Pseudopandemic
Page 39
By presenting the opinions of a small band within SAGE as the consensus of the scientific community, the GPPP State franchise were able to accuse anyone who questioned their pseudopandemic, especially dissenting scientists and physicians, of being "anti-science." This then formed the basis for the wide sweeping pseudopandemic censorship of science and medicine.
This reveals the deceit of the civil society being foisted upon us by the GPPP. Some groups, who may consider themselves to be community representatives, are invited to speak for a much larger population of individuals whose voices will be unheard in the civil society pretence of democracy.
These community representatives won't speak for anyone other than their own community and the extent to which they can lay claim to that is questionable. The wider population of individuals said to comprise the local community won't be represented by anyone but their lives will be controlled through governance by civil society nonetheless.
The refrain of local community is now inserted into nearly every State franchise policy. Regardless of the communitarians’ wishes, their ideas have been poached to form a civil society of stakeholder capitalists. These selected stakeholder community groups will either be the ones that are most closely aligned with the GPPP agenda or those easiest to manipulate. Other groups, perhaps formed in opposition to the biosecurity technocracy, who might be more resistant to manipulation, won't be invited to join civil society.
Not only will the communitarians' progressive civil society serve the Technate, just as dissenting scientists were deemed to be anti-science, so those who refuse to accept technocratic dictatorship will be considered anti-social. They will be pariahs blamed for undermining the common good of the community.
Communitarian philosophy provides the GPPP with the rationale for excluding its critics and those who aren't on message. According to the Responsive Communitarian Platform civil society will enable local communities to address global concerns:
"There are, of course, plenty of urgent tasks–environmental ones–that do require national and even international action.. Many social goals require partnership between public and private groups.. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned.
We should not hesitate to speak up and express our moral concerns to others when it comes to issues we care about deeply.. Those who neglect these duties, should be explicitly considered poor members of the community.. A good citizen is involved in a community or communities.
We know that enduring responsive communities cannot be created through fiat or coercion, but only through genuine public conviction.. Although it may seem utopian, we believe that in the multiplication of strongly democratic communities around the world lies our best hope for the emergence of a global community that can deal concertedly with matters of general concern to our species as a whole."
The GPPP intend to exploit civil society by actively engaging them in urgent tasks necessary to address international concerns. The GPPP will determine what those concerns are and will then invite community representatives to validate the policies they want. If you oppose them you are not a good citizen. The members of the local community who question the GPPP definition of the problem or their proposed policy solutions, even if they form their own groups, won't be engaged but rather censored, excluded and berated.
The contradictions in communitarian philosophy verge upon the absurd. In their attempt to advance democratic communities, based upon inclusive community engagement, they would see any and all who do not agree, not only excluded from their community but censured as poor members of the community.
This is perfect for the GPPP. They willingly operate within a system of compartmentalised authority headed by the parasite class. Not because they share values or affection for each other but out of unbridled self interest. Their corporate profits are served by maintaining this system. No matter what the politics of nation states may be and regardless of any policy changes, they always win.
Even a supposed global pandemic and the destruction of the global economy has seen an inordinate transfer of wealth [33] to the GPPP. They have been able to use the engineered economic turmoil and lockdown restriction to massively cut their costs by making vast numbers of their employees redundant. At the same time most of the created monopoly money has been fed to them and the markets. They profit from war, famine, pestilence and disease.
PayPal's chief of finance John Rainey, in an interview for the Washington Post at the height of the pseudopandemic, said:
"I don’t think we’ve ever been more excited or energized about our prospects.”
The President and CEO of Nike John Donohoe was similarly upbeat:
"These are times when the strong can get stronger.”
Donohoe was absolutely correct. Shortly we will look at the core conspirators financial motives, one of which was to destroy small to medium size businesses leaving global corporations as the only surviving stakeholder capitalists.
Etzioni and his fellow progressive communitarians do not seem to understand that it is the authoritarian power structure which defines global issues. Through the new normal civil society the communitarians are not engaging in a meaningful dialogue with the GPPP, they are colluding with them.
Reluctant to contradict the opinion of the group which defines their identity, communitarians have to give up independent critical thinking to maintain their own sense of self. This breeds unquestioned certainty, intolerance for any opposing views and an inability to engage in logical discourse. Those who do not share the prescribed group ethos, or those who question the evidence base underpinning the groups certainty, are not fellow human beings but rather "other."
Communitarianism, and the progressive mindset it has spawned, is a gift to the GPPP. The Responsive Communitarian Platform explains how communitarian democrats deal with dissent:
"Responsibilities are anchored in community.. communities define what is expected of people; they educate their members to accept these values; and they praise them when they do and frown upon them when they do not.. Whenever individuals or members of a group are harassed, many non-legal measures are appropriate to express disapproval of hateful expressions and to promote tolerance among the members of the polity."
In the new normal you will be told what is expected of you. If you think those expectations are unreasonable or possibly counterproductive, you will be re-educated to accept the required values. If your re-education fails and you still don't agree with the espoused global values of civil society, and if you then persist in raising your objections, you are guilty of harassment and hate.
Open and free democracies are supposedly based upon a raft of cherished freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly, expression, religion and petition. The communitarian view that these principles can be upheld while insisting that only their opinions are valid is utterly delusional.
This makes the progressive communitarian the GPPP's agent of change. By using the appropriate catchphrases (sustainability, inclusivity, resilience etc.) the GPPP can tell the progressives want they want to hear, reinforcing their identities for them. With the right experts thrown in, and by limiting the information available to the group, the GPPP can create a generation of technocratic zealots.
This is why corporations like Omnicom market themselves with a word salad of disingenuous platitudes. They wish to engage as stakeholders in civil society effecting change in local communities to achieve global goals. For no other reason than their own self interest.
It appears that their business practices are the antithesis of the moral virtues they claim to embody. It is hard to see how OmniGOV's terror campaign, driving the pseudopandemic fear, can possibly add any social value. However, the progressive community groups who wholeheartedly believe everything the GPPP tell them are incurious enough to be reassured by the rhetoric they want to he
ar.
Writing in 2010 Klaus Schwab stated [34]:
"According to the stakeholder approach, the management of the enterprise acts as a trustee for all stakeholders.. It is based on the principle that each individual is embedded in societal communities in which the common good can only be promoted through the interaction of all participants.. If we want to keep society together, a sense of community and solidarity are more important now than ever before. This communitarian spirit is the basis of the stakeholder principle. We need to embrace that stakeholder principle, not just within the narrow confines of companies, but at a national and global level as well."
The civil society of stakeholders is being promoted as the solution both to the inherent deficiencies of representative democracy and global problems. However, it is just another deceptive element of the GPPP's global power and resource grab.
In communitarianism the GPPP have found a sop to placate the subjects of their planned technocracy. People can get involved in their local community as long as they are working towards the common good defined by the parasite class. The Technate will be imposed no matter what. However, it will be so much easier for the GPPP if we believe in it too.
The GPPP, led by the core conspirators within the parasite class and their informed influencers, are determined specific interest group who are collectively taking action to achieve their goals. Community engagement in a civil society, founded upon the identity politics of communitarians, isn't a solution. It is part of the problem.
The willing citizen in the new normal, convinced that they are the only moral voice, are assisting the GPPP to seize the global commons. No matter how well meaning they are, they are the defenders of the sustainability the GPPP hide behind. By placing their faith in the new form of democracy constructed around civil society, they are hastening its extinction.
Sources:
[1] - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chinese-virologist-claims-china-created-and-deliberately-unleashed-coronavirus/ar-BB195hh4
[2] - https://archive.is/Pputi
[3] - https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/wastewater-wastes-official-covid-19-narrative
[4] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200301064624/http://www.freeyourmindaz.com/uploads/1/2/8/3/12830241/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-2011.pdf
[5] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170216095115/http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf
[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210430041034/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hostile-states-to-face-rapid-and-unified-international-response
[7] - https://archive.is/sUUzF
[8] - https://archive.is/6ZokO
[9] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210416103133/https://omg-managed-prod-omdwplamp-data-prd.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/2020/05/Learn-Fast-Act-Fast-Document.pdf
[10] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210122212520/https://www.omnicomgroup.com/culture/
[11] - https://archive.is/bBZOV
[12] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200903121317/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/simon-case-appointed-as-cabinet-secretary-and-head-of-the-civil-service
[13] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200902234400/https://www.theweek.co.uk/107951/who-is-simon-case-boris-johnson-ally-head-of-civil-service
[14] - https://archive.is/InRDO
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201028170252/https://securityconference.org/en/msc/
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201117225615/https://securityconference.org/assets/02_Dokumente/03_Materialien/200320_MSC2020_ListofAttendees.pdf
[17] - https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00halluoft/page/n7/mode/2up
[18] - https://archive.is/kVbyu
[19] - https://archive.is/04mEd
[20] - https://archive.is/bkBWS
[21] - https://archive.is/LIXYB
[22] - https://www.lexico.com/definition/solidarity
[23] - https://www.lexico.com/definition/stigma
[24] - https://www.etymonline.com/word/stigma
[25] - https://archive.is/IZFuR
[26] - https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/
[27] - https://archive.is/s2uH1
[28] - https://archive.is/XTlb5
[29] - https://in-this-together.com/wgTe/Etz-TNN.pdf
[30] - https://archive.is/1QPHw
[31] - https://web.archive.org/web/20120104034730/http://communitariannetwork.org/about-communitarianism/responsive-communitarian-platform/
[32] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210416171113/http://www.demos.co.uk/files/thethirdwaytoagoodsociety.pdf?1240939425
[33] - https://archive.is/50NPn
[34] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190210015453/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2010/01/a-breakdown-in-our-values-klaus-schwab/
Chapter 19 - Faith In The Eco-Dictatorship
In 1877 one of the most powerful and influential men in the British Empire (and consequently the world), Cecil Rhodes, wrote “Confession of Faith.” [1] He laid out a vision for a global empire to be formed by the Anglo-American establishment [2]:
“I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.. Why should we not form a secret society with but one object.. making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.. a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object.. A society which should have members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea.. For fear that death might cut me off before the time for attempting its development I leave all my worldly goods in trust.. to try to form such a Society with such an object.”
Following his death in 1902, Rhodes' bequeathed fortune financed the creation of the Round Table Movement [3]. They set about forming a global network of policy think tanks whose membership would be drawn from the people who had the means and the opportunity to "influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis."
The post WWI Paris Peace Conference in 1919 saw a group of delegates, led by prominent Round Table member Lionel Curtis [4], establish the British Institute of International Affairs which soon received its Royal Charter to be renamed the Royal Institute of International Affairs [6] (RIIA). It is often referred to as Chatham House (it's St. James’ Square, London HQ.)
They devised the Chatham House Rule [5] which states:
"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."
While the rule itself isn’t enforceable by law, any organisation, including the institutions of government, can cite it as a matter of policy. Anyone who breaches it will face disciplinary action. When the people at the meeting, enforcing the policy, are able to buy nations that ‘discipline’ is not something easily ignored. No matter who you are.
This enabled the construction of a global network of power brokers who can hide in the open thanks, in no small measure, to the Chatham House Rule. The RIIA gave rise to the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, Le Cercle, the Club of Rome and many other influential policy making groups.
The RIIA is the original foreign policy think tank and arguably the global hub of the Deep State milieu. Their membership list [6] forms a foreign policy directorate with a global reach. Institutes of government (State franchises), including intergovernmental and supra-governmental organisations are just a part of the RIIA collective.
Their members include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, The Royal Society, Astrazeneca, Gilead, Bloomberg, The City of London, The European Commission, the European Union, BAE systems, Lockheed Martin, Goldman Sachs, the Bank of England, HM Treasury, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Italy, Morgan Stanley, De Beers, BlackRock, China International Capital Corporation, KPMG, Moody's, Kings College London, the Royal College of Defence Studies, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the Ministry of Defence,
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Heath and Social Care, the British Army and all foreign embassies to the UK. The list goes on.
Able to meet behind the closed doors of Chatham House, absent public scrutiny, the RIIA are a GPPP think tank which creates the policies that shape the lives of billions. When they make something public only a fool would ignore it or imagine that they don't intend to act to realise their ambitions.
Published in April 2021 Futurescape - What London Will Look Like In 100 Years [7] provides us with an outline of the RIIA's policy trajectory. The RIIA's Managing Director of Research Partnership Rose Abdollahzadeh said:
"Work on Futurescape began in January 2020 with the transition to sustainability at the heart of our ambitions.. Everything featured in the Futurescape time periods either already exists, or is in development.. it is highly achievable and plausible if society wants to make it happen.. The pandemic has.. significantly accelerated certain changes."
Futurescape is a visualised computer model of our planned future split into four periods. Up to 2035, then 2060, 2090 and finally to 2121, the planned conclusion of Agenda 21. Dressed in the fluffy sound-bites of the permitted communitarian mindset what it portends is horrific. It is worth remembering that the RIIA have access to resources on a scale few of us can relate to. Nothing they suggested was unintentional and the imagery they used matters.
As the viewer is taken to 2035, the first thing to note about the RIIA's sustainable utopia is that there aren't many of us left around to see it. Piccadilly, usually bustling with people, is presented as a landscape of urban tranquillity and open green spaces. It shows just a few people dotted here and there.
You might consider this simply a necessity of the presentation, enabling the viewer to see the highlighted buildings and other design features, yet this reduction in our numbers is also a eugenicist obsession. Furthermore, our sustainable future appears to be firmly based upon a much smaller population.