six feet for defining a “contact” is bogus. 

So, why are governors, mayors and health departments ramping up for a nationwide exercise in obtrusive contact tracing? Again, pursuing a path of pseudo-science, the intended outcome is control over people. 


The American public is being spoon-fed a steady diet of pseudo-science in order to justify the wearing of face masks, social distancing and contact tracing. Yet, the actual science points in the polar opposite direction.

Furthermore, those who try to present the real science are shamed, ridiculed and bullied for having such narrow-minded views.  

This is a clear sign of Technocrats-at-work. Instead, these are the ones who should be exposed, shamed and ridiculed. 

In sum, these dangerous and destructive policies are designed to curtail economic activity, break down social cohesion and control people. Moreover, they fit the original mission statement of Technocracy as far back as 1938:

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population…

It is highly doubtful that most state and local leaders understand the lack of real and verified science behind their actions and mandates. Nevertheless, they are implementing policies that are destructive to our economic system, harmful to our personal health and ruinous to personal liberty.

This writer suggests that you print multiple copies of this report and deliver it to every political leader, every commercial establishment, all family and friends, etc.

Permission is granted to repost or reprint this article with original credit and direct link back to An updated PDF version suitable for printing may be downloaded here

Patrick Wood is editor of Technocracy News & Trends, and a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order (2018)Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Professor Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development and Technocracy on a global scale.

Bonus Video

the pandemic illusion & global governance

What pandemic?

Kevin Galalae 10 June 2020

It is by now statistical fact that there is no pandemic.

It is by now statistical fact that there is no pandemic. A pandemic is defined as an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area,crossing international boundaries and affecting a large number of people

30 out of a total of 215 nations and territories have registered no covid-19 deaths whatsoever, an  additional  52  nations  have  registered  fewer  than  10  deaths,  and  yet  another  63  nations have registered  fewer than 100 deaths and  as such  these countries  can in no way shape or form be considered to be afflicted by a pandemic.    Neither can one speak of a pandemic in the 42 nations that have registered fewer than 1000 deaths.   No pandemic, therefore, in 187 nations  out  of  a  total  of  215  nations  and  territories.   That  means  that  87% of the world’s nations and territories have not the slightest sign of an epidemic let alone a pandemic.

Only  7  nations  have  registered  more  than  10,000  deaths:  the  US,  the  UK,  Italy,  Brazil, France, Spain and Mexico.  And no nation has registered one thousand deaths per one million people,  thus  a  0.1%  mortality  rate,  which  would  begin  to  approach  the  definition  of  a pandemic.  The only exception is San Marino, which has a population of 34,000 and is just a small city and where 42 people have presumably died of covid-19. And the same goes for infection rates.

Qatar, Andorra, San Marino and Vatican City, which all together have a puny population of fewer than 3 million people or 0.04% of the global population, are the only countries in the world  that  have  registered  infection  rates  of  more than  ten  thousand  for  every one  million people, and as such can be said to approach the definition of an epidemic.

Smells like?

To  date,  June  5,  2020,  there  are  presumably  6.7  million  covid-19  infections  and  393,000 deaths worldwide  according to the official statistics.   But in any given  year about 500,000 deaths are attributed to influenza alone, some 18 million to heart disease and some 10 million to cancer.

The stats show conclusively that neither in terms of transmissibility nor of disease severity can one speak of a pandemic even if one believes the official number of registered infections and deaths to be accurate, which is clearly not the case.   Moreover, the vast majority of the reported infections are asymptomatic. And that is of course no coincidence.  Perfectly healthy people  are  declared  infected  in  order  to  inflate  the  numbers  and  justify  the  unprecedented quarantine measures.

The pandemic is a lie.  It is an illusion.  It is a hoax.  That much is clear and provable now. Why governments and the UN system risk losing the little credibility…

Last but not least, the vast majority of those who have presumably died with covid-19 and not necessarily of covid-19 had comorbidities.   In other words, people who have died of cancer, heart disease and other chronic illnesses have been counted as covid-19 deaths.

All the propaganda in the world, all the media’s dishonest reporting, all the experts’ duplicitous analyses, all the politicians’ fraudulent declarations cannot obscure these  facts and figures.

The pandemic is a lie.  It is an illusion.  It is a hoax.  That much is clear and provable now. Why governments and the UN system risk losing the little credibility they have left to stage a pandemic, however, is still a largely unanswered question which begs to be answered.

Why a fake pandemic

The blind believe the fake information

The fake pandemic is a front for aggressively tackling the three existential problems…

Why would governments and the UN system risk losing the little credibility they have left to stage a pandemic?  That is the question, the trillion dollar question.

And  the  shortest  answer  is,  because  the  system  no  longer  works  and  continuing  as  before threatens our very existence.

The fake pandemic is a front for aggressively tackling the three existential problems we face: over-consumption, which is the disease of the developed world; over-population, which is the disease   of   the   developing   world;   and   over-abuse,   which   is   the   combined   effect   of over consumption and overpopulation on the planet and its life-support systems and is thus a problem to which every human being on the planet contributes, though not in equal measure.

How  these  three  existential  problems  are  tackled  through  the  pretext  of  the  covid-19 pandemic is the subject of this paper.


Too much

Above I explained that the fake pandemic is merely a front for tackling the three existential problems we face: over consumption, overpopulation and over abuse.

Let us look at overconsumption first, more specifically at how overconsumption is addressed by using the pandemic as a front.

To reduce consumption you have to prevent people from shopping, which requires that you prohibit or at least limit people from getting out of the house.  But how do you keep people in the house for any length of time?  By scaring them to death with an invisible virus that causes an illusory pandemic.

The pandemic has provided governments with the excuse they needed to declare emergency measures,  impose  quarantines,  lockdowns  or  curfews  and  keep  people  in  the  house  for  a couple of months or even longer in some cases.

At  the  same  time,  essential  businesses  alone  were  allowed  to  stay  open  in  order  to  limit people  to  buying  only  groceries  and  medicine.    All  other  businesses  were  deemed  non-essential and were closed. That limited people’s opportunity to consume anything other than food, drinks and drugs. 

People still had the opportunity to buy online, but that was dampened by  the  fear  of  infection,  limitations  on  transport,  the  closing  of  borders  and  therefore  of international  trade,  the  lack  of  internet  banking  and  computer  skills  among  the  elderly especially  but  also  among  the  poor,  the  lack  of  money  due  to  unemployment  which skyrocketed  during  the  quarantine,  the  fear  of  an  uncertain  economic  future,  and  by  the absence of impulse buying which is responsible for at least a quarter of all purchases.

although  there  is  no  scientific evidence to suggest this even if there were a pandemic.

To  ensure  that  consumption  is  reduced  even  after  the  various  quarantines,  lockdowns  and curfews were lifted, governments introduced the social distancing rule under the pretext that it  is  necessary  to  prevent  the  transmission  of  the  disease,  although  there  is  no  scientific evidence to suggest this even if there were a pandemic.

Since the pandemic is a total fiction, however,  and governments  are well aware of this, as they are responsible for creating and sustaining the pandemic illusion, we can conclude that the   lockdowns   and   the   ensuing   social   distancing   measure   were   intended   solely   as over consumption reduction measures, which in turn reduce CO2 emissions and thus aid the decarbonization agenda and have a positive impact on the environment.

In China alone offline spending on goods and services declined during the lockdown by 33 and 34% respectively, dining and entertainment dropped 64% and travel decreased by 59%. After the lockdown was lifted and the social distancing measure was introduced “China’s offline consumption decreased  by over 1.2 trillion RMBs in the three-month post-outbreak period, or1.2%of China’s GDP”.

(Source: )

In  Europe,  the  US  and  elsewhere  in  the  developed  world  spending  is  down  across  all industries  even  more  than  in  China  due  to  longer  lockdowns  and  the  fact  that  they  are nationwide and not just of one region as was the case in China, where Wuhan alone suffered an extended lockdown, and also due to the economic consequences of the closing of industry, the ensuing unemployment, and the fear that household incomes will continue to fall in the coming months.

(Source: )

That governments are serious about continuing to reduce consumption is made all the more obvious by the fact that malls have not been allowed to reopen.  And that when they will be allowed  to  reopen  customers  and  staff  will  be  forced  to  adhere  to  strict  social  distancing measures and to mandatory face masks.   The social distancing rule will limit the number of customers allowed to shop at any one time while the mandatory mask rule will take the fun out of shopping and will basically annihilate impulse buying.

On the other hand, it will have a devastating and long-term effect…

The lockdown was a form of blitzkrieg on consumption while the social distancing and the facial  mask  rules  will  be  akin  to  a  cold  war  on  consumption.     The  former  reduced consumption drastically in the short-term while the latter will reduce consumption steadily in the long-term.  Their combined effect will result in an annual reduction of consumption of at least 15% and at most 25%, enough to have a substantial impact on the decarbonization effort and an equally positive impact on the environmental protection effort as well as on the effort to prevent the rapid depletion of vital natural resources.

On the other hand, it will have a devastating and long-term effect on employment that unless mitigated with massive job creation in essential industries and less polluting industries will have to be addressed with a universal basic income for all people who have been displaced from their jobs by the system’s move to reorganize the economy along the sustainability prerogative.

Alternatively, an entirely new financial system will have to be devised,

Likewise, it has had a devastating impact on government debt, which was increased this year under the pretext of combating the pandemic more than it has increased during the past ten years.    This  will  give  governments  the  pretext  to  increase  taxes  and  impose  austerity measures  which  will  further  cripple  consumer  spending  and  thus  depress  consumption. Alternatively, an entirely new financial system will have to be devised, but whether there is the political will and unity to pull this off remains to be seen.

What  is  clear  is  that  the  true  purpose  of  the  fake  covid-19  pandemic  has  been  all  along reducing the overconsumption of the developed world and by extension the greenhouse gas emissions of the developed world.  This is made plainly evident by the geographic spread and severity of the fake covid-19 pandemic, which has hit hard only the most developed nations, namelytheG20 nations, the world’s biggest consumers and polluters.

The  G20  nations,  which  are  responsible  for  three-quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have registered more than 80% of the global covid-19 infections and more than 90% of all covid-19 deaths.  Since no virus is capable of political bias we can conclude that the distribution and severity of the covid-19 pandemic is a political construct.  

Having the highest consumption patterns and the highest CO2 emissions the G20 nations are forced to make the biggest economic sacrifices and that can only happen because the pandemic serves as  a  pretext  and  allows  governments  to  hide  their  true  agenda  behind  the  principle  of plausible deniability.   In other words governments will pretend and continue to pretend that they have acted in good faith and that to blame for the economic disaster is the pandemic and not the measures governments took to prevent a non-existent pandemic.

Overconsumption is the developed world’s problem and can only be addressed by imposing sacrifices  on  the  developed  world.   And  that  is  exactly  what  the  developed  world  did  by taking the lead in this first engineered wave of an engineered pandemic.

By the same token, overpopulation is the problem of the developing world and can only be addressed  by  imposing  sacrifices  on  the  developing  world.   And  that  is  exactly  what  will happen during the second wave of this manufactured pandemic or through the introduction of mandatory vaccines.

How the fake pandemic will be used to address the old-age problem of the developed world and the overpopulation problem of the developing world I will discuss in my next video.


Too many people

Let us now look at how overpopulation is addressed by using the pandemic as a front.

The developed world’s population problem is different from the developing world’s population problem because they are at different stages of the demographic transition, more accurately called the population stabilization program or the depopulation program.

The developed world has to get its old-age burden below 20% and keep it there…

Whereas the developed world has an old-age problem the developing world has a population growth problem.  In other words, the developed world has too many old sick people that are draining the financial resources of the state at a growing and unsustainable pace, while the developing  world  has  too  many  young  fertile  people  procreating  and  demanding  natural resources at a growing and unsustainable pace.

The developed world has to get its old-age burden below 20% and keep it there until the age distribution is economically and demographically stable while  the developing world has  to get its total fertility rate below two children per woman and keep it there until the population stops increasing at which point it will have to deal with its own old-age problem.

The developed world’s population problem is financially unsustainable while the developing world’s population problem is environmentally unsustainable.   If the developed world does not  solve  its  old-age  burden  it  will  collapse  economically.   Conversely,  if  the  developing world  does  not  solve  its  high  fertility  problem  it  will  collapse  environmentally.    The developed world will lose all the wealth it has created over generations and the developing world will run out of resources and ruin the little of the environment that is still left.

Both problems have to be solved; there are no ifs buts and maybes, and both problems are being addressed behind the pandemic front.

The developed world must therefore damage immunity to get old people to die faster while the developing world must damage fertility to stop the young from procreating.

Getting rid of grandma

Once  again,  the  developed  world  has  taken  the  lead  and  has  begun  reducing  its  old-age burden by –

(1) first stopping all critical care and all life extension services to the very old and the severely ill thus providing a form of involuntary assisted suicide by denial of vital drugs and care and by –

(2) secondly locking old people in their homes and preventing them from coming   out   long   enough   to   damage   their   immune   systems   through   sun   deprivation, movement deprivation and social contact deprivation, both methods serving to send the old and the ill faster and in greater numbers into their graves

Both measures were explained and continue  to  be  justified  as  protective  measures  for  the  vulnerable,  thus  as  the  absolute opposite of what they are, which is signature modus operandi of the depopulation lobby.

That explains why the vast majority of all covid-19 deaths throughout the developed world, anywhere from 60% to 90% depending on the country, have occurred in old age hospices and especially in state run nursing homes and other assisted living facilities.   And why the only deviation  from  normal  mortality throughout  this  fake  pandemic  is  observable  solely in  the 65+ age bracket.  It also explains why the countries with the oldest populations and the most underfunded pension plans have suffered the most deaths among the elderly.

While this happened in the developed world, various presidents in the developing world have made a show of rejecting the advice of the WHO in order to pander a sterilizing concoction based on Artemisia, the world’s most potent sterilizing plant, as a cure for  covid-19,  thus involuntarily sterilizing everyone and anyone who swallowed this concoction. 

Artemisinin, by the way, is the sterilizing active ingredient of the Artemisia plant and has been used as a malaria treatment drug for the same reason, to involuntarily sterilize the people of countries that still have high birth rates because they have not employed chemical sterilization methods through food and beverages, as the developed world has done for half a century by poisoning the food of the citizens with endocrine disruptors.

The  developing  world  is  thus  pursuing  its  population  reduction  targets  by  promoting  a sterilizing concoction as a cure for covid-19 while the developed world is pursuing its old-age burden reduction targets by creating a crisis in medical care to stop providing life extension services and critical care to the oldest and sickest members of society.  And both are using the fake  pandemic  as  the  justifying  factor  and  as  the  front  behind  which  to  conveniently hide their true population control agenda.

The vaccine mantra as the only way out of the pandemic has been touted and continues to be touted  with  unprecedented  aggressiveness…

More  than  this,  throughout  this  time,  the  authorities  have  provided  contradictory  and insufficient data about the transmissibility, infectiousness and treatment of this virus so as to raise the level of fear and confusion, all the while painting vaccines as the only salvation and announcing one breakthrough after another in the development of  a  vaccine for covid-19, thus paving the way for mandatory vaccination under the  pretext of public health while  in fact preparing the ground for a forcible depopulation by vaccination program.

The vaccine mantra as the only way out of the pandemic has been touted and continues to be touted with unprecedented  aggressiveness  all  the   while false medical research and declarations by various officials have  been  disseminated  through  all  mainstream  media channels to raise the  level of fear and desperation so as to drive the people towards the vaccine solution as the only salvation and the only ticket to a return to normality.

The following lies have been and continue to be propagated as science in order to enforce the need  for  mandatory  vaccination:  that  those  who  get  healed  acquire  no  immunity  against covid-19, that the  virus  mutate and the infections become  more deadly,  that the  young are now affected as much as the old, that covid-19 can be transmitted through sexual intercourse; that even if you heal from covid-19 you are left with life-long and severe scar tissue on the lungs and other organs and your quality of life will never be the same, that children though asymptomatic will infect and kill the old; and that no drug or combination of drugs have been found to be effective, which can only be true of there is no virus and no infection to begin with.

So aggressive, ubiquitous and nonsensical has the vaccine push been that even the blind, the deaf and the dumb have realized that something does not add up here and that governments and the UN system want to vaccinate every human being on the planet with untested vaccines for  a  relatively harmless if not non-existent virus for reasons other than  concern for our health.

More  than  this,  these  mandatory  vaccines  use  a  novel  RNA  technology  that  permanently alters the genetic makeup of the recipients in unknown ways with unknown side effects and could  trigger  autoimmune  reactions  that  turn  the  body  onto  itself  with  catastrophic  health consequences that may lead to death.

And that may be exactly what governments will do.   How vaccines will be used to address the world’s population problems is not yet known because a decision has not yet been made. What  is  certain  is  that  a  covid-19 vaccine will be used to address the developing world’s overpopulation problem and the developed world’s old-age problem in one way or another. How   aggressively   it   will   be   used   depends   very   much   on   our   willingness   to   allow governments  absolute  control  over  our  health  and  lives  so  they  can  accomplish  their demographic objectives with a depopulation by vaccination program.

What  is  also  certain  is  that  to  reduce  the  population  to  a  sustainable  number  governments must either prevent births or increase deaths, or do both.    And that this can only be done by force,  by  deception  or  by  transferring  the  responsibility  onto  the  capable  shoulders  of mankind.

It is up to all of us to ensure that the latter happens.   Those who remain indifferent will fall victim to forcible or deceptive methods of depopulation and will deserve their fate.


Too much Co2

We  saw  how  the  pandemic  is  used  as  a  front  for  tackling  overconsumption,  which  is  the developed world’s problem, and overpopulation, which is the developing world’s problem.

Now  let  us  look  at  how  the  pandemic  is  used  as  a  front  for  tackling  the  decarbonization agenda,  which  is  the  umbrella  term  used  to  obscure  the  ways  in  which  the  overabuse  of nature,  thus  environmental  exploitation,  is  addressed  in  order  to  prevent  environmental collapse for which we are all responsible, though not in equal measure.

To prevent the destruction of the natural environment governments and the UN system have agreed   that  decarbonization  is  necessary  and   are  aggressively  pursuing  it  behind  the pandemic front; decarbonization being the process of lowering greenhouse gas emissions by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.

According to the scientific consensus, absent deep decarbonization the planet will warm by more than 2 % Celsius by mid-century and the climate will shift from a stable to an unstable state  making  agriculture  impossible  in  many  parts  of  the  world,  displacing  hundreds  of millions of people from coastal areas due to rising seas, and causing extreme weather events with dire economic and human consequences.

But why is decarbonization pursued behind the veil of this plandemic? All attempts to date to lower greenhouse gas emissions have failed.

The carbon trading scheme, which is the result of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, has encouraged firms and countries to buy and sell carbon permits, but turned out to be a total failure, as it did not succeed in reducing carbon emissions, which have kept increasing by 1% a year.   A carbon  tax,  unless  global  and  globally  enforced,  would  simply  see  firms  migrating  to countries without one, and has proved to be politically impossible.  And switching the energy and transport grid away from fossil fuels and onto renewable energy sources faces enormous costs  and  technical  obstacles  that  have  yet  to  be  solved,  such  as  how  to  store  intermittent energy from solar and wind sources so it can be used when needed.

The system therefore had to find a way of lowering greenhouse gas emissions now and in a substantial  way  while  the  global  population  continues  to  grow  by  1%  annually  and  the economy by 3%. A toll order if not an impossible task without annihilating half the world’s population,  which  was  their  former  plan,  by  the  way,  but  that  I  stopped  them  from implementing, at least temporarily.

The reality is the situation is dire and is summed up as follows:

(Source: )

Clearly nothing done so far has worked since CO2 emissions have continued to grow by 1% a year and we are racing towards the abys faster and faster.  Political and scientific leaders, in their desperation, decided to act.  And act they did.  First they pulled Greta Thunberg out of a hat, made her into an environmental expert and hero overnight, and gave her the world’s biggest political platforms to sound the alarm, thus setting the stage for the plandemic.

Then they gave China the world stage and China played its part as the source of a killer virus that may have escaped from a lab and is presumably engineered to be a bio-weapon.   Just the kind of misinformation needed to cause fear and panic.  To raise the level of fear and panic to a maximum we were shown  people dropping dead in the streets in Wuhan after which the Chinese  government  quarantined  the  entire  city,  11  million  people,  followed  by  entire regions.   Within  a  month  China  quarantined  800  million  people  and  shut  down  all  non- essential industries, which crippled the entire global supply chain which is totally dependent on China.

China went first for two reasons: first to serve as an example to all other nations that without radical  action the virus  cannot be stopped,  and  secondly to  shut down the  global economy China being the world’s manufacturing hub.    As  a  one-party  state  China  can  impose restrictions that annihilate all rights and liberties and no one can do anything about it.  And as the world’s factory, all other nations and all industries depend on China for parts, materials and supplies.

Italy  went  next. Why? To shut down all borders,stop all  travel,  bring  all  non-essential industries to a halt, and bring the fear to Europe.   Had China not gone first Italy could not have used China’s example and the government could not have quarantined the region of Lombardy   and   then   all   other   Northern   provinces   thus   depriving   people   of   all   their fundamental rights and liberties.

The rest of Europe followed suit and the same script, with the UK at the tail end because it has the freest society in Europe and the longest tradition of human rights and liberties.

The  US  came  last  for  the  same  reason  as  the  UK,  because  it  has  the  most  powerful institutions  and  the  freest  society  in  the  world  where  any  infringement  on  civil  rights  and liberties  would  meet  with  strong  opposition,  which  is  exactly  what  happened  despite  the heavy and relentless propaganda.

To make sure that all people accept being locked in their homes supposedly to stop the spread of the pandemic the UK and the Netherlands were allowed to pretend for a while that they try a  different  approach,  one  that  does  not  involve  lockdown,  only  to  rethink  their  approach, apologize for making a mistake, and impose a lockdown like everyone else.

The role of last ace in the hand was given to Sweden, which was the only European nation allowed to stay open throughout the pandemic, but only so it can regret its decision and thus exonerate all other nations that have ruined their economies with a lockdown.

The pandemic is nothing more than a  global  stage production, a plandemic,  that has given governments  the  excuse  and  the  plausible  deniability  they  needed  to  bring  the  global economy  to  a  standstill  so  as  to  reduce  consumption  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions  by imprisoning half the world’s population in the house, the half responsible for most of the world’s consumption and greenhouse gas emissions,  and  to  shut  down  all  non-essential industries, bankrupt tens of thousands of companies and put countless millions out of work in order to give nature a chance to recover and also to set the stage for a restructuring of the global economy along the sustainability prerogative.

The  tourism,  hospitality,  aviation,  professional  sports,  entertainment  and  retail  industries were shut down and have yet to be reopened.  These being non-essential industries the system has decided to sacrifice them and to reshape them into much smaller versions of themselves in order to lower the world’s carbon emissions by  7%,  the  target  set  by  the  International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

By lowering carbon emissions the system hopes to safeguard all ten planetary boundaries: (1) climate  change,  (2)  biodiversity  loss,  (3)  the  nitrogen  cycle,  (4)  the  phosphorus  cycle,  (5) ocean acidification, (6) land use, (7) freshwater, (8) ozone depletion, (9) atmospheric aerosols and (10) chemical pollution.

Decarbonization is the chosen strategy to prevent transgressing all ten planetary boundaries, which is why denying climate change is really a moot point.

What could not be accomplished with carbon trading deals and international negotiations has been accomplished with quarantines, lockdowns and curfews, thus with the global response to the pandemic which closed borders, shut down air travel, emptied streets, shuttered stores and brought industry to a halt.  By early April all G20 nations had lowered their greenhouse gas emissions by far more than just the 7% needed; the US, for instance, by 32%, and the UK by 30%. Globally greenhouse gas emissions plunged 17%.

According  to  the  Global  Carbon  Project,  traffic  restrictions  accounted  for  43%  of  the emissions drop and reduced power and industrial production accounted by a further 43%.

These gains however would be reduced to just 4% if economic activity and mobility would be allowed to return to normal by mid-June, or by 7% if some restrictions remain worldwide until  the  end  of  the  year,  which  would  be  the  largest  single  annual  decrease  in  absolute emissions since the end of World War II.

And that is why social distancing and the wearing of masks were introduced as conditions for easing the lockdown and why politicians, health officials, media commentators and all kinds of celebrities keep telling people to stay home and why governments delay the reopening of tourism, aviation, restaurants, malls, theaters, cinemas, concerts and so on.   If everything is closed people have nowhere to go, nothing to consume and will thus cause no greenhouse gas emissions.

(Source: )

Everything is driven by the climate chance agenda and not one measure taken so far has been driven by the pandemic prevention agenda, since there is no pandemic and no human health crisis, but there is a dire environmental crisis.

The plan scripted and followed by all G20 nations has been three-pronged:

The first  batch  of  policies  targeted  long distance  travel  and  consist  of:  isolation  of  sick  or symptomatic   individuals,   self-quarantine   of   travelers   arriving   from   affected   countries, screening passengers  at  transport  hubs,  ban  on  mass  gatherings  of  more  than  5000  people, closure of selected national borders, restricted international travel, and citizen repatriation.

The  second  batch  of  policies  was  aimed  at  stopping  50%  of  society  from  normal  daily routines  and  consist  of:  closure  of  all  national  borders;  mandatory  closure  of  schools, universities, public buildings, religious or cultural buildings, restaurants, bars and other non- essential businesses within a city or region; ban of public gatherings of more than 100 people; mandatory night curfews; and two-week enforced isolation or self-isolation of asymptomatic individuals.

And the third batch of policies aimed to substantially restrict the daily routine of all but key workers and consist of: mandatory national lockdowns that require household confinement of all but key workers, ban on all public gatherings, and the enforcement of the 2 meter social distancing rule.

The results these measures have had on people’s activity are extraordinary, as one would expect.   Aviation suffered the largest drop at 75%, surface transport dropped 50%, industry 35%, the public sector 33%, and power 15%.   The residential sector was the only one that saw an increase of 5% since people were confined at home.

As  a  result,   global  emissions  from  surface   transport  fell  36%  and   made  the   largest contribution to the total emissions change.  The power sector fell by 7.4%, the industry sector by  19%,  the  aviation  sector  by  60%,  and  the  public  sector  by  21%.   The  only  emissions growth was registered in the residential sector at 2.8%.

The biggest drop in emissions until the end of April has occurred in China, with a decrease of 242  million  tonnes  of  CO2,  followed  by the  United  States  with  a  decrease  of  207  million tonnes,  then  the  EU  in third  place  with  a  decrease  of  123  million  tonnes,  and  fourth  India with a decrease of 98 million tonnes of CO2.

The fourth largest CO2 emitters in the world therefore decreased their emissions in the same order  as  their  global  ranking,  China  being  the  biggest  polluter  in  the  world  decreased  its emissions  the  most,  followed  by  the  US,  the  EU  and  then  India,  which  is  of  course  no coincidence  but  the  direct  effect  of  the  severity  of  their  lockdowns  and  thus  the  result  of deliberate planning.

And only deliberate planning will ensure that these drops in emissions are not just temporary but permanent, for they do not yet reflect structural changes in the economic, transport and energy systems.   These structural changes have yet to come and they will come at a heavy price  and  will  not  result  in  higher  well-being  if  they  will  be  pursued  once  again  through mandatory confinement under various lies.

The plandemic has created a window for radical change, or at the very least for incremental change.

To make the drops in CO2 emissions permanent governments are attaching climate related conditions to stimulus packages to restart the economy; stimulus packages that defund fossil fuel infrastructure and fund renewable energy.  Governments are also introducing policies to reduce urban car traffic and to replace gas engines with hybrids and electric cars.

By  making  massive  green  investments  governments  hope  to  achieve  a  longer  lasting structural change that confine polluting industries to the past and bring green industries to the forefront.  Stimulus programs are designed towards long-term climate mitigation goals.  Only companies that are already moving towards meeting the Paris climate agreement goals will be funded while those that submit no plans for decreasing emissions will be forced to go under.

The engineered crash of  the global economy and of global emissions is meant to lead to a sustainable new economy.

The  short-  to  medium-term  effects  are  and  will  continue  to  be  extremely  painful.    As companies  are  going  bankrupt  or  shrinking  they  are  laying  off  millions  of  workers  and unemployment has  exploded to record highs.   The World  Bank predicts  the biggest  global recession in 80 years.

That  is  not  the  climate  stabilization  we  have  been  promised.   What  we  were  promised  is increased well-being not record unemployment, record bankruptcies and record misery.

Yet  national  leaders  have  started  announcing  their  plans  for  making  the  economy  more carbon neutral.

On April 28, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has declared that the European Green Deal must be the driving force behind Europe’s economic recovery plan and reaffirmed her support for raising the EU’s emissions reduction target for 2030 from 40% to 55%. She said the climate must not be excluded from the economic stimulus packages currently being put together.  She described carbon pricing as an important instrument for achieving the EU’s climate goals and expressed her hope that “as many countries as possible will go for it”. She also called for the extension of the EU’s emissions trading system to new sectors and said that Germany intends to do this for heating and transport.

A  few  hours  earlier,  EU  Commission  President  Ursula  von  der  Leyen,  made  similar declarations. She said that with billions of dollars of investment planned we should not “fall back into old habits of environmental degradation”, but learn from the pandemic. She also advocated for investing in renewable energy, clean cars and climate-friendly homes to make the bloc’s Green deal “themotorforeconomicrecovery”.

The UN  Secretary-General  Antonio  Guterres,  not  to  be  undone,  called  on  the  EU  to  show “global leadership” and present tougher emission targets for the years up to 2030 by the end of the year.   Any hesitation would only lead to more costs, both in terms of loss of life and economiclosses, hesaid. “Thehighest cost is the cost of doingnothing”.

(Source: support-for-raising-eus-2030-climate-target-by-50-55/ )

On  May  27,  the  EU  announced  an  1.8  trillion  post-pandemic  recovery  plan  with  green objectives tied into it that are worth 60 billion Euro of which 40 billion are earmarked for a climate neutral Europe.

(Source: )

On June 3, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that governing parties have agreed on a 130 billion Euro stimulus package to help revive the virus-hit economy.   The package includes  a  50  billion  Euro  fund  for  addressing  climate  change,  innovation  and  digitization within the German economy.

(Source: )

Clearly, the decarbonization prerogative looms large behind the pandemic illusion and is the primary  objective  that  governments  and  the  UN  system  have  decided  to  pursue  with  the coronavirus as a front.

Unless they bring their true objectives out in the open and pursue them lawfully they will not succeed because nothing lasting can be built on lies.


I recently saw an ad for pizza flouting that they had contactless payment as though that was a virtue. Social distancing is not based on any proven science. It was a guess at best and its long term affect on humanity worldwide will not be realised for many years. The human need of socialisation is a known and those who naturally self isolate become unbalanced. (I am one that tends to go this way) The longer this event continues the more this becomes true to me as an introvert.

I have missed birthdays of family because of the event. Those who restrict our movements using baseless theory themselves know how utterly wrong it is and break the rules that they advocated for as we saw recently with Professor pandemic and his extra marital jaunt. Why then do they persist with the social distancing? (the new normal) Some will say it is because of an agenda.

Let’s consider China. How can you social distance with over a billion people? Impossible. Some cite that industrial activity showed a significant reduction but was that just the normal cycle with the New Year? (As stated by a westerner living there now) If this conjecture is true then the virus was timed rather well for China. It happened in a quiet time of industry but a busy time of travel. That way the event could spread throughout the world. Yes this is just all guess work and due to the amount of misinformation there is no way to be certain.

But none of that is the point. What will be the consequences of this purposeful demolition of world economies on communities, family and people? Why are we being forced to socially isolate? I have read and heard that global surveillance does not yet have the capacity to individually identify us in small groups and that is the agenda I alluded to. Can this be true? It seems this question of a contactless society might go deeper than we think? In the end the cost will not be monetary, lost freedoms and a new normal but the human soul.

collateral damage

Hospitals around the US are empty and people who are sick are not getting treated. A man who suffered a heart attacked decided not to attend the emergency or ER and therefore could have died. People who need treatment are being denied access with hospitals being threatened with jail time. My question what is the motivation behind this unscientific approach of social distancing. (confirmed by epidemiologists wordwide)

These doctors are being criticised for being honest and tell the truth.

restaurants to open in june

Tracking app will not be mandatory

The curve has been flattened however my experience is that people who normally would go to the gyms and malls are hitting the parks. I have never seen so many people on my normal runs. Social distancing was not worth the devastation to the economy and business. If the virus was so virulent we would have significantly more cases now using common sense as a guide as people are still congregating. (albeit in smaller groups but in larger numbers overall in parks)