Vaccine Mandates and the 'Great Reset'

Pressure on the unvaccinated grows. While the vaccinated in some countries are getting back some of their freedoms taken away by the covid interventions, the unvaccinated are not so well off. They are being targeted for discrimination. Access to public spaces and traveling is being made more difficult for them. In some countries there is even mandatory vaccination for some professions.

But why is the vaccination campaign so important to governments that they are increasing the pressure to such an extent? And who has an interest in the global vaccination campaign?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to analyze the prevalent vaccination narrative and ask who benefits from it. In doing so, the alliance of interests between the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational institutions must be addressed.

Let us start with the pharmaceutical industry. It has an obvious economic interest in the vaccination campaign. It makes enormous profits from widespread vaccination.

What about the state? In the covid-19 crisis, politicians have systematically amplified fear and hysteria. This was no accident and is unsurprising, for the state builds its raison d'être on the argument that it protects the population from internal and external dangers. The state is built upon fear. The narrative is that without the help of the state, the citizen would be defenseless against hunger, poverty, accidents, war, terrorism, disease, natural disasters, and pandemics. It is, therefore, in the state's interest to instill fear of possible dangers, which it then pretends to resolve, expanding its power in the process. A relatively recent example is the restriction of civil liberties in the US in response to the threat of terrorism after the 9-11 attacks and the second Iraq war. Similarly, it was in the interest of governments to purposefully instill fear and portray covid-19 as a unique killer virus in order to expand state power to an extent unknown in peacetime at the expense of citizens' fundamental rights.

When the corona crisis started and not much was known about the virus's potential danger politicians were faced with an asymmetric payoff. If politicians underestimate a danger and do not react, they are held responsible for the underestimation. They lose elections and power. Especially if they can be blamed for deaths. Photos of mass burials aside, the consequences of underestimating danger and failing to act are politically fatal. In contrast, overestimating the danger and taking decisive action are politically much more attractive.

If it really is an unprecedented threat, politicians are celebrated for their tough measures such as lockdowns. And politicians can always argue that without their decisive action, there would indeed have been a disaster. If the measures ultimately turn out to have been exaggerated because the hazard was not so great after all, the possible negative consequences of the measures are not as directly associated with the politicians as the photos of mass burials, because these consequences are more indirect and long term. The indirect and long-term health costs of lockdowns include suicides, depression, alcoholism, stress-related illnesses, earlier deaths from canceled surgeries and screenings, and a generally lower standard of living. However, these costs are not directly associated with the drastic interventions and blamed on the policy. Many of these consequences will occur after the next elections or even later and are not visible. For instance, we cannot observe to what extent a higher standard of living would have increased life expectancy. And if someone dies six years from now from alcoholism or depression developed in the wake of lockdowns, most people probably will not make the lockdown politicians responsible, and if they do, these politicians will possibly already be out of office. Thus, it is in the interest of politicians to overestimate a threat and overreact.

In order to justify and defend the harsh measures such as lockdowns that are so attractive to politicians, it is necessary to stir up fear. When politicians stoked fear and hysteria during the covid-19 crisis, implementing highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, the damage to the economy and social fabric was immense. Yet a society cannot be cannot be locked down forever, as the costs keep rising. At some point, it must exit lockdown and return to some normality. However, how can one at the same time stir up fear of the threat of a killer virus and return to normalcy?

The way out is vaccination. With to the vaccination campaign the state can stage itself as the savior from the great danger. The state organizes vaccination for its citizens and gives the vaccinations to the citizens for "free." Without this "vaccination rescue" and in a permanent lockdown, the negative economic and social consequences of the restrictions on civil rights would be so great that resentment among the population would continue to grow and ultimately unrest would threaten. So, sooner or later, the lockdown must be ended. If, however, the state authorities were to back out of the lockdowns and restrictions without further explanation and imply that the danger was not so great after all and that the restrictions were an exaggeration and a mistake, they would lose a great deal of support and trust among the population. Consequently, from a governmental perspective, a good and face-saving "exit scenario" from the most severe restrictions is needed, and the vaccination campaign provides it.

Through state-provided vaccination, the state can continue to hold on to the narrative of the great threat and still get out of the lockdown. At the same time, it can pass itself off as a savior that is making somewhat more normality possibly through vaccination. To do this, it is necessary that as large a proportion of the population as possible also get vaccinated, because if only a fraction of the population gets vaccinated, the vaccination campaign cannot be sold as a necessary step toward opening up. Thus, it is in the state's interest to get a major part of the population vaccinated.

If this strategy works, the state will have set a precedent, expanded its power, and also made citizens more dependent. Citizens will believe that the state has rescued them from a mortal predicament and that they will need its help in the future. In return, they will be willing to give up some of their liberties permanently. The announcement that a state-organized annual vaccination booster is needed will perpetuate the citizens' dependence.

The mass media have fallen in line and actively support the vaccination narrative. The state and mass media are closely linked. Framing by the leading media and targeting the population have a long tradition. Already in 1928 Edward Bernays advocated the intelligent manipulation of the masses in his classic book Propaganda. In modern states, the mass media help to construct popular approval for political measures such as in the case of covid-19.

The mass media's support of the state is due to several reasons. Some media are directly owned by the state, others are highly regulated or require state licenses. Furthermore, media houses are staffed with graduates from state educational institutions. In addition, especially in times of crisis, a good connection to the government offers advantages and privileged access to information. The willingness to carry the state's fear narrative also comes from the fact that negative news and the exaggeration of dangers bring attention.

In the corona crisis, the one-sided media coverage that proliferated through social media and muted critical voices contributed to fear and panic and created great psychological stress among the population. However, it is not only negative news that is attractive to the media; the narrative of the state rescuing the population from a major crisis also sells well. Thus, the vaccination narrative plays into the hands of the mass media.

In addition to nation-states, the media, and pharmaceutical companies, supranational organizations also have an interest in ensuring that the world's population is vaccinated. Supranational organizations are actively pursuing an agenda in which global vaccination campaigns play an important role. These organizations include the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Health Organization (WHO), which are closely interconnected.

Some of these organizations have set as their goal a great reset, or a great transformation. In the areas of pandemic and climate protection, gender, migration, and the financial system, these organizations want to find coordinated answers for the benefit of all people worldwide. They emphasize shared responsibility and global solidarity. The central control of vaccination, climate change, and financial and migration flows bears the hallmarks of a new world order. For example, the theme of the 2019 annual meeting of the WEF was "Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution." Another example of supranational planning is the UN's "Global Compact for Migration." At the national level, these radical ideas are supported, as shown by the German Advisory Council on Global Change's Welt im Wandel – Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation (World in transition: Social contract for a great transformation) policy paper.

Raymond Unger (2021, pp. 84–89) sees this drive for supranational planning as part of a culture war envisioned by Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse. A global management of opinion and outrage is combined with scenes of fear and horror, especially in the fields of climate change and corona, to establish a new socialist world order. In fact, the WHO, the IMF, and the UN are led by former communists. The WEF is financed by global companies, including the pharmaceutical industry and the big tech companies. The WEF, for its part, significantly finances the UN's 2030 Agenda. The WHO is also significantly funded by pharmaceutical companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which spearheads global vaccination campaigns. During the covid-19 crisis, the pharmaceutical industry also exerted its influence on the WHO. And the IMF only aided nation-states if they complied with WHO recommendations.

These interconnected supranational organizations see the covid-19 crisis as an opportunity to advance their agendas. The UN policy paper Shared Responsibility, Global Solidarity: Responding to the Socio-economic Impacts of COVID-19 views covid-19 as a turning point for modern society. The intention is to seize the opportunity and act in a globally coordinated manner. The major tech companies support these agendas. They are also members of the WEF and censored disagreeable information related to covid-19 on their platforms (Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook), just like the mass media. Videos critical of vaccination are particularly quickly deleted on YouTube.

The title of a keynote speech by IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, "From Great Lockdown to Great Transformation" also underscores the idea that supranational organizations want to use the corona crisis for their agendas. Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF, argues that the covid-19 crisis represents a "rare opportunity" to "lay new foundations for our economic and social systems." In COVID-19: The Great Reset, coauthored with Thierry Malleret, Schwab speaks of a defining moment and claims a new world will emerge. According to Schwab, it is time for a fundamental reform of capitalism.

Thus, the globally coordinated vaccination program can be interpreted as a building block in a supranational strategy of a great reset. Global vaccination structures are being established that can be used for subsequent global vaccination campaigns. From the perspective of advocates of a great reset, globally coordinated covid-19 vaccination underscores the need for global structures and organizations that can then be used for other global purposes, such as effectively combating "climate change" and pushing for a great reset. In short, the state, the media, the pharmaceutical industry, and supranational organizations are closely intertwined and have a common interest in the vaccination narrative. From this perspective, the mounting pressure on the vaccine-free is unsurprising.

Reprinted with permission from Mises.org.

from Vaccine Mandates and the 'Great Reset'

Fauci: 'I Respect People's Freedom But...'

In the wake of yesterday's FDA approval of the Pfizer shot, Biden's Covid advisor Anthony Fauci has blasted back onto the television screens, screeching that while he likes freedom there are times we must give up freedom...and take the shot! Meanwhile Biden is demanding that the private sector turn into the shot police and install mandates on their workers and customers. As Afghanistan unravels, is this dramatic ramping up of authoritarianism at home meant to be a distraction? Watch today's Liberty Report:



from Fauci: 'I Respect People's Freedom But...'

FDA disseminates dangerous and libelous misinformation against lifesaving COVID treatment

Does our government believe Africans are not human beings?

On Sunday, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared, "We've been seeing health misinformation as a problem for years, but the speed, scale and sophistication with which it is spreading and impacting our health is really unprecedented."

Perhaps the surgeon general should look in the mirror and lecture the FDA for dissuading people from taking lifesaving ivermectin. Over the weekend, the FDA tweeted out a message warning that ivermectin is for horses and cows, not people, implying that it is dangerous to consume and is not approved for humans.

Evidently, officials believe that millions of human beings in Africa (not to mention thousands in the Western world) are no better than animals.

Ivermectin has been dispensed 3.7 billion times in African countries since 1987 and is regarded as one of the greatest cures of all time for a disease ailing human beings. Here are the facts.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, after pesticides were sidelined from use in Africa following the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," onchocerciasis, or river blindness, was devastating many central African countries. An estimated 50% of males 40 years and older had been blinded by the disease in some countries. After ivermectin was discovered as a wonder drug for treating river blindness by William C. Campbell, a scientist for Merck, and Satoshi Omura, a scientist at the Kitasato Institute in Tokyo, Merck started the MECTIZAN® Donation Program (MDP). In 1987, when the company was actually dedicated to saving lives as much as to making money, Merck began donating hundreds of millions of doses of MECTIZAN (ivermectin) and essentially eradicated the disease. Over time, 2.8 billion doses were donated.

In 2017, Merck published a press release commemorating the 20th anniversary of this mass rescue from a parasitic pandemic by ivermectin, which saved "more than 250 million people in 32 countries." In other words, this drug was dispensed en masse, exactly what we need to do in this pandemic, and with no known major serious side effects. As one study published in the Lancet notes, "To ensure distribution of the drug is sustained in the long term, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control implemented community-directed treatment with ivermectin." Ultimately, this program "had an impressive impact," ensuring that "onchocerciasis is no longer a public health problem." The study observes, "Ivermectin has been widely used for 30 years to combat onchocerciasis and is rightly considered a wonder drug."

This is why the WHO itself lists ivermectin among its Model List of Essential Medicines for 2019, given its efficacy against parasitic infections and its track record of safety.

William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura were awarded the Nobel Prize for physiology in 2015 for discovering the drug as a cure for river blindness. Here is an excerpt from the press release of the Nobel Assembly:

Today the Avermectin-derivative Ivermectin is used in all parts of the world that are plagued by parasitic diseases. Ivermectin is highly effective against a range of parasites, has limited side effects and is freely available across the globe. The importance of Ivermectin for improving the health and wellbeing of millions of individuals with River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, primarily in the poorest regions of the world, is immeasurable. Treatment is so successful that these diseases are on the verge of eradication, which would be a major feat in the medical history of humankind.

Thus, we have a drug that is regarded as having a wide range of efficacy against infections and achieving a major feat in medical history for "MANKIND," not "horsekind."

The FDA is trashing ivermectin and lying about a drug that fits the safety profile of the quintessential drug you would want to dispense en masse. What front-line COVID doctors seek to do with ivermectin has already been done before, unless of course they don't consider people in Africa to be humans.

Fair use excerpt. Read the whole article here.

from FDA disseminates dangerous and libelous misinformation against lifesaving COVID treatment

Here Come The Mandates: FDA Approves Covid Shot

The Food and Drug Administration has just approved the Pfizer covid shot, paving the way for the roll-out of vaccine mandates across the public and private sector. Will there be push-back? Also today, the FBI shoots down Jan 6th "insurrection" myth and former head of CIA and NSA calls for unvaccinated Trump supporters to be sent to Afghanistan to be killed. Watch today's Liberty Report:



from Here Come The Mandates: FDA Approves Covid Shot

Who’s To Blame For Afghanistan?

Did anyone expect the US war in Afghanistan to end cleanly? If so, you bought the lies all along and the cold water now is hitting sharp. While the actual ending is particularly harsh and clearly spliced together from old clips of Saigon 1975, those are simply details.

Who should we blame for losing Afghanistan? Why blame anyone?

Why blame Biden? He played his part as a senator and vice president keeping the war going, but his role today is just being the last guy in a long line of people to blame, a pawn in the game. That Biden is willing to be the “president who lost Afghanistan” is all the proof you need he does not intend to run again for anything. Kind of an ironic version of a young John Kerry’s take on Vietnam “how do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?” Turns out, it’s easy: call Joe.

Blame Trump for the deal? One of the saddest things about the brutal ending of the US-Afghan war is we would have gotten the same deal—just leave it to the Taliban and go home—at basically any point during the last 20 years. That makes every death and every dollar a waste. Afghanistan is simply reverting, quickly, to more or less status quo ante September 11, 2001, and everything between then and now, including lost opportunities, will have been wasted.⁠

Blame the neocons? No one in Washington who supported this war was ever called out, with the possible exception of Donald Rumsfeld. Dick Cheney walks free. The generals and diplomats who ran the war have nice think tank or university jobs, if they are not still in government making equally bad decisions. No one has been legally, financially, or professionally disadvantaged by the blood on their hands. Some of the era’s senior leaders—Blinken, Rice, Power, Nuland—are now working in better jobs for Biden. I’d like to hope they have trouble sleeping at night, but I doubt it.

George Bush is a cuddly grandpa today, not the man who drove the United States into building a global prison archipelago to torture people. Barack Obama, who kept much of that system in place and added the drone killing of American citizens to his resume, remains a Democratic rock god. Neither man nor any of his significant underlings has expressed any regret or remorse.

For example, I have recently listened to Ryan Crocker, our former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, on CNN. Making myself listen to him was about as fun as sticking my tongue in a woodchipper. Same for former general David Petraeus and the usual gang of idiots. None of them, the ones who made the decisions, accept any blame. Instead, they seem settled on blaming Trump because, well, everything bad is Trump’s fault even if he came into all this in the middle of the movie.

In the end the only people punished were the whistleblowers.

Fair Use Excerpt. Read the whole article here.

from Who’s To Blame For Afghanistan?

From the Nixon Shock to Biden-flation

This month marks fifty years since President Richard Nixon closed the “gold window” that had allowed foreign governments to exchange US dollars for gold. Nixon’s action severed the last link between the dollar and gold, transforming the dollar into pure fiat currency.

Since the “Nixon shock” of 1971, the dollar’s value — and the average American’s living standard — has continuously declined, while income inequality and the size, scope, and cost of government have risen.

Since the beginning of this year, price inflation has increased much, and it could continue onward to exceed the 1970s-era price spikes. Understandably, Republicans are trying to blame President Joe Biden for the price increases. However, a major cause of the current price inflation is the unprecedented money creation the Federal Reserve has engaged in since the 2008 market meltdown. This, though, does not mean Biden and most US politicians of both parties do not bear some responsibility for rising prices. Their support for the Fed and massive government spending contributes to the problem.

The main way the Fed pumps money into the economy is by monthly purchases of 120 billion dollars of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. Even many Keynesian economists agree that rising price inflation means the Fed should stop pumping money into the economy. Yet, this year the Fed is likely, at most, to only slightly reduce its purchases of Treasury securities. It will almost certainly keep interest rates at near-zero levels.

A reason the Fed will not stop or significantly reduce its purchases of Treasuries and allow interest rates to increase is that doing so would increase federal debt payments to unsustainable levels. Even with interest rates at historic lows, interest payments remain a significant portion of federal spending, and recent indications are that the US government is not about to start being frugal.  Consider, for example, Congress' six trillion dollars “Covid relief and economic stimulus” spending spree and the Senate passage of the trillion dollars “traditional infrastructure” bill and a budget “outline” of a 3.5 trillion dollars “human infrastructure” bill.

The “human infrastructure” bill represents an expansion of government along the lines of the Great Society. Among its initiatives are universal pre-kindergarten; two “free” years of community college; increased government control of health care via expansions of Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid; and a raft of new government mandates and spending aimed at reshaping the US economy to fight “climate change.”

The need to gain support of “moderate” Democrats will likely mean the final “human infrastructure” bill will costs less than 3.5 trillion dollars. However, no Democrat is objecting to the bill's programs; the objectors just want cheaper tolls on the road to serfdom. While progressives will likely accept reduced spending levels in order to get their wish list into law, they will then work to increase funding and expand the programs. As the programs become more entrenched, even many “conservatives” will support increasing their funding.

The expansion of government will increase pressure on the Fed to keep the money spigots open. This will lead to a major economic crisis. The good news is the crisis may mark the beginning of the end of the fiat monetary system and the welfare-warfare state, along with the dawn of a new era of free markets, sound money, and limited government.

from From the Nixon Shock to Biden-flation

Counterfeit vaccine cards will lead to total government surveillance

US Customs and Border Patrol announced its officers at a port in Alaska recently seized thousands of fake COVID-19 vaccination cards that came from China.

The seizure opens the door for government to go forward with the technological tracking of US citizens. How so?

It strengthens the arguments of pro-vaccine passport types who say Americans must be vaccinated, or else risk infecting the innocent; that Americans must prove vaccination as conditions of associating freely in public and interacting with others; that vaccine passports are obviously the easiest means by which proof of vaccination can be displayed; but that paper vaccine passports are vulnerable to counterfeit. A smartphone app that carries a scannable electronic code tied directly to the carrier’s medical records — connected directly to the clinic or doctor’s office that administered the shot — is the viable alternative. So will go the line of logic. See, see? — they’ll say: Paper passports are prone to fakery. We need something more secure. We need something technologically advanced.

In fact, this is the alternative that’s already being tested in select spots, by select tech companies.

“Smartphone developers are gearing up for a world where users can store their Covid vaccination proof in their phones’ digital wallets, making it easy to simply tap their phones when they enter new buildings,” Yahoo! News wrote. “Google, Apple and Samsung have all recently announced plans to offer a feature that readily calls up a QR code that can be scanned to quickly verify a user’s vaccination status.”

Once that electronic bridge is crossed, the once-dim potential for America’s government to track US citizens moves to certainty.

If private business can compel free citizens to carry electronic proof of vaccination as conditions of work, as conditions of entry, as conditions of travel, then what’s to stop government from arguing for the need to tap into this data to, say, track the whereabouts of a suspected terrorist — a suspected drug dealer — a suspected child abuser — a suspected bank robber — a suspected home invader — a suspected petty thief — a suspected drunk and disorderly? A suspected political dissenter?

The law of unintended consequences looms large here.

Just in the past couple of years, America has moved from the unthinkable to the accepted — from the idea of forcing citizens to take a vaccine that’s only been approved for emergency use to the idea that those who raise questions about the safety of this vaccine are branded unpatriotic, dangerous to society, needful of forced home quarantine. 

Now add technologically driven contact tracing and vaccine passports to this mindset shift.

Now toss in apps that prove vaccination status, and all the open-door possibilities this new shift in mindset will bring. Once Americans are conditioned to cough up medical data on demand, it’s only a horizontal move to make the case — to win the case — for Americans to accept the use of personal and private data for other similarly billed necessary needs. After all, if you’re not doing anything wrong, why fear police having your data? Why fear government knowing your location? Kafka, meet trap. Pandora, meet box. Albatross, meet neck.

Counterfeit vaccine cards, meet government surveillance.

“Getting these fraudulent cards off the streets and out of the hands of those who would then sell them is important for the safety of the American public,” said Lance Robinson, area port director of the Area Port of Anchorage.

It always is.

It’s always about safety.

That’s how government grows its footprint. That’s how oppressors gain their foothold.

The only solution that saves for the long-term is to demand God-given rights, the ones founders forged for us all, the ones supposedly cemented in this nation’s foundation. That’s the only way to permanently stop this coming un-American tide of tyranny.

Reprinted with author's permission from Washington Times.

from Counterfeit vaccine cards will lead to total government surveillance