Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  In keeping with the WEF's appraisal, the disease itself was described as a window of opportunity. As stipulated in Agenda 2030 it was the chance to "Build Back Better." Ghebreyesus told the gathered GPPP representatives:

  "Health security is.. not just the health sector’s business. It’s everybody’s business. There are.. scenarios in which a coordinated response between the health and security sectors is essential.

  The emergence of a pathogen with pandemic potential, moving rapidly from country to country.. is what we are seeing now with the outbreak of COVID-19.

  We’re encouraged that the global research community has come together to identify and accelerate the most urgent research needs for diagnostics, treatments and vaccines. We’re encouraged that we have been able to ship diagnostic kits.. to some of the countries that need it most..

  But we also have concerns..

  We’re concerned about the levels of rumours and misinformation that are hampering the response..

  Two years ago, WHO and the World Bank founded the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, an independent body to assess the state of the world’s readiness for a pandemic. My sister Gro Brundtland, the co-chair of the Board, is actually here..

  Today, I have three requests for the international community....

  First, we must use the window of opportunity we have to intensify our preparedness.. But we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic..

  Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous. That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation..

  We call on all governments, companies and news organizations to work with us to sound the appropriate level of alarm..

  We must be guided by solidarity, not stigma. I repeat this: we must be guided by solidarity, not stigma. The greatest enemy we face is not the virus itself; it’s the stigma that turns us against each other. We must stop stigma and hate!.

  In our fractured and divided world, health is one of the few areas in which international cooperation offers the opportunity for countries to work together for a common cause..

  This is a time for solidarity, not stigma."

  Ghebreyesus heavily stressed the point that solidarity must defeat stigma. This peculiar, somewhat anachronistic turn of phrase was clearly intentional. Notably the virus was not the greatest enemy, according to the head of the world's leading public health authority. "Stigma" and disunity were.

  He was addressing the GPPP who had already constructed their first Technate in China. The communitarian nature of technocracy shares some aspects of socialist political theory.

  "Solidarity" is a word strongly associated with the trade union movement and socialism. It means [22]:

  "Unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group."

  Stigma has multiple connotations [23]. It can be interpreted as:

  "A mark of disgrace associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or person."

  In the medical context it denotes:

  "A visible sign or characteristic of a disease."

  Ghebreyesus odd phrase could be interpreted as "this is a time for unified action, not any concern about a disease."

  We should also look at its etymology [24]. The Latin plural of stigma (a mark on the skin) is "stigmata." The English derivation of the plural is "stigmas," meaning "marks resembling the wounds on the body of Christ." In this sense "stigmas" are the mark of Christ. They are a sign from God.

  Ghebreyesus not only emphasised, he strongly reiterated this point:

  "We must be guided by solidarity, not stigma. I repeat this: we must be guided by solidarity, not stigma.. We must stop stigma and hate!. This is a time for solidarity, not stigma."

  The "we" he was referring to were the GPPP thought leaders. He urged them to stand united in both feeling and action, to support each other and defend the cohesion of their group. Protect the GPPP pseudopandemic in other words.

  He implored them to reject the mark of disgrace their actions would invite. A lack of unity was the problem they faced not a disease. They must not allow any moral squeamishness to divide or stop them.

  Unity of purpose was everything. They were to be guided by their determination to act and ignore God's law (Natural Law). As if they were devotees of Thelema [25] Ghebreyesus was seemingly advocating that "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

  This may seem implausibly esoteric but we shouldn't dismiss it too easily. Among the group Ghebreyesus was addressing were a number steeped in a very particular tradition. They were gathered to consider global security policy and were concerned with how to keep and develop the public’s trust in their respective State Franchises during the pseudopandemic chaos they were about to unleash.

  They were to protect the GPPP's commercial and financial interests. The security of the State franchise network was crucial, in the short term, in order to enable the business of the GPPP. They were devising best practice guidelines and approaches required to protect their assets as they set about establishing a global system to seize all assets.

  As Klaus Swchwab acknowledged in the Great Reset, COVID 19 was not a disease which either the WHO, or the thought leaders present, were concerned about. The Director General's presentation was marked by a broad disinterest in the potential health impact of a virus, focussing instead upon the security implications of the infodemic.

  He was speaking on the 15th February, 11 days after peak case rate in China [26]. With a daily mortality high of 142 out of a population of 11 million in a densely packed urban Wuhan, the WHO already knew that COVID 19 was a low mortality disease. There was no reason for the WHO to think COVID 19 had any pandemic potential. The only way it could be described as such was by applying the WHO's own customised definition.

  The WHO Director General's claim that they were accelerating research to provide diagnostics, treatments and vaccines was true in only one regard. The WHO were not interested in either treatments or diagnostics. They did everything they could to block the trialling of effective treatment protocols and their diagnostic tests were designed solely to give State franchises control over claimed case numbers.

  When the team led by world renowned cardiologist and professor of medicine Dr Peter McCullough published their peer reviewed article Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 [27] in August 2020, they observed that of the 50,000 or so published papers on COVID 19 none offered any official advice to doctors on how to treat it.

  When his team recommended effective treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine, in their paper it immediately became one of the most cited scientific papers in the world. Clearly the medical profession were desperately searching for relevant guidance.

  To publicise his findings his daughter helped him make a video discussing the paper. This too went viral in a matter of days. In the video, hosted on YouTube, Professor McCullough, respected cardiologist and editor of two prestigious medical journals, showed some slides drawn from his peer reviewed paper.

  YouTube (Google / Alphabet) removed his video because it violated their terms [28] by contradicting WHO approved COVID 19 medical information. The WHO have not spoken to Professor McCullough and have never mentioned the paper.

  Google (YouTube) weren't about to let stigma override their solidarity with the GPPP. They were ready and willing to act to fight the infodemic.

  Vaccines were the only thing the WHO were interested in. Not because they would provide any public health benefit, as the disease didn't warrant a global vaccination program, but because they were the key to unlock the global biosecurity based technocracy.

  Generating the mandate for a global vaccination program was among the core conspirators principle motivations for the pseudopandemic. This would enable them to create bio-metric identity based
smart grid through which to control the behaviour of individual citizens. This is the biosecurity state that will enable the technocrats to manage their citizenry.

  The most consistent sound-bite during the 2020 pseudopandemic was "the new normal." Most people seemed to think it indicated little more than a notification from the government that post COVID 19 public health protections would need to be strengthened.

  The "new normal" is the name for a society marked by significant economic austerity where behaviour will be controlled by limiting access to services and resources. The apparatus that will enable this conditional rationing will be the biosecurity surveillance state operated by technocrats under the rule of the GPPP stakeholders.

  Communitarian principles and a prescribed set of ideological commitments will define the common good. So called local communities will be run by civil society. This will enable GPPP think tank policy to direct regional populations through behavioural change as political parties become increasingly irrelevant.

  Only the selected community groups, who support the GPPP global agenda, will be allowed to participate in civil society. They must agree to the definition of the common good, stipulated by the GPPP, as prerequisite to participation.

  Individuals or groups who do not agree with the official interpretation of the common good or those who oppose the behavioural requirements imposed upon them, will initially be ignored. If they refuse to comply and continue to question the public good they will face an escalating scale of punishments.

  In his 2011 essay titled The New Normal [29] and in his 2014 book of the same name, Amitai Etzioni [30] debated where the line between the common good, especially collective security, and individual rights and freedoms should be drawn. While he warned against this decision being devolved to a group of unelected technocrats, nonetheless those advocating unelected technocrats pounced upon his ideas.

  The new normal is derived from Etzioni's communitarian theories. Like Brzezinski, he too was a professor at Columbia University, where Scott and Hubbert first developed technocracy. He also joined Brzezinski in the White House as a Senior Advisor to the Carter Administration (1979-1980.) He is the current Director of the Center for Communitarian Policy Studies at the George Washington University.

  Communitarianism is a political philosophy based upon the socialist utopia proposed by Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and others. It was the utopian socialist John Goodwyn Barmby who first coined communitarian to elucidate their view that identity is a product of familial, social and community interactions. They considered that individual identity was formed from group (community) identity.

  Like Brzezinski's, Etzioni's ideas have continued to impact State franchise policy. Communitarianism is highly critical of authoritarian state power but, as we have already discussed, the parasite class don't care about the philosophical foundation of sociopolitical or socio-economic theories, only how they can be adapted to achieve their goals.

  Etzioni and other communitarians, reject both technocracy and the imposition of order through coercion or enforcement. Instead they suggest normative means such as education, leadership, consensus, peer pressure and the use of role models to deliver social change. This is in keeping with the utopian socialist's repudiation of the class struggle.

  The 1991 Responsive Communitarian Platform [31] was the original manifesto of Etzioni's Communitarian Network. It argued for civil society, defining it as both the moral and political space between community and State. It suggested that global problems could only be tackled with the participation of civil society:

  "A communitarian perspective must be brought to bear on the great moral, legal and social issues of our time.. Moral voices achieve their effect mainly through education and persuasion, rather than through coercion.. they exhort, admonish, and appeal to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.. this important moral realm, which is neither one of random individual choice nor of government control, has been much neglected.. we see an urgent need for a communitarian social movement to accord these voices their essential place.. civil society is a constant, ongoing enterprise."

  By offering local communities the opportunity to engage with other stakeholders in this civil society, communitarians contend that those who already wield authoritarian power will suddenly embrace power sharing. In his essay for the UK policy think tank DEMOS [32] (funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundation) Etzioni outlined this as a synthesis between state, market and community.

  In the UK this notion of civil society has been called the Third Way by former Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government and the Big Society by David Cameron's Conservative led government. Today civil society is the preferred sound-bite, but they all essentially mean the same thing: local governance by community groups pursuing global governance agendas.

  Contrary to the communitarians’ hopes, civil society is a form of centralised authoritarian control based upon the illusion of an alleged balance between the state (public sector), the market (private sector) and the community (social sector.) Communitarians naively consider this a viable way to achieve an egalitarian "progressive" society. It is the disassociation of communitarianism from the reality of authoritarian power, exemplified by their rejection of the class struggle, that allows their ideas to be so easily exploited by the parasite class.

  Communitarianism misinterprets the relationship between state and market. It wrongly assumes they are distinct and that elected governments represent the people. As the State franchise (public sector) is a constituent member of the GPPP and is in partnership with global corporations (private sector), a communitarian political model creates a corporate system of rule. Their proposed civil society gives the GPPP direct access to and power over every aspect of our polity.

  On one side of the civil society equation we have the union between the state and the market (GPPP.) They have immense economic, financial and political power and are the only people with the legal authority to initiate force. The other side is "balanced" by some nebulous concept of community which has absolutely no power at all.

  What is a community? Who speaks for the community and who do they represent? We often talk about our local community but what does that actually mean? Do we mean our neighbourhood or do we mean the people with whom we share common interests, or does community mean something else?

  We live in towns, cities, counties and nations but we do not all agree upon what should happen within these political boundaries. There is no uniformity of opinion among alleged local communities. The claim of any community leader that they represent their supposed community seems an arrogation. Often disagreement within communities is fiercer than the antagonism between them.

  This is no pedantic criticism of communitarianism. They are suggesting that this thing they call community can counterbalance the might of the GPPP in a three way relationship of equals. Even if this triad existed, Etzioni's own definition gives no indication that power sharing is possible:

  "Communities provide bonds of affection that turn groups of people into social entities resembling extended families. Second, they transmit a shared moral culture.. from generation to generation, as well as reformulating this moral framework day by day. These traits differentiate communities from other social groups.

  Contemporary communities evolve among members of one profession working for the same institution..; members of an ethnic or racial group even if dispersed among others; people who share a sexual orientation; or intellectuals of the same political or cultural feather.. Groups that merely share a specific interest.. to prevent the internet from being taxed or to reduce the costs of postage.. are solely an interest groups.. They lack the affective bonds and shared culture that make communities.. places that truly involve people rather than focusing on a narrow facet of their lives."

  Etzioni defines community as groups of individuals who share some values and have an emotional attachment to each other. To some greater or lesser extent they formulate their own identity
through their affection for other group members. These communities are not the same as special interest groups who are more task oriented.

  Throughout human history power has been wielded by groups of free thinking individuals who were united behind a specific interest. They have consistently subjugated communities through coercion and the use of force. As individuals with free will we can certainly form a specific interest group united to resist global tyranny. As a disparate array of emotionally bound communities, each formed around a never ending list of competing and often fiercely opposed belief systems, we have no chance.

  The parasite class led GPPP are fully aware of this, hence their obsession with controlling our behaviour and huge investment in propaganda. They are a task oriented and highly motivated specific interest group. Individuals within it may not like each other one bit, there are clear tensions between them, but they are all committed to a narrow facet of their lives.

  Save in the vaguest of terms, the communitarian's concept of community is practically meaningless. This does not mean that groups of individuals don't share values, nor that they are incapable of working collaboratively. We often join forces on ventures of immense complexity, involving thousands. But these collective efforts coalesce around specific aims and objectives.

  Throughout the pseudopandemic we were told that people like the SAGE 'NERVTAG scientist Neil Ferguson spoke for the scientific community. However, we know that they only spoke for themselves and the interests they represented. Significant numbers of scientists, even some among SAGE, often more suitably qualified, disagreed with the official scientific opinion of the selected spokespersons.

  The scientific community doesn't have a single consensus of opinion on anything. Scientists don't maintain a collective emotional attachment to each other and, apart from adherence to a couple of conventions, such as logic and the empirical method, they don't share values or morality either.

  As such, in communitarian terms, there is no such thing as the scientific community. The GPPP vehemently insist that one exists because of the advantages it brings them.