stars2man: May 2024

Wednesday, May 08, 2024

H!st0ry 0f the Pandem!c Treaty

Since the WHO aims to dictate how individual nations' doctors practice medicine, this has required bypassing the normal democratic process (as the growing populist movements of many nations would reject the WHO’s edicts). As treaties may supercede national law, the WHO chose to push each nation into adopting a treaty that grants vast powers to the WHO.

This campaign began in November of 2020,3 at G20 (the annual gathering for the 20 leading economic powers) where a proposal was put forward for a “pandemic treaty” to ensure the nations of the world would handle future pandemics in an “appropriate” manner. A few months later, in March of 2021, citing the statements made at the G20 meeting, the World Economic Forum (WEF) echoed this call.4

Since that time, a series of policies and regulations has gradually been put together by the WHO, the UN, the World Bank, the US, the EU and other multinational organizations (with the assistance of the other globalist organizations like the UN and the Rockefeller Foundation) to remedy the “deficiencies” in our pandemic response.

Those policies and regulations in turn are part of a “pandemic treaty” and amendments to existing International Health Regulations. By virtue of both documents being international treaties, they must then be obeyed by each signatory country.

The pandemic treaty hence contains a wish-list of each thing the globalists have been working for decades to attain.

Climate Change and Pandemics

Since the “war on climate change” and the “war on pandemics” represent two of the greatest sources of wealth and power for the global elite, a lot of work has been put into conditioning the public to be terrified of the existential risk each allegedly poses.

The pandemic treaty seeks to link both of these together by arguing that “climate change” is the root cause of the disastrous pandemics,5 and that this “problem” thus necessitates giving the globalists control over how we interact with the environment. For example, they argue habitat loss brings humans in contact with deadly diseases.

However, while this is a huge ecological issue, there is very little evidence tying it to pandemics,6 as outside of biolab leaks, consequential animal to human disease transmissions are quite rare.

One Health

One Health began in 2004,7 at an international (globalist) conference where the idea was put forward that public health needed to be expanded into an umbrella which could control (and profit off) every aspect of our lives.

For example, “climate change” was folded into public health under the rationale that the dire environmental threats we faced necessitated making “ecological health” a core facet of public health. “One Health,” in turn, was merged with the notion that the problems we now faced were so complex that they should be decided by (corrupt) panels of multidisciplinary “experts.”

One Health is now embedded within governments and international organizations on every continent. The CDC has a One Health office8 (as do many other US agencies such as the USDA,9 the Fish and Wildlife Service, the FDA and the NIH). Many other large international organizations (e.g., the UN, FAO, OIE, and UNICEF) and globalist groups (e.g., the Rockefeller Foundation10 and the WEF11) are also aggressively promoting the One Health message.12

Many billions in grants have been given globally to establish “One Health” as a pillar of public health throughout the world, despite the fact it has not yet done anything that benefited health.

Rather, everyone who made a lot of money off COVID-19 (even Pfizer13) is promoting One Health because enshrining this incredibly vague declaration within the legal and public health system provides them with the means to enact whatever policies benefit them. Advancing “One Health” is thus a key theme throughout the WHO’s pandemic treaty.

Protecting Pandemic Products

Since the pandemic racket’s primary source of revenue is selling proprietary products to “mitigate” the next pandemic, the treaty protects that market.

This is done by reaffirming the use of (incredibly profitable) emergency use pharmaceuticals, which, as we saw throughout COVID-19, were a disaster. Since an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) can be issued with minimal or no testing of a drug or vaccine, that eliminates the lion’s share of the costs in bringing a new pharmaceutical to market.

Rather, with an EUA, the manufacturer can roll out the pharmaceutical product absent a demonstration of its safety and effectiveness — but only if the manufacturer, government, WHO and everyone else involved is shielded from liability for injuries that result.

The WHO’s pandemic treaty in turn makes it very clear14 each signatory nation is expected to push such EUA products onto the market and has stipulated that immunity from liability be given to the manufacturers.

Likewise, since the bioweapons industry stands to lose a great deal of money if public protests outlaw their reckless research, the treaty also protects that business. Similarly, the WHO’s new Biohub initiative15 does as well:

Combating ‘Misinformation’

One of the biggest problems the pandemic cartel now faces is that because of the audacity of their vaccine lies, much of the population no longer trusts them. Because of this (and their unwillingness to admit their mistakes and reform their actions), the only remaining option available to them is to outlaw all dissenting voices.

A recent UNESCO report16 outlines global measures to curb speech, creating an "Internet of Trust" focusing on "misinformation," "disinformation," "hate speech," and "conspiracy theories." The pandemic treaty in turn emphasizes countering false information during health events (e.g., it defines an "infodemic" as excessive misleading information during disease outbreaks).

Note: Ironically, much of what our authorities told us throughout the pandemic was later proven to be deadly misinformation, while at the same time, they suppressed the critical scientific evidence which, had it not been censored, would have saved millions of lives. Orwellian doublespeak in turn permeates the pandemic treaty (e.g., it frames censorship as “protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms”).

Usurping National Sovereignty

One of the major debates in international law is the question of when exactly an international treaty supersedes national (or state) law.

Since the underlying purpose of the WHO’s pandemic treaty is to provide a mechanism to bypass populist resistance to the WHO’s abhorrent edicts, the treaty is attempting to supersede local law, and to do so in secret so local legislators don’t realize what has been agreed to until the treaty’s “emergency” pandemic provisions kick in. For example, to quote an international lawyer and a former WHO physician scientist:17

“A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:

The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
The WHO DG (Director General) will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied [remember that they apply to both ‘pandemics’ and ‘other health hazards’].
The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.”

These powers include controlling where people can travel, forcing them to quarantine, implementing contact tracing, mandating treatment or vaccination and prohibiting competing treatments.

Furthermore, many of the treaty’s provisions also violate existing laws (e.g., mass surveillance which violates basic medical privacy protections, taking away intellectual property rights18 from members of signatory nations, and requiring nations to share potential pandemic pathogens with other nations and the WHO).

Meryl Nass the WHO Treaty Wrecking Ball

Meryl Nass MD is a quiet and unassuming country doctor19 who lives in an inconspicuous house in rural Maine and loves to garden. That’s fitting since she has been a fierce thorn in the medical-industrial complex’s side for decades (e.g., she was one of the leading activists who opposed the military’s devastating anthrax vaccine).

During the COVID era, Meryl began treating many of her COVID patients with repurposed drug protocols (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) and continued to do so even after her state moved to protect business interests by cracking down on anyone using off-patent therapies to treat COVID-19. Meryl spoke out both against this and later against the experimental vaccines.

The medical industry in turn decided they needed to make an example out of her, and chose to do so by suspending her medical license. The charges and justification for doing so were so ridiculous that thirteen members of Maine’s legislature (shortly joined by nine more) formally protested the medical board’s conduct. The license suspension ended up backfiring because losing the ability to practice medicine freed up a lot of Meryl’s time.

Door to Freedom

On June 2nd 2023,20 while she was fighting to protect her medical license, Meryl decided that she needed to do something about the WHO’s pending power grab and started the WHO pushback project, which she initially funded with $25,000 of her savings,21 along with the money she has received from Substack subscriptions.22 Since that time, her fledgling nonprofit became known as “Door to Freedom” and has gradually received more and more outside support.

Meryl, in turn has done dozens of podcasts and numerous grueling tours to address parliaments around the world about the pandemic treaty (e.g., on a recent trip she briefed 5 different parliaments23). These efforts have resulted in numerous countries' parliamentarians being convinced their countries should resist the pandemic treaty and the amended International Health Regulations.

In turn, many political parties are now vocally opposed to it (e.g., Germany, the Netherlands, the Philippines and Estonia).24,25,26,27 Furthermore, some countries are even beginning to pursue charges against those who were complicit in the COVID-19 disaster (e.g., Italy investigated the former health minister for homicide28 because he covered up vaccine deaths, and Slovakia’s Prime Minister is investigating the entire COVID response29).

Meryl has also spoken to our elected officials and at Congressional symposia such as the one hosted by Senator Ron Johnson,30 while Door to Freedom has provided legal support31 to elected officials who wish to use their position to oppose the pandemic treaty. These are monumental political shifts and it is unbelievable this organization was able to pull this off in a matter of months.

What You Can Do to Help

There are three major things each of you can do to help stop this abomination in its tracks. First and foremost, we need to spread awareness about this issue so that it doesn’t stay hidden in the shadows. Discuss it whenever you can with those close to you and share articles about it within your network. Very few people would support the pandemic treaty if they actually understood what was in it, so let them know!

Second, Senator Ron Johnson's bill S444 and Rep. Tom Tiffany's bill HR1425 would require that the Senate review the WHO treaties and would prevent their ratification unless 2/3 of the Senate approved.

Because 49 Republican Senators are already cosponsors, the treaties are almost guaranteed to be stopped by the Senate if we can pass these bills. There are many elected officials who are willing to listen to public complaints about the WHO. It is critical to contact your elected representatives to make them aware of what is happening.

Most recently, those senators sent a formal letter to Joe Biden stipulating he must withdraw from the treaty or send it to the senate for ratification (where it cannot be passed).

States are rejecting the WHO as well because the US Constitution reserves healthcare as a state authority. At least one house has passed a bill rejecting the WHO's jurisdiction in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Ask your state legislators, attorney general or governor to reject the WHO's authority in your state as well. Like our senators, they need your voice and support.

Third, please consider supporting their work either by directly donating to Door to Freedom like I have or by supporting Meryl’s Substack. They are operating on a shoestring budget but nonetheless getting a lot done (something you rarely see in the nonprofit world).

Time is of the essence. The amended International Health Regulations and pandemic treaty will be voted on32 at the World Health Assembly in May 2024.33 Because of this, we have about one month left to hit the critical mass to stop this (and have that vote fail).

We are at a moment in history where we could easily go down two different paths with profound implications for generations to come — our society may end up becoming enslaved to the pandemic-industrial complex, but we also have a once in a lifetime opportunity to break up a predatory industry which has victimized generations of human beings around the world in its relentless pursuit of power and profit.

It’s the grassroots efforts of activists like Meryl Nass alongside independent outlets like this one that light a spark that makes it possible to transform the world. Let’s all do what we can to raise our voices and fight for health freedoms.

Author’s note: This is an abridged article. For those of you who want additional information, links, and a more detailed analysis please view the full article here.

A Note From Dr. Mercola About the Author

A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician in the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate his exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and I'm grateful to share them. I also respect his desire to remain anonymous as he is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD's work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.

Sources and References

Sunday, May 05, 2024

Sun Exposure Is the Best Source

Why Sun Exposure Is the Best Source of Vitamin D

On a typical sunny day, your body may produce up to 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D,22 although many people aren’t in the sun enough to optimize their vitamin D levels. However, I strongly recommend getting your vitamin D from proper sun exposure, if possible, as it provides benefits beyond vitamin D optimization.
Higher levels of vitamin D may even serve as a marker for healthy sun exposure, which in turn may be responsible for many of the health benefits, which include reduced risk of cancer and increased longevity, attributed to vitamin D. Regular sun exposure, for instance, enhances production of melatonin — a potent anticancer agent.23
Near-infrared rays from the sun penetrate deep into your body and activate cytochrome c oxidase, which in turn stimulates the production of melatonin inside your mitochondria. Your mitochondria produce ATP, the energy currency of your body. A byproduct of this ATP production is reactive oxidative species (ROS), which are responsible for oxidative stress.
Excessive amounts of ROS will damage the mitochondria, contributing to suboptimal health, inflammation and chronic health conditions such as diabetes, obesity and thrombosis (blood clots). But melatonin essentially mops up ROS that damage your mitochondria. So, by getting plenty of sun exposure during the day, your mitochondria will be bathed in melatonin, thereby reducing oxidative stress.24,25
If you’re unable to get adequate sun exposure each day, vitamin D supplementation may be necessary. Keep in mind that 20 ng/mL, which is often used as the cutoff for vitamin D deficiency, has repeatedly been shown to be grossly insufficient for good health and disease prevention, which means the true prevalence of people without optimal levels of vitamin D is even greater.
The only way to determine how much sun exposure is enough and/or how much vitamin D3 you need to take is to measure your vitamin D level, ideally twice a year. Once you’ve confirmed your vitamin D levels via testing, adjust your sun exposure and/or vitamin D3 supplementation accordingly. Then, remember to retest in three to four months to make sure you’ve reached your target level.

The Optimal Vitamin D Level for Cancer Prevention

The optimal level for health and disease prevention, including cancer prevention, is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (150-200 nmol/L), while the cutoff for sufficiency appears to be around 40 ng/mL. In Europe, the measurements you're looking for are 150 to 200 nmol/L and 100 nmol/L respectively.
It’s important to remember that calcium, vitamin D3, magnesium and vitamin K2 must be properly balanced for optimal overall health. Your best and safest bet is to simply eat more calcium-, magnesium- and vitamin K2-rich foods, along with sensible sun exposure.
However, if you find supplementation is necessary after a serum vitamin D test, also supplement with magnesium and vitamin K2 (MK-7) to ensure proper balance. You’ll also want to ensure you’re following an overall healthy lifestyle to reduce your cancer risk as much as possible. As researchers explained in Nutrients:26
“Vitamin D supplementation is not the magic pill that miraculously solves the cancer burden or that can replace a healthy lifestyle. It is necessary to foster a good environment and invigorate a healthy lifestyle, including a high-quality diet and physical activity. Both have been proven to confer health benefits in many diseases, including cancer, and are the best preventive measures available.”

Vitamin D Has Anticancer Effects Against Many Types of Cancer

A mini review on the impact of vitamin D on cancer, published in The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, pointed out that while vitamin D is widely recognized for its essential role in regulating the balance of minerals in the body, a deficiency has been linked to the onset and progression of various cancers.15 Vitamin D targets cancer in multiple ways, including:16

Anticancer effects, which means it targets different stages of cancer development and progression, including the initiation, growth and spread of cancer cells.
Antimetastatic effects, which refers to the ability to stop cancer cells from spreading from the original tumor site to other parts of the body. Since metastasis is often responsible for the fatal outcomes of cancers, preventing the spread can significantly improve survival rates.
Anti-tumorigenic, meaning vitamin D helps prevent tumor formation or the growth of tumors. This can involve mechanisms like inducing cell death in cancer cells, blocking cell cycle progression, or inhibiting pathways that fuel tumor growth.

The review highlighted vitamin D’s role against the following cancers:17

Breast	Prostate	Bladder
Colon	Glioblastoma	Melanoma
Squamous cell carcinoma	Ovarian	Multiple myeloma
Osteosarcoma	Head and neck

In terms of breast cancer, the leading cause of death for women globally, vitamin D deficiency is common among patients, and those who are deficient are more likely to have more aggressive and harder-to-treat subtypes of breast cancer, such as higher grade and estrogen receptor-negative tumors.

The study also highlighted the role of genetic differences in the VDR that could influence breast cancer risk. In particular, in certain populations like North Indian women from New Delhi, variations in the VDR gene were identified as potential risk factors.18

In prostate cancer — the most common cancer in men — low levels of vitamin D were linked to high levels of dihydrotestosterone (DHT) in the prostate which is associated with the progression of prostate cancer.19 In addition, vitamin D may influence the activity of sirtuin 1 (SIRT1), which is known as a longevity protein. Optimizing your vitamin D levels may help boost your body’s natural cancer defenses, in part, via mechanisms involving SIRT1.20

Additional research suggests there may be considerable variation in how different individuals' genes respond to vitamin D supplementation, which might explain why not everyone benefits equally from extra vitamin D.

For best results, the scientists suggest vitamin D supplementation should be personalized and “advocate for options tailored to individual vitamin D needs, combined with a comprehensive intervention that favors prevention through a healthy environment and responsible health behaviors.”21

Sources and References

this v!de0 is gett!ng cens0red

wow, it's really gotten pathetic. . . this v!de0 is gett!ng cens0red. . . hwat a mess we have created now. . . this is the short preview:

here you go for the real thing:

Saturday, May 04, 2024

Sorry but this guy slams it out of the park

Yes it's a long complicated read…https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Censorship-Industrial-Complex-WH-Report_Appendix.pdf

Skip that and read this email below summarized and sadly right on target to the deceptions of our age… and the death of everything we think we know and love…

Eeek, did I say that?

Sent from my iPhone 11+max :-D))

On May 4, 2024, at 4:42 PM,

Fascism, Globalism, and "Medical-Industrial Complex"
Fight for life, freedom, and sovereignty.
Robert W Malone MD, MS
May 4

READ IN APP

Today, I'm delving into three important topics, covered from a Christian conservative/free market and nationalist perspective. I will place each within a global geopolitical framework.
My goal over the past four years of the COVID crisis has been to decipher our collective experiences. This has guided me to focus on the broader, more comprehensive picture.
Throughout this past year, I have actively participated in three " 'Global Crisis Summits' (Brussels at the EU Parliament, Romania, and Washington DC in conjunction with CPAC), among numerous others. Just three days ago, I returned from Romania, where I had the privilege of speaking at the 'Make Europe Great Again' conference. These experiences have underscored the fact that our understanding of the COVID crisis is most effective when viewed within a broader global context.
Today, I will dig into three fundamental topics that have been at the forefront of what has happened over the past few years.
1)    Medical Industrial Complex
2)    Censorship, propaganda, and psychological warfare technology
3)    Globalization versus nationalism, and a battle worth fighting
1.     The Medical Industrial Complex
We need to start with the meaning of words.
"Medical Industrial Complex" refers to the increasingly powerful, transnational, public-private partnerships linking academia, pharma/biotech and both national government and supra-governmental organizations such as the United Nations and its Agenda 2030 treaty, the World Health Organization and its International Health Regulations, and the World Economic Foundation among others.
These types of public-private cooperative relationships have a name. That name was created by Benito Mussolini. We know this name. The name is Fascism (corporatism). That is the union of the state and corporate power. We should call it what it is.
One of the things that has happened throughout the COVID crisis and the ongoing process of globalization and harmonization is the weaponization and perversion of language.
We have to call things by their true names despite what that may imply or how the press may react to it. For example, we are not far-right. We are center-right. The truth is that our opponents have become far-left. We have allowed the press and corporate media to redefine language and demonize us as far-right, but the truth is that they are the radicals. They are the far-left. We have to refuse to allow them to capture and pervert our language. We must take it back.
Language controls thought. It controls how we structure our understanding of the world.
Pharma and biotech are major global economic engines, and the profit and power of this sector have allowed managerial leaders in this sector to become more powerful than individual nation-states through corruption, electoral interference, and economic hegemony. The COVIDcrisis provides abundant examples to illustrate this. Weaponized fear of a modestly pathogenic respiratory virus has enabled the sector to extract concessions and wealth from both national and supernational (EU) organizations. At this point, there does not appear to be any organization that can hold these "public-private partnerships" accountable for their actions and misdeeds.
Pharma and biotech were once major economic engines for the US and European economies. They are no longer. Overall, these sectors are now increasingly dominated by US and EU competitors, in particular our unrestricted warfare competitor, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and our geopolitical frenemy, India.
To the extent that drugs and biologics are manufactured in the USA, they are made using precursor compounds that are also manufactured by CCP and Indian-controlled companies. If the USA and NATO find themselves in a major "hot" conflict with these offshore competitors, we will find ourselves without access to essential medicines within weeks due to supply chain restrictions.
Much of the current drug supply is manufactured offshore in facilities that are essentially self-monitored, as the FDA has chosen to rely on local inspection and monitoring. The FDA assumes that these quality control processes are being performed according to US regulatory standards (NOT). To the extent that independent monitoring of imported drug and biological products has been performed, the data indicate that FDA "trust" in this offshore quality control monitoring is misplaced.
Exhibit 1: The FDA conducted no inspections in China or India between April 2020 and March 2021.
Exhibit 2 shows that FDA inspector days for the Chinese region were less than ten days per year.
Chinese pharmaceutical imports in 2022 were around $196 billion, the second-largest U.S. goods import, just behind the automotive industry.
The US Federal response to this threat has not been to create policies favoring repatriation of these industries to the US and its allies, but rather to fund a Virginia facility to stockpile precursor compounds. But Congress has not followed through on even this modest program, and although the facility has been obtained, the purchase of the stockpile has not been funded.
Meanwhile, the integrity, transparency, consistency and reliability of the FDA has been compromised. A massive wave of retirements and resignations has resulted in the agency being transformed from within, due to loss of both expertise and the rise of a politicized culture largely staffed by non-US trained personnel. Today's FDA is one in which regulatory decisions have become unpredictable, arbitrary, and capricious, as well as decoupled from previously accepted international norms. The revolving door between FDA retirees and big pharma gets ever larger.
The corruption of the FDA is now recognized worldwide, and this has eliminated a key US competitive advantage. Previously the FDA was seen as the global "gold standard" neutral guarantor of biopharmaceutical product purity and quality. Now the FDA acts to choose winners and losers in the global competition to innovate in order to address unmet human health needs (and to generate profit and industrial growth by doing so).
The loss of FDA integrity has destroyed the logic that purchasing and importing US biopharmaceutical products merits higher costs to ensure higher quality. Politicized governmental actions have economic consequences.
2.     Censorship, propaganda, and psychological warfare technology
Social media developed by the US intelligence and enhanced by the UK intellectual community has been developed as a weapon. Make no mistake about it, social media as we know it; Facebook, Twitter- as it was formerly embodied, all of these social media tools are weapons. They are psychological warfare weapons. They were designed as weapons.
They were designed and deployed in Arab Spring as political psywar weapons in order to facilitate regime change. This strategy is considered a huge success by US intelligence. Then the shock came when Nigel Farage and his UK Independence Party used social media to achieve Brexit. This was done in large part via decentralized social media communication, and that shock was further enhanced when Mr. Trump became President Trump. Suddenly, the United States intelligence community, the State Department, and all the infrastructure that they control and use to exert control all over the world woke up and recognized that they had a problem. And that problem now extends to the populist movement here and across the world, a populism which we represent as center-right conservatives.
That challenge now represents an existential threat to NATO itself, because if Europe wakes up to the techno-totalitarianism that is being imposed from the central bureaucracy in Brussels (that is, the European Union), and it begins to exert the value of the independent nation-state, there is a perceived risk by the US State Department and intelligence community that the European Union, that structure that has been created to hold a Europe together will dissolve. It will fragment, and if that fragments, NATO will fragment, and if NATO fragments, then the United States Foreign Policy Establishment believes that they will find themselves at significant military and geopolitical disadvantage in an increasingly multilateral world.
This is resulting in a response from the US Intelligence Community and State Department, in which they feel justified to employ virtually any non-kinetic method in order to enforce and maintain the current status quo. Recognize that this is the case. To be clear, I'm not advocating for the dissolution of the European Union or the dissolution of NATO. I am reporting to you that this is the perception of the American and the five Eyes intelligence community, and they will do anything to avoid this consequence. They feel justified by the utilitarian logic that "anything goes, the ends justify means", in order to defend the current world order and the plans for the future that they have developed.
As a consequence, psychological warfare technology is being widely deployed by "democratic" governments. This is technology that was developed for offshore combat. NATO considers this to be a central tenet of its current warfare planning. NATO calls psychological warfare technology a key aspect of modern hybrid warfare. This advanced technology is being deployed by governments and globalists on common citizens now because of the existential threat to the dissolution of the European Union, the perceived existential threat to NATO, and the need to maintain consensus by controlling all information in an increasingly multilateral world. This is being accomplished through propaganda techniques (such as the IC denial that Hunter Biden's laptop was real in 2019), neuro-linguistic programming, and nudging, as well as censorship and the manipulation of internet algorithms of search engines.
In other words, in response to the threat of China, Russia, the rise of the Middle East, the fall of the petro-dollar, there is a widely accepted belief among the western "democracies" that it is necessary and acceptable to deploy psychological warfare technology on their citizens.
I argue this is fundamentally unethical. Psychological warfare technology, as it is currently being deployed and has been developed, can completely control all aspects of information that you receive, what you think, what you feel, and what you hear.
In a world in which governments feel it is acceptable to deploy psychological warfare technology on their citizens, the concept of individual and national sovereignty becomes completely obsolete. We can argue about whether or not "in-person voting" or "remote ballots" or "long periods for voting" is enabling for voter fraud. But all of this is completely irrelevant in the face of modern psychological warfare. When this psywar technology is deployed on citizens by their government, when everything that they hear, feel, think, believe, is controlled through this tech, through social media, through established media, through all messaging- then the nuance of voting is completely irrelevant.
Again, this is unethical and a breach of human rights. Humans have the right to access information in a democracy, which is fundamental to the social contract. How can we have a social contract when the citizens of nation-states are not allowed the information to make informed decisions? That's where we're at right now, and it's justified because of the fear of this existential crisis.
This is evil as far as I'm concerned. This is a major breach of human ethics. We're disrespecting the ability of individuals to act as sovereign beings.
Most importantly, the deployment of propaganda and censorship blocks innovation and adaptation to change. Cultures cannot adapt; they cannot innovate if they don't have access to full, diverse, accurate information. This is the most important thing of all. We will become stagnant. Do we have examples of this type of stagnation? What happens when information is completely controlled? The former Soviet Union knows the answer. Those who lived under Ceausescu in Romania know the answer. Those who lived under Salazar in Portugal know the answer.
"Who is Robert Malone" is a reader-supported publication. Please consider a donation to support our work.
Upgrade to paid
3.     Globalization versus nationalism, and a battle worth fighting
There are many lessons that we can learn from the COVID crisis, but one of the key ones has to do with "what is globalism". We toss this term around, we never seem to define it. It's as if it's amorphous beast. We can't put our hands around it.
Globalism is central planning.
.We have seen the effects of central planning during the COVID crisis. The former residents of the Soviet Union understand central planning. We understand the harm that comes from central planning, from bureaucrats determining our future, making decisions about how a nation state, an economy of people, should adapt to changing conditions. During COVID we have seen how easily centralized planning can be corrupted and perverted to support a wide variety of hidden agendas.
Central planning is also associated with cultural homogenization, the drive to create one culture, which is basically driven in the current case by intentional destruction of diversity to reduce economic friction.
This globalization thrust is basically justified by large economic forces in order to support the agenda of transnational, globalist organizations, particularly corporations in their cooperative relationships with large transnational governmental organizations. Recently, Blackrock CEO Larry Fink spoke the quiet part out loud, when he discussed the need to reduce the global human population and substitute robotic workers to produce goods and services. This is all perversely driven by a model for future society collectively referred to as transhumanism.
This is anti-human. This is a death cult, aligned with a wide range of promoted anti-human policies including abortion, destruction of religion and family values, and of course the abomination of gender reassignment surgery and transgenderism.
These policies are being actively and globally promoted using censorship, propaganda, and modern psywar methods.
We must have access to unrestricted information, which means free speech and freedom of thought. Now, that comes at a price—a price of personal responsibility, a price that people will be potentially exposed to information that may be damaging or offensive. But if we refuse to allow them to have access to information and diversity of thought, we will prevent our ability as nation-states and cultures to adapt to changing conditions.
And if there's one thing that we absolutely must have right now, it's the ability to innovate and adapt. That's how we escape the Malthusian trap. All this fear of global warming and population growth; that's what this is all about. And the counter argument to the Malthusian argument is that humans adapt. Humans can change, humans can innovate. But they can't innovate if all information is controlled.States and cultures which resist propaganda
, censorship, and weaponized fear have a competitive advantage. In a multilateral world, Romania should not apologize for advocating for autonomy. Independent European nation-states should not apologize for going their own way and innovating. They must do so. They must do so because it will give them a competitive advantage.
I argue that independent nation-states are the laboratory for innovation, cultural innovation, political innovation, and economic innovation. They must be allowed sovereignty and autonomy. If they don't, the world's ability to adapt to change will be stifled.
The best way to allow the world to adapt to change is by respecting the principle of subsidiarity. This is the concept that decision-making authority should be delegated to the smallest, most local competent level. The principle of subsidiarity demands decentralization. The ultimate component of a decentralized adaptive world is not the nation-state, it is the family. We need to celebrate the family as the core of the principle and thrust of the concept of subsidiarity.
The weaponization of fear via propaganda to control people is unethical. We have seen repeated justification by academics and bureaucrats and governments and transnational organizations - that the weaponization of fear is acceptable in the service of the overall public good as they define it. We have seen this in the case of the COVID crisis in the service of public health. The weaponization of fear by governments to control people is unethical, and it should not be allowed under any circumstances. It should not be tolerated. We must call it out when we see it.
Last point: We have a difficult fight ahead of us. This difficult fight is not going to be resolved with one election, the election of one politician, or a change in leadership at the European Council or the President of the United States. These issues have been developing for decades, in many cases for at least a century, and they are not going to be resolved in the short term.
We have a long-term fight in front of us, which will require years of effort in fighting this fight.
Do not self-victimize, and don't complain. Again and again, I hear this cry of
"poor me".
"It's such a hard job we face".
"There's so many obstacles".
"Our opponents are so entrenched, they're so powerful".
"They have so many forces".
"They control the media".
"They are so mean".
"They are so unethical".
Stop whining. We have a fight. We have to fight that fight, and it does no good to complain.
It's a wonderful thing. What a wonderful thing to have a worthy opponent.
It is the greatest gift in the world, and by God, we have a worthy opponent. We must not complain. We must not shirk. We must confront the evil that is ahead of us, and it is not going to be easy.
Fight for your future and that of your children. Celebrate this opportunity to fight for your future. What a gift to have an opportunity at this point in time to make a difference. Celebrate it.
Refuse to be a victim. Choose life, not death. Do not apologize, and fight for life, freedom, and sovereignty.