Use Actual Words & Documents to Expose WEF & Depopulation


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© June 1, 2022

On 5/30/22 I posted an excerpted/edited video of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla indicating Pfizer will be responsible for depopulating planet Earth by 50% by 2023. I FELL FOR IT!

I fell for it for because Pfizer’s forced released documentation demonstrated the mRNA Jab was indeed harmful. The edited video shows Bourla sitting next to EVIL WEF New World Order Klaus Schwab.

BUT IN FAIRNESS this short video (https://www.bitchute.com/video/sMTDYAuk7H78/) edits out what Bourla actually said. In unedited Schwab-Bourla discussion, Bourla said: “We’ve reduced the number of people who can’t afford our medicine by 50%.”

The Bitchute Channel SixthSense has a short video comparison of Bourla defamed by editing and what Bourla actually said making the Pfizer mRNA jab affordable (which by the way was deceptive because taxpayer money NOT private funding has made the Jab widespread as the original Schwab-Bourla discussion implied): https://www.bitchute.com/video/fFp56S9HqlQY/.

Bitchute VIDEO: WARNING FAKE PFIZER CEO VIDEO – EDIT VS WHAT WAS REALLY SAID

Posted by SixthSense

First Published May 31st, 2022 20:17 UTC

… Lots of DESCRIPTION INFO that might be of interest

NEVERTHELESS, LET’S BE CLEAR – The WEF, Fascist oriented Corporations (Corporatism) and Marxist-Globalists have an agenda to transform world culture to bend the knee to Elitist directives which includes decreasing the world’s population to a more manageable compliant Sheeple.

I find it extremely sad that probably well-meaning Conservative-Patriots utilized a Leftist editing tactic to make Bourla appear at face value to be openly a genocidal maniac. It’s sad because Bourla by association with the WEF and Corporatist Elitists is probably on board with Global depopulation. His dangerous Jabs might be an indication (EXAMPLES: HERE & HERE).

In that light shining on some darkness, here is some transform the SHEEPLE and Depopulation posts associated with the WEF-Globalist Agenda that does include DEPOPULATION.

JRH 6/1/22

READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to overcome research expenses:

Please Support NCCR

Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

**********************

Bitchute VIDEO: BILL GATES & THE POPULATION CONTROL GRID

Posted by The-Truth-Seeker

First Published May 31st, 2022 13:28 UTC

All Credit To The Corbett Report

+++++++++++++++++++

The Great Reset Snakes Are Slithering Together in Davos

Posted by Constitutional Nobody

[ORIGINALLY Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola]

May 31, 2022 [Mercola.com date 6/1/22]

USSA News

Avi Yemini tweet screen capture

Youtube VIDEO: Introducing The Reset: The Great Reset Docuseries

[Posted by Rebel News

Posted on May 20, 2022

MORE DESCRIPTION]

In the video above, which is part of a larger “Great Reset” documentary series, Rebel News highlights the origins of the World Economic Forum1 (WEF), its founder Klaus Schwab, and other key players, and the WEF’s central role in The Great Reset, which promises (read: threatens) to overturn society and life as we know it in ways that are hard to imagine.

In summary, The Great Reset involves the demolition and radical overhaul of several interlocking pillars of civilization: technology, society, economy, environment and geopolitics. Food and health also fall within these categories. Through control of these core pillars, the WEF and its globalist allies intend to seize control of all the nations of the world and centralize all power and wealth.

The WEF’s Plan

As noted by Rebel News, the WEF is an organization that profits from famine and disease; it uses tragedies and fear to further its own agenda — “one that dictates what you eat, what you own, what you think, under the guise of a ‘sustainable future.’”

According to the WEF, capitalism is dead and we can no longer allow for free markets. Instead, we need a top-down governance, a New World Order, that can ensure “fair and equitable” distribution of dwindling resources, including energy and food. What they’re really saying, however, is that soon-to-be-useless people are gobbling up “their” resources. They see us — you and me — as an existential threat to their luxurious lifestyle.

So, their decades-old plan is to seize control of it all, transfer all wealth and private ownership into their own hands, and centrally control who gets what and when. It’s important to realize that this WEF-led cabal believes in transhumanist and technocratic principles.

What Is Technocracy?

Technocracy is at its core an economic system, not a political one. However, it’s wholly unnatural, and therefore also requires unnatural means to keep it going. Rather than being based on common pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand or free commerce, the economy of technocracy is based on energy resources, which then dictate the types of products being produced, bought, sold and consumed.

The technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check.

In essence, energy replaces the concept of money as a commodity. That’s strange enough, but it gets stranger still. Technocracy, which emerged in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, the brainchildren of which were scientists and engineers, also requires social engineering to work.

If people are allowed to do what they want, consumer demand ultimately drives commerce, but that won’t fly in a technocratic economy. Instead, consumers need to be directed, herded if you will, to consume that which the system needs them to consume, and in order for that to happen, they need to be more or less brainwashed. As a result, the technocratic system requires extensive surveillance and artificial intelligence-driven technologies to keep everyone in check.

Understanding the Mind of the Technocrats

Bitchute VIDEO: IS KLAUS SCHWAB THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN THE WORLD? BY AWAKENWITHJP

[Posted by EarthNewspaper.comAll The Honest News Fit To Publish

First Published March 7th, 2022 20:35 UTC 

MORE DESCRIPTION]

As Schwab himself has declared on many occasions, they want a society in which humans are merged with machine and artificial intelligence (AI). They look forward to extreme longevity, if not immortality through technological means.

They place no value on spiritual ideas such as the survival of the soul. They don’t believe in the nonlocality of consciousness. If they did, they wouldn’t believe consciousness can simply be uploaded into a synthetic body. They believe that, through technology and AI, they will be able to replace God and the natural order with reengineered lifeforms of their own creation, including a reengineered humanity.

They actually believe they’re better, more evolved than the rest of us, and this superiority gives them the right to decide the fate of mankind. They also reject the notion of free will.2 Once you understand this basic mindset, it’s easier to understand why they think nothing of stripping you of your freedom and ability to make choices for yourself. As noted by Tessa Lena in “The Mind of a Technocrat: What Drives Them?”:

“To a technocrat, a human being is an imperfect machine, a humble meat bag that is operated by software, which is produced by the brain. The technocrat’s understanding of life is based on a very primitive, linear vision; it’s void of spiritual mystery …

The force driving the mind of a technocrat is the overbearing emotional need for total control, combined with mistrust for other people in general. They seemingly look to compensate for their emotional poverty. (In other words, there is no reason to admire their successes as their successes are based on theft of other people’s right to free will.)

The technocrats’ desire to fully control their surroundings is anxiety-driven. They simply can’t stand the feeling of uncertainty that comes with allowing other people’s subjective choices to play any role. They don’t trust others to do the right thing, much like a very neurotic parent doesn’t trust his child’s ability to choose wisely without supervision — but far less benevolently.

Their desire for control is intensely neurotic. They are sitting on needles, so to speak (a Russian idiom and a pun in the light of today) — and in order to dampen their anxiety, they resort to trying to implement their controlling ambitions …

Technocrats may think they are the cream of the crop. They may think that their brilliant vision is good for the world. But regardless of whether they believe themselves to be the good guys or the bad guys, their thirst for total control is a pathological, anxiety-driven expression. They can’t stand being dependent on other people’s free will, and so they aspire to squash it, which is not existentially right.”

Annual Meeting in Davos

Each year, the WEF holds a meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Thousands of global movers and shakers fly in on private jets to decide how best to stop the working class from driving gas-powered cars, heating their homes and eating meat. Does anyone still believe that a bunch of billionaire “elites” can make life “fair and equitable” for everyone?

Attendees include corporate executives, bankers and financiers, heads of state, finance and trade ministers, central bankers, policymakers, the heads of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Many academics, economists, political scientists, journalists, cultural elites and celebrities are also invited.

This year’s meeting took place May 22 through 26.3 On the first day, participants were treated to an immersive experience of the metaverse in their own digital avatar. Essentially, this is where they want to bring the masses of mankind — into a digital reality where enjoyment of resources doesn’t involve actual use of real-world resources. For example, rather than buying clothes for your biological body, you’ll spend digital currency on a wardrobe for your digital avatar.

Day 2 included a discussion about how manufacturing companies can accelerate their implementation of automation. The idea is to replace most of the human workforce with robotics and AI. As you might expect, this will render large portions of humanity superfluous and “useless.” What to do with them all? Professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Schwab adviser, has stated he believes the answer will be a combination of “drugs and video games.”4

Haves and Have Nots Among Journalists

>>>>> Click here <<<<<

[USSA News uses “Click here” above. As Blog Editor, I’m embedding the Tweet below:]

Among the journalists invited to the 2022 meeting was New York Times managing editor Rebecca Blumenstein. Rebel News reporter Avi Yemini confronted Blumenstein in Davos (video above), asking how the public is supposed to trust the NYT’s reporting on the event when she’s an invited guest. Blumenstein refused to answer the question, thereby cementing the impression that she’s really not there as an independent journalist. She’s part of the event. She’s part of the club.

Additional evidence that not all journalists are equal was evidenced by the attempt by armed WEF police officers to detain conservative journalist Jack Posobiec (video below).5 When other journalists got involved and started filming and asking questions, the police took off. The fact that the WEF has ITS OWN police force should be a wakeup call. Clearly, they’re far more than just another nongovernmental organization (NGO).

Youtube VIDEO: Journalist Jack Posobiec Detained By World Economic Forum Police All Footage

[Posted by ACE1918

Posted on May 23, 2022

… MORE DESCRIPTION]

Sustainable Development Is Technocracy

Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of in recent years refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, green economy, the green new deal and the climate change movement in general.

They all refer to and are part of technocracy and resource-based economics. Other terms that are synonymous with technocracy include the Great Reset,6 the Fourth Industrial Revolution7 and the slogan Build Back Better.8 The Paris Climate Agreement is also part and parcel of the technocratic agenda.

The common goal of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world — the ownership of them — for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. It’s really the ultimate form of totalitarianism.

When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re really referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. The WEF has publicly announced that by 2030, you will own nothing. Everything you need you will rent — from them — and deciding factors for what you’re allowed to rent will include things like your carbon credits and social credit score.

Gone will be the days of putting in a day’s work, receiving a paycheck and spending it to your heart’s content. No, the digital currency will be programmable, so the issuer can decide when and what you can spend it on, based on the data in your digital identity. This will all be automated and run by AI, of course, so there won’t be anyone to complain to.

What the Green Revolution Is All About

While “going green” sounds and feels like the right thing to do, it’s becoming imperative for people to understand what the green agenda is really all about. Shocking as it may sound, the green agenda was invented, fabricated, by the Club of Rome (a scientific think tank allied with the WEF) to justify a depopulation agenda.9

The need for population control is described in the 1972 book, “The Limits to Growth,”10 which warned that “if the world’s consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates of the time, the earth would strike its limits within a century.”

Then, in the 1991 book, “The First Global Revolution,”11 the Club of Rome argued that depopulation policies might gain widespread support if they could be linked to an existential fight against a common enemy. An excerpt from “The First Global Revolution” reads:12

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.”

So, in plain English, the intended result of “going green” is depopulation. This intention is now finally becoming visible when you consider the implications of eliminating oil and gas production without having viable alternatives in place, which is what Biden and other global leaders are in the process of doing.

Not only do you need oil to make fertilizer, but we also don’t have farm equipment that can run on solar or wind power. So, food production essentially grinds to a halt. Heavy construction machinery also can’t run on these alternative sources of energy, so there go the infrastructure and home building businesses.

To many, it seems these global leaders are acting out of ignorance, but it’s quite possible their actions are intentional. It’s just that no one wants to consider that the intention is to harm as many people as possible — to actually rid the planet of soon-to-be “useless” people.

It may be quite chilling to realize that the climate change threat narrative was cooked up in the late 1980s for the sole purpose of being able to implement a global depopulation agenda without stirring up excessive resistance. But depopulation and eugenics are at the heart of what the WEF and its allies are trying to achieve.

The WEF even admits they’re using the Club of Rome’s “planetary emergency plan” to provide “a new compass for nations” to follow.13 So, the WEF and its allied nations are all following a plan that has depopulation as an admitted intended end result.

Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War

As I discussed in “Phase 2 of the Great Reset: War,” the drums of war are also part and parcel of The Great Reset plan. Why? Because war will accelerate the economic collapse required before nations can “Build Back Better.”14 The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is helping to catalyze The Great Reset in a number of different ways.

For starters, supply chains of all kinds are being disrupted at an unprecedented level and pace by the war between Russia and Ukraine. Fuel shortages and inflation are also taking off. Geopolitical tensions may also trigger stagflation, an economic situation in which inflation and unemployment rates are high while economic growth slows.15

It’s a precarious dilemma for economic policy, because strategies that help lower inflation can also make unemployment worse. You can learn more about this in the March 10, 2022, Conversation article, “Why Stagflation Is an Economic Nightmare.”16

The end result is increased dependence on government subsidies, and this is a clear goal of The Great Reset. Universal basic income is one planned strategy that will create dependency. It will also ensure we’re all equally poor and unable to threaten their monopoly on power and wealth.

Universal poverty is really what they mean when they talk about making the world “fair and equitable.” No one will have anything. Everyone will be equally poor and dependent, without hope of ever being able to rise into the “elite” technocratic class.

The Ukraine war is also reducing Europe’s reliance on Russian energy, thereby reinforcing the urgency of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In lockstep with The Great Reset, policymakers around the world are using the sanctions against the Russian energy sector to accelerate the transition to “green” energy, the intention behind which is what I just discussed.

Russia’s decision to block exports of fertilizer and food crops in response to being deplatformed from the Swift system will also create food shortages, and this too plays right into the Great Reset plan. In recent years, we’ve been urged by Great Reset front men like Bill Gates (Not a Scientist) to stop eating real meat and switch to synthetic lab-grown meat instead.

Making people reliant on patented synthetic food will benefit the globalists in more ways than one. People will get sicker, and hence more reliant on government aid. They’ll be dependent on food produced by monopolies and hence easier to control. And, over time, as people forget how to grow and raise food, the ability to control the global population will increase.

In addition to all of this, media are chumming the waters with fearporn about monkeypox — just in time for the push to relinquish national sovereignty to the World Health Organization, which is also allied with the WEF.

In closing, Michael Osterholm’s report from the 2010 Davos meeting, which was aflame with talks about pandemic planning, having just gone through the 2009/2010 swine flu pandemic is quite telling. All those years ago, he wrote:17

“I learned much in Davos, but I was troubled by the complete lack of attention to such critical questions as:

  How do we protect global supply chains when we face another inevitable pandemic that could bring about widespread, severe illness? …

  How do we take the lessons we’ve learned from our experience with H1N1 and embed them into our organizations so they’re not forgotten?

Instead, the tenor of the conversations at Davos was about globalization …”

Twelve years ago, the Davos billionaires, bankers and heads of state had the opportunity to prove they were capable of stewarding this Earth ship. But after the swine flu pandemic, they didn’t solve the problems that had become apparent.

They didn’t solve the supply chain issues, and we had the same but worse issues when COVID came along. The only thing they solved was how to silence the critics. Back then, there was talk that “heads should roll” because of mismanagement of the pandemic.

Well, no heads rolled. Everything stayed the same, and now we’ve gone through two years of the worst pandemic mismanagement imaginable. Now, the globalist cabal is pushing for the inept WHO to become the sole decision-maker in pandemics, which the WHO would be able to declare at will, based on its own definitions. We’re at a very dangerous crossroads.

We have to remember, though, that the fate of the world is not for Schwab and the Davos crowd to decide. It’s ours. If we do not resist their plans, we’ve made the choice to accept their version of the future.

Click this link for the original source of this article. [Blog Editor: Dr. Mercola’s website postings are typically only available to the public 48-hours from original posting which in this case is listed as 6/1/22. USSA News does news include the reference citations which I will do below.]
Author: Dr. Mercola

 Sources and References

1 TNI.org WEF History

2 The Guardian September 14, 2018

3 WEF Program 2022

4 YouTube April 13, 2022

5 Washington Examiner May 23, 2022

6 Technocracy.news June 25, 2020

7 Gov.uk The Fourth Industrial Revolution

8 UN.org April 22, 2020

9, 12 Unlimited Hangout February 20, 2021

10 Club of Rome, The Limits to Growth

11 Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

13 Weforum.org January 13, 2020

14 Winter Oak March 9, 2022

15, 16 The Conversation March 10, 2022

17 Cidrap February 4, 2010

This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://mercola.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.

©2022 USSA News

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Government data proves that people “fully vaccinated” for covid are developing AIDS, which is part of why you’re being distracted with Russia-Ukraine propaganda

Skull & Jab Inoculation

By Ethan Huff

May 27, 2022

Natural News

(Natural News) Do Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” cause AIDS? A growing body of government data from all around the world suggests so, and that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is largely a distraction from it.

Public Health Scotland (PHS), the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Canadian government, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and many other government agencies are quietly publishing data that reveals the truth, but the media is ignoring it.

Vaccine-induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (VAIDS) is arguably a best-case scenario for those who took the jabs. Exposé News says that “something much worse” could be happening that will soon manifest as the worst public health crisis the world has ever seen.

We already know that the “fully vaccinated” are more likely than the unvaccinated to test “positive” for the Fauci Flu. The fully jabbed are also more likely to get sick or die compared to the unvaccinated. How can this be if the injections supposedly “save lives?”

In 2021, rates of AIDS-related diseases, cancers and infections reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) increased by anywhere from 1,145 percent to 33,715 percent. This occurred right after Chinese Virus injections were hastily introduced under Operation Warp Speed.

Covid “vaccines” make a person more prone to catching covid and possibly dying

Each country seems to be reporting the data differently, the one common denominator being that they all appear to be intentionally shrouding the truth. PHS, for instance, announced back in January that starting on February 6, it will no longer report “cases,” hospitalizations and deaths on a weekly basis.

The reason for this is that data clearly shows a link between the injections and all sorts of health problems. In nearly every category measured, the fully jabbed are sicker and more likely to die, it turns out, which is not exactly a good marketing point for the jabs.

“The charts above have been created using the figures published by Public Health Scotland in their ‘COVID-19 & Winter Statistical Report’ published 16th Feb 22, and they show that Covid-19 infection, hospitalisation and death rates per 100,000 individuals were consistently higher among the fully vaccinated population,” reports the Exposé. “This is what Covid-19 vaccination has done to the people of Scotland.”

In New Zealand, the figures are even more striking. Between February 12-24, the number of covid cases recorded among the fully jabbed was 22,699. By comparison, only 1,291 unvaccinated people tested positive during that same time period.

“These case rates, just like the Public Health Scotland case rates, certainly pour water on the bonfire of anyone who says ‘vaccination reduces the chances of being infected with Covid-19,’ don’t they?” the Exposé adds.

“This means the Covid-19 injections have a real-world negative effectiveness, and we’re able to use Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula to calculate it.”

That formula, by the way, looks like this:

Unvaccinated case rate per 100,000 – Vaccinated case rate per 100,000 / Unvaccinated case rate per 100,000 x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness

Using this formula for the New Zealand data, covid jab effectiveness is shown to be minus-94.4 percent between January 6 through February 11. By February 24, it drops to minus-281.35 percent, meaning the fully jabbed are 3.8 times more likely to become infected with covid compared to the unvaccinated.

When the fully jabbed develop full-blown VAIDS, then what?

In Canada, which saw some of the world’s most draconian restrictions and jab mandates, new covid cases have been skyrocketing as of late. And four out of every five new cases, or 80 percent, are occurring in the fully jabbed.

Canadians who took the injections are, on average, four times more likely to become infected with covid compared to their unvaccinated counterparts; two times more likely to be hospitalized; and three times more likely to die.

In England, the figures are similar to those published by PHS. The case rate there is largely comprised of partially or fully vaccinated people with very few unvaccinated people experiencing any covid-related health problems.

Vaccine effectiveness there was found to be as low as minus-391.43 percent among the 60-69-year-old demographic by week 13. This is nowhere near the 95 percent effective rate claimed by Pfizer.


Keep in mind that the rate of disease and death among the fully jabbed in almost every country where data is available is increasing precipitously over time. This supports the notion that VAIDS is what these people are now suffering from, and that it will only get worse over time.

“Once a person progresses to AIDS, they have a high viral load and can transmit HIV to others very easily,” wrote an Exposé commenter about where this could all be headed. “In the absence of treatment, people with AIDS typically survive for about three years.”

The latest news about the health carnage caused by Fauci Flu shots can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:

This site is part of the Natural News Network © 2022 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing International, LTD. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

GREAT RESET: ITS UNEXPECTED ORIGINS & EUGENICS DEPOPULATION AGENDA

The Fabian Society, Eugenics and the Historic Forces Behind Today’s Systemic Breakdown

By Matthew Ehret

March 12, 2022

ORIGINALLY: Matt Ehret’s Insights Substack

TruthUndercover.com

The financial system is clearly careening towards a point of dissolution.

It isn’t an exaggeration to say that the collapse itself has already happened and we simply have not yet felt the full brutal force of the shockwave accelerating toward us. This process is comparable to a tectonic snap deep in the crust under the ocean. The snap happens and a tsunami has begun. It will hit the beach front with devastating consequences and only by breaking the habit of living in the myopic “moment” might those on the beach have a chance to get to safer ground before it is too late.

The question isn’t “will the system collapse”, but rather when will the full tsunami hit?

Additionally, WHAT will be the operating system that is brought online to replace the chaos of supply chain meltdowns, hyperinflation, scarcity and violence that will ensue?

Two Systems Clash

Already we can clearly see two opposing patterns that have taken form, illustrated in the remarks recently made by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres who said:

I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence—and ultimately two different military and geo-political strategies. This is a recipe for trouble. It would be far less predictable and far more dangerous than the Cold War.”

Guterres is speaking of two divergent paradigms, so what are they?

On the one hand, there is the ideology that Guterres himself devoutly supports which has taken on the title in recent years of “The Davos Agenda”, or “The Great Reset”.

Guterres even went so far as to sign UN-WEF integration treaty in June 2020 uniting both globalist bodies into one Borg-like operating system, announcing: “The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call. We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”

While the Great Reset professes to use the current pandemic to push through a complete overhaul of human society under a technocratic world government, the opposing system driven by those nations not invited to the recent “Global Democracy summit” and labelled “authoritarians” by Soros and the Davos clique wish to avoid being sacrificed.

Where one system is premised on a scientifically managed depopulation agenda from the top, the other system asserts the right of sovereign nations to continue as the only legitimate basis for international law and scientific progress to be the basis of economic ideology. The terms of the new system were recently re-emphasized throughout the 5000 word Russia-China Joint Statement on the terms of the New Era now emerging.

Putin himself recently laid out these terms stating: 

“Only sovereign states can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and capabilities of the state and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist. Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it the principles underlying the sociopolitical structure or values that someone, for their own reasons, has called “universal”. After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how best to protect based on its abilities, culture and traditions.”

What a breath of fresh air!

Compare that to Klaus Schwab’s infamous “you’ll own nothing and be happy”.

From where did the dystopic world order of the Davos Crowd emerge?

H.G. Wells’ Open Conspiracy

It might surprise you, but to answer that question, we will need to jump back nearly one century into the past and meet an ageing misanthropic social engineer named Herbert George Wells who wrote a 1928 opus called The Open Conspiracy: Blueprint for a World Revolution calling for world government, and depopulation saying:

“The Open Conspiracy rests upon a disrespect for nationality, and there is no reason why it should tolerate noxious or obstructive governments because they hold their own in this or that patch of human territory.”

Wells was a member of an organization called The Fabian Society which itself was established in 1884 by a coterie of British eugenicists and Malthusians in order to promote a new social order designed to mold society into a new mechanized order run by a managerial elite of “social scientists” from above.

Throughout the 20th century, the Fabian Society would penetrate all branches of government, military, academia, media and even private corporate boards around the world creating global systems of fifth columns operating within cells, hierarchically unified by a central command within the highest echelons of British Intelligence.

From below, plebs and laborers would be attracted by “words” promoted by Fabians like equality, social justice, and re-distribution of wealth utilizing Marxist terms while never realizing that those words were just a sweet illusion with no claim to reality.

Like Jesuitical and Masonic orders, many Fabians would never have a clue what the machine truly was that they were merely parts of. This is why the British Labor Party (aka: The Fabian Party of Britain) was so often occupied by well-intended members who never had a clue what the game was truly about. The official Fabian School that became an ideological control hub and recruiting grounds for next generation talent (paralleling the Rhodes/Milner Round Table’s Oxford University) was the London School of Economics.

In fact, over the 20th century, these two oligarchical operations often interfaced closely, with the Fabian Lord Mackinder working with the Round Table’s Lord Milner to craft a strategy for North America in 1908 or the Canadian Fabian Society’s founding by five Rhodes Scholars in 1932.

HG Wells was explicit in his many works of non-fiction writing in 1904: “The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.” (3)

Sculpting our Dreams into Nightmares through Storytelling

It is no coincidence that Wells had spent the previous three decades innovating a new form of cultural warfare called “predictive programming”.

Whether it was in his science fiction stories of War of the Worlds, The Invisible Man, The World Set Free, The Island of Doctor Morrow or the Time Machine, Wells always infused trojan horses into his narratives that he knew would have lasting value on conditioning the broader zeitgeist.

These were simply: 1) human nature was intrinsically absurd, selfish and incapable of resolving the duty-freedom paradox in any believable manner, 2) science and technology would thus always be used towards selfish and destructive ends, 3) world government is the only salvation for humanity.

The only solution to such problems was that society had to be recast afresh according to a scientific priesthood which knew how to make the sorts of “hard” decisions that the dirty masses would never have the wits to make themselves. The theme of world government and collectivization of wealth under one central command were also themes advanced by Wells who wrote in 1940:

Collectivisation means the handling of the common affairs of mankind by a common control responsible to the whole community. It means the suppression of go-as-you-please in social and economic affairs just as much as in international affairs. It means the frank abolition of profit-seeking and of every device by which human beings contrive to be parasitic on their fellow man. It is the practical realisation of the brotherhood of man through a common control”.

The Fabian Society propaganda organ The New Statesman wrote in 1931:

The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics.”

While genuine socialists who truly cared about labor rights in opposition to oligarchical forces generally didn’t get along well with fascists, the peculiar species of Fabian socialists were always united with the fascist cause and always strove to destroy genuine-labor movements in any nation which they were permeating. If only those fascists could be cured of their nationalism wrote Wells, then he would gladly champion the swastika saying in 1932: “I am asking for liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis”

Eugenics and Fascism: Miracle Solutions to the Great Depression

While these words were spoken, the Anglo-American financier oligarchy which Wells served had been well on its way to establishing a global system of political economy designed to impose eugenics onto humanity through its support for Hitler. This new science of government (with its corporatist flavor in Italy) was pushed onto the world as the “economic miracle solution” to the horrors of the great depression of 1929-1932 (itself also the cause of a controlled disintegration of a financial bubble).

Despite the fact that the fascist project failed in 1933 (when a central bankers dictatorship was derailed by Franklin Roosevelt) and again when the Hitler Frankenstein monster stopped obeying London’s orders and had to be put down, the blueprint for a New World Order continued into the post-war age under the design of an open conspiracy.

With Wells’ 1946 death, other Fabians and social engineers continued his work during the Cold War (including designing the Cold War itself as a way to destroy the system of win-win cooperation and U.S.-Russia-China friendship envisioned by FDR).

Post-War Fascism: Making the Unthinkable Become Thinkable

One of the leading grand strategists during this dark period was Wells’ associate (and former Fabian Society member), Lord Bertrand Russell, who wrote in his 1952 The Impact of Science on Society:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part… it may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the state with money and equipment.”

“The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First that the influence of home is obstructive. Second that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Thirdly verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.”

Russell’s dystopic vision was paralleled by his friend Sir Julian Huxley (founder of the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization) in 1946 who said:

“The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it- education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war… in its educational programme it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”

To what end would this “world political unity” be aimed? Several pages later, Huxley’s vision is laid out in all of its twisted detail:

“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

The Economic Recolonization of the World

While many think the post-war years to have been shaped primarily by a Cold War, the reality is that the Iron Curtin was always merely a cover to impose a complete infiltration and colonization of the minds of citizens across the Trans Atlantic community that had given so much to stop the rise of fascism. The focus was especially placed on the young “baby boomer” generation who would suffer the most intensive full spectrum conditioning of any generation in history.

While the population was driven into states of insanity throughout the age of constant nuclear terror, asymmetrical wars abroad and drug-sex-rock’n’roll counterculture revolutions domestically.

By the time of Bobby Kennedy’s murder, and ouster of de Gaulle, the stage had been set for a new phase of colonialization of western nation states via the floating of the U.S. dollar and the destruction of the gold-reserve system that had served as the bedrock of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system. As long as the exchange rates were fixed then economic warfare against nations via short term speculation (which had always been a tool of the City of London) would not be possible. Additionally, the stability afforded by fixed exchange rates permitted long-term thinking and planning requisite to build large scale infrastructure and other scientific projects that required the sort of patience and foresight that short term market-driven thinking never allowed.

Under this new age of post-1971 deregulation, humanity was further atomized around a new idea of “value” which was driven by the notion that individual desires unbounded by regulation “cause” creative change within supposedly self-regulating forces of the marketplace. The more the formula “greed=good” became embedded within the operating system of western states, the more the broader structures of those states were commandeered by private corporations and banks which increasingly merged and fused into each other during an age of Darwinian “survival of the fittest”. The more that these interconnected supranational entities merged, the more those levers of economic power were ripped away from sovereign nation states and into the hands of private finance beholden to forces antagonistic to humanity. During this process, the once productive sectors of the economy that gave vitality to nations were atrophied and outsourced abroad.

Normal rates of investment into the maintenance and improvement of capital-intensive infrastructure seized up and industrial sectors were shut down and moved to cheap labor sectors abroad which themselves became new zones of modern slave labor filling western consumerism with “cheap goods” from China and cheap resources stolen from the global south.

Where monetary growth had formerly been tied to the growth of industrial production, the post-1971 paradigm tied monetary growth to ever increasing rates of unpayable debt and speculative capital unbounded from the real world.

Two Faces of Evil: WEF and Inter-Alpha Group

During that same fateful year of 1971, two other ominous entities were created.

In January 1971, an entity was set up in Switzerland by a protégé of Henry Kissinger named Klaus Schwab titled “The World Economic Forum”. One prominent founding member was Maurice Strong, a Rockefeller connected Canadian elitist that had become a founding father of the modern environmental movement and co-architect of the Club of Rome. One of the initiatives that Strong had helped build in 1970 was the 1001 Nature Trust which was project devoted to raising capital for the World Wildlife Fund for Nature and the new environmental movement. One of the founders of the WWF? Sir Julian Huxley.

The other ominous entity formed in 1971 was the Rothschild Inter-Alpha Group of banks under the umbrella of the Royal Bank of Scotland. The stated intention of this Group would be found in the 1983 speech by Lord Jacob Rothschild: “two broad types of giant institutions, the worldwide financial service company and the international commercial bank with a global trading competence, may converge to form the ultimate, all-powerful, many-headed financial conglomerate.”

What Lord Rothschild was referring to was the destruction of Glass-Steagall bank separation laws across the Trans Atlantic which had kept commercial banking, investment banking and insurance activities compartmentalized in separate worlds since WWII. In 1986, this destruction of the dividing walls in banking began with Margaret Thatcher’s Big Bang followed soon thereafter by Canada’s destruction of the Four Pillars. Although it took another 14 years, the final nail was put into the Glass-Steagall coffin when Clinton destroyed the law as one of his last acts in office. After this point, derivative contracts that had only accounted for $2 trillion in 1991, and $80 trillion in 1999 soon ballooned to over $650 trillion when the housing market blew out in the USA in 2007.

The Economy Becomes A Bomb

What is important to hold in mind is that through this entire post 1971 process, capitalism itself was thus slowly turned into a time bomb which could do nothing but collapse. This means that it is fatally wrong to consider the abuses of globalization or the collapse now underway as errors, but rather as the intended consequence of the system’s design itself.

The western nation states had lost their economic sovereignty as they sold their futures for the price of cheap goods from abroad making them addicted to keeping poor nations poor and cheap labor cheap (developing, modernizing nations tend to result in qualified, high paid labor not becoming of a banana republic).

And so, humanity slipped ever more into an “end of history” cage that ultimately sought a new world order to replace the old order of nation states and democracies that had governed the previous couple of centuries. More centralized supranational control of nation states by the financier oligarchy occurred behind such “free trade” agreements as NAFTA, and Maastricht in the early 1990s.

This was of course the near unstoppable trend after the Soviet Union’s disintegration (and the replication of western globalization within the short period of the 1990s Shock Therapy of Russia). I say thankfully “near unstoppable” because something very special and unexpected happened to derail this blueprint in 2013.

A New Operating System Emerges

I am here referring to the moment that Xi Jinping made it known to the world that China would not continue as the cheap labor hub of the west indefinitely and instead a new program dubbed the “Belt and Road Initiative” was unveiled as the driving force of China’s foreign policy. Soon this program merged with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, and won over 140 nations of the world to its operating system with branches stretching into the Arctic dubbed the Polar Silk Road. The multipolar system of Eurasia which had been slowly moving forward between 1999-2013 began to take on an accelerated rate of growth with new financial institutions, large scale infrastructure projects, and new diplomatic platforms built up along the way.

By 2015 both Russia and China had created their own alternatives to the U.S.-controlled SWIFT and in that same year Russia entered Syria in defense of the principle of national sovereignty.

Now Russia and China, both encircled by the U.S. military industrial complex, have released a powerful  joint statement establishing a manifesto for a new operating system that enshrines the principle of sovereign nation states, and activities that promote win-win cooperation and population growth as a bedrock of order.

So when Guterres wets his pants complaining about the danger of two opposing systems now emerging, or when Biden’s handlers promote democracy summits that exclude all the nations of the world who don’t want to be sacrificed on the altar of Gaia, you can be sure that it is because something compatible with human dignity has emerged.

Might the current freedom movements springing up across the trans Atlantic force a shift in the elements of the political class that have not lost their humanity to a World Economic Forum borg-like commitment to assimilate everything into a unipolar transhumanist priesthood? That remains to be seen.

(1) The Origins and Development of the Fabian Society, 1884-1900, Stephen J. O’Neil Loyola University Chicago

(2) George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296

(3) H.G. Wells in American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 10 (1904), p. 11

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review, and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation.

TruthUndercover MAINPAGE

+++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: There was I wanted to share in this already too lengthy post. I’d be surprised there were patient enough readers to make it this far. BUT IN CASE YOU made this far, here are some sovereignty-stealing, Liberty-robbing and depopulation posts YOU should educate yourself on:

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

%d bloggers like this: