When written in Chinese, the word “crisis” is composed of two characters – one represents danger and one represents opportunity. The danger signs are all around us.John F. Kennedy
Remarks at the Convocation of the United Negro College Fund, Indianapolis, Indiana, (April 12, 1959)
When you asked about the power outage (i.e. Q-Anon-sense) I believe what you were referring to was one of FEMA’s awesome (not) ‘NLE’ (national level exercises) in this case Binary Blackout…
Never let a serious crisis go to waste, say the arsonists…
You never want a serious crisis to go to waste… And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.Rahm Emanuel, Wall Street Journal CEO Council in Washington, D.C. (Nov. 19, 2008)
While this is not historically a particularly American concept – at least, not until fairly recently – it has nonetheless become somewhat commonplace in the lexicon of certain power elite circles within the United States. There also seems to be a corresponding willingness, if not desire to bring about certain unfortunate circumstances, so that a desired outcome may be brought about as a result.
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?
B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998)
Whether you let it happen on purpose (LIHOP) ‘help’ it happen on purpose (HIHOP) or if and when necessary, make it happen on purpose (MIHOP) eh…? When you realize there are people who operate on this basis, then you begin to understand why nothing ever gets better… These kinds of people work to engineer / orchestrate / facilitate / allow catastrophe and crisis, in order to bring about their desired policy changes.
As an aside, here’s a COVID-19 ‘prediction’: since we’ve been threatened and scolded like little children, and since the threats were predicated on the specious notion that if we went outside we’d ‘overwhelm the healthcare system’, and since during this time of unprecedented pandemic ‘crisis’ thousands of health care workers across hundreds of hospitals have been “furloughed” when we’ve been led to believe we need all hands on deck, I ‘predict’ a lifting of the warden’s sanctions, followed by a swift crackdown and intensification of this alleged crisis – complete with more fake numbers – which will undoubtedly be blamed on the American people who didn’t behave and ‘social distance’ properly, so now everyone is sick. This will also lead to, among other awful things:
- Another, more stern ‘time-out’
- Mandatory testing
- Ultimately, mandatory vaccination, with accompanying “digital certificate”
- And then of course, sweeping policy (behavior modification) changes…
What most people don’t realize is; the planning is done long in advance of the crisis. Incidentally, this is not a new strategy, and the modern incarnation dates particularly to British methods, including the [Arnold J.] Toynbee Method, and various other methods adopted by the Rhodes/Milner roundtable groups, and the Fabian Society.
But, back to the present, and more recent past. Take for instance the recent reference by Derrick Broze, ODD TV, Dana Ashlie, and others to a 2010 report titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development produced by The Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. In light of the present response to the alleged pandemic, I would direct your attention to the Lock Step scenario narrative beginning on page 18. I think you’ll find the resemblances quite uncanny.
The planners plan, but at some point, all plans require execution. Friedrich Hayek did a marvelous job in The Road to Serfdom (1944) of pointing out the dangers of social planning. Drawing largely on the lessons and examples of WWII, he demonstrated that planning leads to totalitarianism, including “the end of truth” – an all-encompassing totalitarian propaganda, and a corrupt, despotic society.
Freedom of thought they regarded as the root-evil of nineteenth-century society, and the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be treated as cattle.Chapter 2. The Great Utopia
Anyone around the world feeling like cattle these days? I know I sure am.
Just as the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans, so the totalitarian dictator would soon have to choose between disregard of ordinary morals and failure. It is for this reason that the unscrupulous and uninhibited are likely to be more successful in a society tending toward totalitarianism. Who does not see this has not yet grasped the full width of the gulf which separates totalitarianism from a liberal regime, the utter difference between the whole moral atmosphere under collectivism and the essentially individualist Western civiliation.Chapter 10. Why the Worst Get on Top
The Washington Post reported on Saturday, April 18 Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz aren’t coronavirus experts. So why are they talking about it on TV news? Really?? Then what on earth is Bill Gates doing parading all over the media? Those men are doctors. Bill Gates didn’t even graduate college. I submit it is at best the Dunning-Kruger Effect in full effect, to the endangerment of the entire world. Back on March 16, Dr. Ron Paul wrote The Coronavirus Hoax article, a position he has since clarified, and maintained. As Dr. Paul mused:
By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this?
“But this is a pandemic!” We’re told. “Everyone everywhere could catch it – and die!” In actuality, the numbers indicate something more like the seasonal flu – which even Dr. Fauci posited on March 26. Furthermore, the numbers have been admittedly inflated, and it seems every opportunity has been taken to change numbers in order to advance a fearmongering agenda.
Why else did the WH Coronavirus task force adopt Neil Ferguson’s sensational Imperial College London model which forecasted upwards of 2.2M US deaths, only to switch ponies to the IHME model – which Bill Gates founded, and calls “our partner” – on the same day (March 26) Ferguson drastically downgraded his projections, and then switch again to the ‘real’ inflated data, after the IHME model was subsequently downgraded? If not to inflate numbers in order to fearmonger, then what was the unexplained justification for each of the transitions?
Why else did Johns Hopkins University inflate the case numbers by 100k+, only to silently (ironically, only Chinese press seemed to catch the error) correct the error – after the press had a field day with the phony spike? Why else are phony death figures being pushed? On April 14, The New York Times ran the following headline and sub-headline:
N.Y.C. Death Toll Soars Past 10,000 in Revised Virus Count
The city has added more than 3,700 additional people who were presumed to have died of the coronavirus but had never tested positive.
That’s not just poor journalism, or pushing a clear narrative – that’s gross negligence, and dangerously irresponsible. On Saturday, April 18, we heard from the WHCTF that the inflated death toll is around 5%. Early on, Deborah Birx said ‘we’re following Italy very closely’. If that bears out, and we reduce the US COVID-19 death toll like Italy did – by 88% – then 5% becomes .6% – much closer to what Fauci and others surmised “…may ultimately be more akin to … a severe seasonal influenza … rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.” Well, whatdya know about that!
Why the endless attempts to obfuscate data? Why lie and say ‘it’s because social distancing is working’ that more haven’t died, when that scenario was baked into the phony numbers? Why keep showing images of tent cities when they’re being closed – in so-called ‘hot spots, no less’ – after seeing zero patients? Why tell us we’re at risk of overwhelming the health care system while suspending all elective procedures and laying off – excuse me; “furloughing” thousands of health care workers?
The answer(s) should be obvious. What better way to steer people into irrational behavior, and foment further crisis, in order to introduce drastic social change? Watch and listen closely, and you’ll see sociologists and others talking about how vital and important behavioral change is – in a health emergency. I understand if the crisis wasn’t engineered, and was as real as we’re led to believe. But pay close attention, and you’ll see the scope of ‘behavioral change’ creeping well beyond the alleged pandemic, and into the unforeseeable future, including language like ‘the new normal’. We should never allow that to happen.
As inconceivable as it may seem, if America has become “a society tending toward totalitarianism” in the words of Hayek, is it any wonder then in America today that credentialed epidemiologists and doctors are shouted down and / or forced to recant1234 their well-reasoned position, while an inordinately influential college dropout and self-proclaimed expert with no actual subject matter expertise is paraded around mainstream media telling the world the only hope we have of survival is to – for the first time in recorded history lock ourselves indoors, submit to ubiquitous testing and ‘contact tracing’ whether we like it or not, and pray for an untested vaccine – a product he pushes and which benefits this opportunistic college dropout from end to end – to magically appear in a moment’s notice, despite the fact it has been attempted and failed for more than a decade (i.e. RNA).
Do we still support the freedom of speech enumerated and enshrined in Amendment I of the Constitution – especially from experts with nothing to gain by standing courageously apart from the ostensible consensus – or have we been entirely bought and paid for, having succumbed entirely to hucksters peddling their own agendas, points, and potions, and the shills who parrot them? Have we a vestige of common sense remaining, to listen to courageous voices, and perhaps ask questions ourselves, or have we fallen under the spell of stupidity?
Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. … The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings. [emphasis added]
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison
In recent years, globalist NGOs, foundations, and university-based think-tanks have authored a variety of ‘reports’ and run several simulations very similar to what we’re experiencing, including The Wheeler Centre 2018 pandemic exercise This Is Not a Drill: A Hypothetical Pandemic (Sep 24, 2018) in which they simulated:
A highly infectious disease that started in the tropics of Southern China is sweeping the globe, with a rapidly rising death toll. The World Health Organisation warned us about Disease X – a previously unknown pathogen – and now it’s here. We knew it was coming, but we didn’t know what form it would take. So, how does Australia protect itself? And how well placed are we to cope with a true pandemic?
At the third event in our This Is Not a Drill series, Ali Moore and our expert panellists confront a hypothetical public health emergency. Join Moore’s crack team as they devise a plan to protect the population and stem panic in the face of a pandemic.
Incidentally, The Wheeler Centre just held another ‘not a drill’: This Is Not a Drill: A Hypothetical Cybersecurity Crisis (Apr 20, 2020) in which they simulated:
What happens when critical infrastructure comes under attack, and risks escalate with each passing hour? How could we respond to multipronged cyber-attacks, crippling power supply and public institutions? And what if the threat appears to have been instigated by one of our regional neighbours?
At the second event in our This Is Not a Drill series, Ali Moore and our expert panellists will confront a high-stakes hypothetical security hack, weighing up threats and options and devising the best tactical response at pace.
At this point, I would refer you back to the FEMA NLE series, and what appears to be a curious coincidence of timing, if not simply the worst possible timing, considering all Wheeler Centre events are understandably cancelled into the near future, except the upcoming Tue, 28 Apr Fifth Estate Live-stream w/ Malcolm Turnbull / Australian politics event and one other.
By far the most uncanny ‘coincidence’ however, in ‘exercise’ land, was Event 201 “a high-level pandemic exercise [held] on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY” and hosted by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I and others have written about this elsewhere, so I won’t belabor the curiosities here. I’ll only mention a few brief points.
Why has the mainstream press virtually ignored Event 201 – except for occasional ‘verify’ attempts to control the narrative, which incidentally was discussed during Segment 4 of Event 201 – while instead referring to Bill Gates 2015 TED Talk? This is especially odd considering the Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Highlights Reel (Pandemic “highlights reel”? Tasteful) currently has nearly 3 million views (2,713,860 as of 4/21). Had Chris Wallace not seen this video, or heard about Event 201 – as the rest of the world already had – when he recently interviewed Gates?
Why during his recent BBC Breakfast appearance did Bill Gates lie and say:
We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice. So, both the health policies, and economic policies we find ourselves in unchartered territory.
As far as the lie of “unchartered territory” of health and economic policies is concerned, the aforementioned exercises dealt with those issues, Event 201 extensively. Many have also pointed to the uncanny similarities between current events and past reports like the “Lock Step” scenario narrative in the 2010 Rockefeller Foundation / Global Business Network report titled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. Beyond that, it’s interesting to note that you’ll find Johns Hopkins University Event 201 participants including Tom Inglesby and Caitlin Rivers all over the headlines567 these days, not to mention policy-making reports guiding the WHCTF, which have magically appeared ‘just in time’, reports like:
- A National COVID-19 Surveillance System: Achieving Containment
- A National Plan to Enable Comprehensive COVID-19 Case Finding and Contact Tracing in the US
- Public Health Principles for a Phased Reopening During COVID-19: Guidance for Governors
I don’t know about you, but I don’t recall electing anyone at Johns Hopkins University – let alone, Bill Gates. This is what is known as technocracy, or government (rule) by (so-called) ‘experts’. For those unfamiliar with the term, back in 2015 during his Conversation with Tyler Cowen at GMU Mercatus Center, Peter Thiel (PayPal, Palantir, Founders Fund, Sullivan & Cromwell, Bilderberg Group Steering Committee member, etc.) said:
It’s not at all clear that we’re living in anything resembling a democracy. We’re living in a representative republic, but then that’s modified through a judicial system. And then of course, that’s been largely superseded by these very unelected agencies of one sort or another, which really drive most of the decision-making. I think calling our society a democracy, whatever may be good or bad about democracy, is very, very deeply misleading. We’re not a republic. We’re not a constitutional republic. We are actually a state that’s dominated by these very unelected, technocratic agencies.
I don’t know about you, but I think more of us average Joes need to become our own ‘experts’ – and fast.
If you want to reshape the world in plausibly deniable fashion, then you simply set your policy agenda trajectory (goals) and then go about running scenario planning, preparedness exercises, drills, simulations, simulation exercises or SimEx, and so forth.
Maybe you even consult one of the many companies and people who specialize in this sort of thing. Or maybe you work with DHS or FEMA and other agencies on this sort of thing, in what’s known as Continuity of Government (COG) a.k.a. Continuity of Operations (COOP) a.k.a. Whole-of-Government Approach (WGA) a.k.a. National Continuity Programs (NCP) etc. Historically, COG was seen as un-American, since it clearly violates the Separation of Powers tenet, as well as rendering checks and balances void. R.J. Pestritto summed up the issue very well. In any case, well in advance, first you do your ‘reimagining’ and set your goals for policy changes.
Once you’re in the midst of a severe pandemic, your options are very limited. The greatest good can happen with pre-planning.Eric Toner
Senior scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
Has anyone noticed lately that we seem to be overrun by exercises and drills? And they just keep creeping further and further into our lives, closer and closer to our homes. They’re in our businesses, schools, churches, in nearly every area of our lives. And what’s with all these folks who seem all too anxious to ‘pre-plan’ for such a crisis – and what kinds of radical social changes can be implemented amidst the ensuing chaos? Could this perhaps give rise to a certain sense of plausibly deniable opportunism – “Opportunities of Crisis”, perhaps…?
What is often surprising about new technologies is collateral damage: the extent of the problem that you can create by solving another problem is always a bit of a surprise.Michael Free
Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH)
…the number and scope of outbreaks has been substantially more than anticipated, and specifically we demonstrate that of the 41 [Polio] outbreaks in the past four years, 28 of those have actually been seeded by outbreak response [vaccinations] after 2016. So, the bulk of the problem now is … actually being caused by our response to these outbreaks.Grace Macklin
WHO, Polio Eradication, Research and Policy
Science in Action – The science of social distancing (March 26, 2020) – BBC Sounds
Has anyone else noticed; at the same time we’ve seen an increase in the exercises and drills, we’ve also experienced a dramatic uptick in perceived crises and catastrophes? I’m not saying correlation implies causation. After all, that would be heresy. It’s clearly all the terrorists in our midst, and unexpected pandemics and such. Which reminds me of certain things…
- Bill Gates: Millions could die from bio-terrorism (Feb 18, 2017) – AP Archive
We also face a new threat that the next epidemic has good chance of originating on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus, or a contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.
- Pentagon Press Secretary, Alyssa Farah responding to Chinese foreign minister, Zhao Lijian:
As a global crisis, COVID-19 shd be an area of cooperation between nations. Instead, the Communist Party of China has chosen to promulgate false & absurd conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19 blaming U.S. service members. #ChinaPropaganda https://t.co/gAkhEtlEfr
— Alyssa Farah (@PentagonPresSec) March 13, 2020
- US investigates possibility Covid-19 originated in Chinese lab (Apr 17, 2020) – CNN
US Intelligence officials tell CNN they are investigating another possible source, suggesting the virus may not have originated naturally, as China has advertised. But rather, that it possibly started in a Wuhan lab. Sources say it is one of many origin theories the US is looking into.
- Why Diplomacy Matters – Remarks, Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State (April 15, 2019) – United States Department of State
I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses.Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo
- 3/20/20: Members of the Coronavirus Task Force Hold a Press Briefing
We’re in a – we’re in a live exercise here – to get this right.Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo
- Trevor Aaronson: How this FBI strategy is actually creating US-based terrorists (March 2015) | TED Talk
I’ve spent years pouring through the case files of terrorism prosecutions in the United States, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the FBI is much better at creating terrorists than it is at catching terrorists.
- The Politics and Policy of COVID-19: Imagining a New Moral Economy | Hub
Crisis and opportunity are two sides of the same coin, and with every crisis comes the opportunity to reimagine a different world.Hahrie Han
I would like to emphasize, it is a misnomer to think that crises lead to reimagining, the work to do the reimagining needs to happen before a crisis takes place.Angus Burgin
- National coronavirus response: A road map to reopening (March 29, 2020) [pdf v1] [pdf v2] American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Scott Gottlieb, Caitlin Rivers, Mark McClellan, Lauren Silvis, and Crystal Watson
- A National COVID-19 Surveillance System: Achieving Containment (April7, 2020) [pdf] [pdf] Duke University Margolis Center for Health Policy
Mark McClellan, Scott Gottlieb, Farzad Mostashari, Caitlin Rivers, and Lauren Silvis
Dr. Oz, Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil made these claims on Fox News. Now they’re backtracking – CNN Video ↩
Let’s explore exactly why Dr. Phil’s coronavirus arguments are so obtuse – The Washington Post ↩
Dr. Phil clarifies controversial coronavirus comments during Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham – nj.com ↩
Dr Phil criticised for claiming lockdown deadlier than coronavirus with inaccurate facts and bizarre comparisons | The Independent ↩
How to reopen the country following coronavirus: Johns Hopkins experts give steps ↩
Coronavirus: How U.S. hospitals are preparing for COVID-19, and what leading health officials say about the virus – 60 Minutes – CBS News ↩
House Homeland Security Committee Hearing on the Coronavirus Outbreak Response | C-SPAN.org ↩