Search Results

“The pace of Australian home building has slowed to a decade low despite demand growing, as higher borrowing costs and rising prices stand in the way of the country’s increasing need for new homes. New housing starts fell to 165,602 over the four quarters to September, the weakest 12-monthly total since March 2013, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.” Under the previous Coalition government, the immigration rate of around 200,000 people and the increase in births more or less matched housing starts. None of the increase in immigration under Labor has been matched by an increase in housing. And why would it, given that there is a labour shortage in Australia. The increase in immigration has increased interest rates causing builders to go broke and housing supply to dry up. Quote from: https://www.afr.com/property/residential/new-home-building-slumps-to-decade-low-20240117-p5exzk https://t.me/daveoneegsauschat/34672

Keep more in your pocket and less in the banks. Cash is King!

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-foia-requests-nih-studies-cellphone-radiation-cancer/? The requests are for key communications and research documents related to studies that were underway and the factors that led the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences to discontinue the studies, despite previous research finding evidence of cancer and DNA damage related to cellphone use. By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) today filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for documents and communications related to the agency’s decision to discontinue studies on the potential health effects of cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) — even after a 10-year, $30-million study, completed in 2018, found evidence of cancer and DNA damage. “We think it is important to understand what led to this decision, because we know too often big industry interests play a significant role” in shutting down this type of research, said Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia, director of CHD’s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless program. Eckenfels-Garcia told The Defender it’s “truly astonishing that the government has decided to stop research into the health effects of wireless radiation instead of deepening it, in light of ever-growing evidence of harm.” CHD sent two requests to the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences (NIEHS), a subagency of NIH, whose scientists had been studying wireless radiation. The requests are for key communications and study documents that could shed light on the research government scientists were conducting when before it was shut down, and what factors led to the shut-down. “By working together at the outset,” CHD staff attorney Risa Evans wrote in the FOIA letters, “we can decrease the likelihood of costly and time-consuming litigation in the future.” Why stop studying wireless radiation now? As The Defender reported, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in January announced via an updated fact sheet that it has no plans to further study the effects of cellphone RFR on human health. This was after the program’s 10-year study, published in 2018, found “clear evidence” that RFR exposure was linked to malignant heart tumors, “some evidence” linking it to malignant brain tumors, and “some evidence” linking it to both malignant and benign adrenal gland tumors and DNA damage in rats. NTP is an “interagency partnership” of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the NIEHS. After publishing the study, government scientists conducted follow-up studies on the impact of RFR exposure on behavior and stress — especially stress on the heart, according to the NTP’s cellphone RFR website. The follow-up studies also sought to “evaluate further” the 2018 study finding that RFR exposure caused DNA damage. The research was “technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected” and “no further work” is planned, according to NTP’s RFR website. According to the NTP website, the program “strives to remain at the cutting edge of scientific research and the development and application of new technologies for modern toxicology and molecular biology” and “provides the scientific basis for programs, activities, and policies that promote health or lead to the prevention of disease.” “So why would its scientists stop studying wireless radiation?” asked Eckenfels-Garcia. “We want to know.” ‘I thought that was the right next step’ Brian Berridge, DVM, Ph.D., NTP’s scientific director until January 2023, confirmed that the follow-up studies were underway during his tenure and that the decision to no longer study RFR happened after he stepped down. “The work was being done while I was there — with my blessing,” he told The Defender. “I thought that was the right next step.” Large studies like the one the NTP did in 2018, Berridge said, raise questions that “ultimately take additional studies” to understand better. For example, the follow-up studies were looking at whether the negative health outcomes the 2018 study saw in rats — cancerous tumors and DNA damage — could rightly be attributed to RFR or to some other aspect of the experimental conditions, such as living 24/7 in a small metal chamber. CHD’s first FOIA request seeks more details about what the follow-up studies entailed. The request asked agency officials to hand over “all protocols, standard operating procedures, and other records describing the methods, procedures, and/or study goals of every study planned or conducted by DTT [Division of Translational Toxicology] to follow up on the rodent studies previously conducted by the National Toxicology Program.” Four government employees named in FOIA request CHD’s second FOIA request asked for all communications between key researchers and officials from Feb. 1, 2023, to Feb. 1, 2024 — when NTP appeared to be conducting follow-up studies and when it decided to discontinue them. The FOIA request names four government employees: Robert C. Sills, DVM, Ph.D., who at the time was the acting scientific director of NIEHS’ DTT. Scientists with DTT — who commonly work on NTP’s projects — were the ones conducting the follow-up studies, according to the NTP website. Stephanie Smith-Roe, Ph.D., the DTT scientist supervising the follow-up studies, according to a former government scientist who chose to remain anonymous. Nigel J. Walker, Ph.D., acting chief of DTT’s Systems Toxicology Branch, who was responsible for managing the follow-up studies, according to another former government scientist who chose to remain anonymous. Rick Woychik, Ph.D., director of NIEHS, who sets the budget for NIEHS, including DTT, according to Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who served on the NTP’s board of scientific counselors in the 1980s when it launched. The request seeks communications related to the funding and termination of the studies. It’s unclear whether some of the follow-up studies were prematurely terminated or whether they had simply completed their research goals, with no further studies planned. For instance, the NTP cellphone RFR website states that the researchers had completed “feasibility testing” of a small-scale RFR exposure system for doing the research. It appears they planned to use the small-scale RFR exposure system to “determine the impact of RFR exposure on behavior and stress, conduct real-time physiological monitoring, including evaluation of heart rate, investigate whether RFR exposure induces heating, and evaluate further whether RFR exposure causes DNA damage.” But the NTP website does not say whether researchers had achieved these research goals or, if they hadn’t yet, at what point in the research process the decision was made to no longer study wireless radiation. It only states: “The research using this small-scale RFR exposure system was technically challenging and more resource intensive than expected. “In addition, this exposure system was designed to study the frequencies and modulations used in 2G and 3G devices, but is not representative of newer technologies such as 4G/4G-LTE, or 5G (which is still not fully defined). “Taking these factors into consideration, no further work with this RFR exposure system will be conducted and NIEHS has no further plans to conduct additional RFR exposure studies at this time.” The FOIA request also targets communications related to the overall execution and management of the follow-up studies, and it seeks emails or other communications containing any follow-up study data for interpretation, evaluation or review. NIEHS deflects questions about the studies Before CHD filed the FOIA requests, The Defender reached out repeatedly to various NIEHS staff for information about the follow-up studies and the decision to end RFR research. Some of the questions The Defender asked included: Where can the public find the follow-up studies’ standard operating procedures and protocols? What is the status of the data gathered in the follow-up studies? Was it ever reviewed, and if so, by whom? If not, why not? The NTP cellphone RFR website states, “NIEHS has completed the feasibility testing of this small-scale RFR exposure system, and the results will be made publicly available and posted on this webpage when internal reviews are finished.” What sort of “internal reviews” are being conducted? By whom? What is the anticipated completion date of the reviews and when will the results be published? An earlier version of NTP’s cellphone RF radiation webpage (updated Nov. 30, 2023) stated that these studies were expected to be published in 2023-2024. Why haven’t the studies been published? Why would U.S. civilian governmental efforts to study the potential impacts of wireless radiation stop as the U.S. Department of Defense continues to study the problem and as the European Union has provided multi-million dollar grants for multidisciplinary studies? The NIEHS Office of Communications consistently told The Defender that NTP’s cellphone RFR website “has all the information we have to share at this time. We will update the webpage when we have more information.”

https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-04-08-first-transgender-clinic-formed-germany-jewish-doctor.html One of the primary reasons why Naziism swept Germany in the early 20th century is because of the rampant wickedness and perversion that had taken over, including at the hands of homosexual Jewish doctor Magnus Hirschfeld, who created the world's first transgender clinic in Berlin. Known as The Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin, Hirschfeld's transgender clinic was destroyed by the Nazis after they took power, along with many other evils that had infested Germany at the time. Scientific American lamented the downfall of Hirschfeld's clinic in an August 2021 piece, writer Brandy Schillace writing that it "would be a century old if it hadn't fallen victim to Nazi ideology." Boohoo, Schillace. The real story you should have written centers around a gay Jew who polluted Germany and the world with the first-ever body butchery facility where Hirschfeld experimented on hundreds of men by cutting off their genitals and using the skin and tissue to try to reconstruct fake vaginas. This was in 1919, mind you, long before the internet and social media would have polluted people's minds with such abominations. The average person never could have dreamed up such wickedness, but Hirschfeld was apparently no average person. It turns out that Hirschfeld played an influential role in normalizing not just homosexuality but transgenderism and other perversions in German society, a society that eventually tried to snap back from the Pandora's box of everything Hirschfeld unleashed with the rise of Naziism. (Related: Did you know that conservative Jewish icon Ben Shapiro is a product of Israeli intelligence?) German society's response to LGBT perversion was Naziism Hirschfeld wrote a manifesto called The Sexual History of the World War around the time he left his practice and launched a crusade of "justice" for what in modern times has come to be known as the Cult of LGBT. The earliest-known manifestations of transhumanism came from Hirschfeld, who argued that there is a "third sex," and that some people are "non-binary." These people he referred to as "sexual intermediaries," or non-conforming individuals – sound familiar? Hirschfeld was not content simply with homosexuality. He would push the limits of the sexual "spectrum" we hear so much about today, arguing that many people are "transvestites" who do not fit into the God-ordained gender and sex binary of male and female. Concepts like "gender fluidity" never existed prior to Hirschfeld, as far as we know. And it was Hirschfeld who really got the ball rolling in normalizing this and other concepts, arguing that people who fall into his spectrum are merely acting "in accordance with their nature." In Hirschfeld's corrupt view, Socrates, Michelangelo and Shakespeare were all "sexual intermediaries." He also considered himself and his partner, Karl Giese, to be the same. While homosexuality was certainly a thing before Hirschfeld, it was Hirschfeld who apparently introduced German society and ultimately the world to transgenderism and all other such perversions on the spectrum. Hirschfeld's perversion institute existed as a place of "research, teaching, healing and refuge" that he claimed could "free the individual from physical ailments, psychological afflictions and social deprivation," as well as provide an "education" for anyone who wanted it. Hirschfeld also provided a refuge at his perversion clinic for feminist activists, aka misandrists, whom he allowed to print journals and other propaganda documents about sexual perversion that were then distributed throughout society. Before the Nazis burned it down, Hirschfeld's perversion refuge even had an entire library full of materials about how to surgically "transition" a human body from male to female, or vice versa. Together with surgeon Erwin Gohrbandt, Hirschfeld actually performed such transition surgeries, which they called "transformation of genitals." "This occurred in stages: castration, penectomy and vaginoplasty. (The institute treated only trans women at this time; female-to-male phalloplasty would not be practiced until the late 1940s.)," Schillace writes in praise of the procedure. "Patients would also be prescribed hormone therapy, allowing them to grow natural breasts and softer features." The Nazis brought all of this to an end, as history shows. They not only destroyed Hirschfeld's clinic but they also burned all the books and research in his library, which is what many are familiar with from depictions in today's history book (though most history books leave out the fact that the books being burned contained such wicked things). "Hirschfeld's books were the type of books that the Nazis burned," notes former biomedicine researcher Dr. Vladimir Joukov, who shared a photo of a May 10, 1993, book burning at which Nazis torched "works by leftists and other authors which they considered 'un-German,' including thousands of books that were looted from the library of Hirschfeld's Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, as it was called in German. "For a group of bad guys, that sure sounds like a pretty based way to handle the trans problem," wrote another about what the Nazis did. You can learn more about the ugly history of transgenderism and where it originated at Transhumanism.news.

https://www.brighteon.com/a8a2a581-1388-4741-a85c-ec3ab2052bbc

Geologist, Prof. Ian Plimer, dispels the "CO2 is a pollutant" narrative—pushed by climate totalitarians as a pretext to seize power and control over every aspect of our lives. "It is the food of life. It is plant food. It is not a pollutant. But it is invisible, and you can easily be frightened of something you can't see... and this is being exploited." Professor Ian Plimer is Australia’s best-known geologist. He is Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, where he was Professor and Head of Earth Sciences (1991-2005) after serving at the University of Newcastle (1985-1991) as Professor and Head of Geology. He was Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide (2006-2012) and in 1991 was also German Research Foundation Professor of Ore Deposits at the Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München (Germany). He was on the staff of the University of New England, the University of New South Wales and Macquarie University. He has published more than 120 scientific papers on geology and was one of the trinity of editors for the five-volume Encyclopedia of Geology. Professor Plimer spent much of his life in the rough and tumble of the zinc-lead-silver mining town of Broken Hill where an interdisciplinary scientific knowledge intertwined with a healthy dose of scepticism and pragmatism are necessary. He is Patron of Lifeline Broken Hill and the Broken Hill Geocentre. He worked for North Broken Hill Ltd, was a consultant to many major mining companies and has been a director of numerous exploration public companies listed in London, Toronto and Sydney. In his post-university career he is proudly a director of a number various unlisted private Hancock Prospecting companies. A new Broken Hill mineral, plimerite, was named in recognition of his contribution to Broken Hill geology. Ironically, plimerite is green and soft. It fractures unevenly, is brittle and insoluble in alcohol. A ground-hunting rainforest spider Austrotengella plimeri from the Tweed Range (NSW) has been named in his honour because of his “provocative contributions to issues of climate change”. The author would like to think that Austrotengella plimeri is poisonous. Ian Plimer identifies as ZnFe4(PO4)3(OH)5 and demands the appropriate pronoun be used.

"They've read a bit of geological history. They've read climate history. They know there is nothing new about today's climate. There's nothing extreme, there's nothing new, the fluctuations are very minor, the temperature is very moderate. And even if it warms up a bit, we'll probably benefit."

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/10/what-are-the-implications-if-who-succeeds/ To understand the impact the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed International Health Regulations (“IHR”) amendments will have on every person on Earth, we have to get to grips with what totalitarian rule is – because should the amendments proposed by WHO be accepted next month, the people of the world would be subjected to unadulterated totalitarianism. The WHO’s Road to Totalitarianism By Bert Oliver Several articles on the proposed amendments to the WHO’s international health regulations have appeared on Brownstone Institute, such as THIS excellent introduction. Consequently, there is no need to repeat this information in a similar format. What I would like to do instead is to pursue the question, what the implications would be for people worldwide if this organisation were to be successful in getting the representatives of member countries to accept the proposed amendments. More specifically, what are the likely consequences in terms of the concept and practice of totalitarianism? To understand this, one has to get to grips with the mode of rule called totalitarian government, of course, but I doubt whether most people have an adequate grasp of full-fledged totalitarian rule, despite recently experiencing it to a certain degree under “pandemic” conditions. Should the amendments proposed by the WHO be accepted in May, the citizens of the world would be subjected to unadulterated totalitarianism, however, so it is worthwhile exploring the full implications of this “anonymous” mode of governance here. This is done in the hope that, if representatives of the people – which is what they are supposed to be – in legislative bodies around the world were to read this article, as well as others related to the same topic, they would think twice before supporting a motion or bill which would, in effect, grant the WHO the right to usurp the sovereignty of member nations. The recent developments in the state of Louisiana in the US, which amount to the rejection of the WHO’s authority, should be an inspiration to other states and countries to follow its example. This is the way to beat the WHO’s mendacious “pandemic treaty.” On her website, called Freedom Research, Dr. Meryl Nass has described the WHO’s notion of “pandemic preparedness” as a “scam/boondoggle/Trojan horse,” which aims, among other things, to transfer billions of taxpayer dollars to the WHO as well as other industries, to vindicate censorship in the name of “public health,” and perhaps most importantly, to transfer sovereignty regarding decision-making for “public health” globally to the Director-General of the WHO (which means that legally, member countries would lose their sovereignty). In addition, she highlights the fact that the WHO intends to use the idea of “One Health” to subsume all living beings, ecosystems, as well as climate change under its own “authority;” further, to acquire more pathogens for wide distribution, in this way exacerbating the possibility of pandemics while obscuring their origin, and in the event of such pandemics occurring, justifying the development of more (mandatory) “vaccines” and the mandating of vaccine passports (and of lockdowns) globally, thus increasing control (the key term here) over populations. Should its attempt at a global power grab succeed, the WHO would have the authority to impose any “medical” programme it deems necessary for “world health,” regardless of their efficacy and side effects (including death). In the preceding paragraph, I italicised the word “control” as a key term. What should be added to it is the term “total” – that is, “total control.” This is the gist of totalitarian rule, and it should therefore be easy to see that what the WHO, together with the WEF and the UN, strives for is total or complete control of all people’s lives. No one has analysed and elaborated on totalitarianism from this perspective more thoroughly than the German-born, American philosopher, Hannah Arendt, and her monumental study of this phenomenon – ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ (1951 and in enlarged format, 1958) still stands as the authoritative source for the understanding of its historical manifestations. The latter, focused on by Arendt, are 20th century Nazism and Stalinism, but it is not difficult to perceive its lineaments in what we have been living through since 2020 – although a strong case could be made that 2001 marked its identifiable beginning, when, in the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed, arguably laying the authoritarian groundwork for totalitarian rule as clearly perceived by Henry Giroux. Arendt (p. 274 of the Harvest, Harcourt edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1976) singles out “total terror” as the essence of totalitarian government, and elaborates as follows: By pressing men against each other, total terror destroys the space between them; compared to the condition within its iron band, even the desert of tyranny [which she distinguishes from totalitarianism; B.O.], insofar as it is still some kind of space, appears like a guarantee of freedom. Totalitarian government does not just curtail liberties or abolish essential freedoms; nor does it, at least to our limited knowledge, succeed in eradicating the love for freedom from the hearts of man. It destroys the one essential prerequisite of all freedom which is simply the capacity of motion which cannot exist without space. Reading this evocative characterisation of totalitarianism in terms of “total terror” makes one realise anew, with a start, how fiendishly clever the perpetrators of the so-called “pandemic” emergency were – which was no real pandemic, of course, as the German government recently admitted. It was the thin edge of the wedge, as it were, to insinuate “total terror” into our lives by means of curtailing our access to free movement in space. “Lockdowns” are the signature tool for implementing restrictions on free movements in space. It may not, on the face of it, appear to be the same as, or similar to, the incarceration of prisoners in the concentration camps under Nazi rule, but arguably the psychological effects of lockdowns approximate those experienced by inmates of these notorious camps in the 1940s. After all, if you are not allowed to leave your house, except to go to the shop to buy food and other essentials before you hurry back home – where you dutifully sanitise all the items you bought, a concrete reminder that venturing out in space is “potentially lethal” – the imperative is the same: “You are not allowed out of this enclosure, except under specified conditions.” It is understandable that the imposition of such strict spatial boundaries engenders a pervasive sense of fear, which eventually morphs into terror. Small wonder the pseudo-authorities promoted – if not “commanded” – “working (and studying) from home,” leaving millions of people cloistered in their houses in front of their computer screens (Plato’s cave wall). And banning meetings in public, except for a few concessions as far as the numbers of attendees at certain gatherings were concerned, was just as effective regarding the intensification of terror. Most people would not dare transgress these spatial restrictions, given the effectiveness of the campaign, to instil a dread of the supposedly lethal “novel coronavirus” in populations, exacerbating “total terror” in the process. The images of patients in hospitals, attached to ventilators, and sometimes looking appealingly, desperately at the camera, only served to exacerbate this feeling of dread. With the advent of the much-hyped covid pseudo “vaccines,” another aspect of generating terror among the populace manifested itself in the guise of relentless censorship of all dissenting views and opinions on the “efficacy and safety” of these, as well as on the comparable effectiveness of early treatment of covid by means of proven remedies such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The clear aim of this was to discredit contrarians who raised doubts over the official valorisation of these supposedly miraculous cures for the disease, and to isolate them from the mainstream as “conspiracy theorists.” Arendt’s insight into the indispensable function of space for human movement also casts the WEF’s plans to create “15-minute cities” worldwide in a disturbing new light. These have been described as “open-air concentration camps,” which would eventually become a reality by prohibiting movement outside of these demarcated areas, after an initial period of selling the idea as a way of combating climate change by walking and cycling instead of using carbon-emitting motor cars. The WEF and WHO’s “concern” with climate change as a putative threat to global health offers further justification for these planned variations on prisons for the thinly disguised incarceration of millions of people. The pertinence of Arendt’s thinking on totalitarianism for the present does not end here, though. Just as relevant as the manner in which it cultivates terror is her identification of loneliness and isolation as prerequisites for total domination. She describes isolation – in the political sphere – as “pre-totalitarian.” It is typical of the tyrannical governments of dictators (which are pre-totalitarian), where it functions to prevent citizens from wielding some power by acting together. Loneliness is the counterpart of isolation in the social sphere; the two are not identical, and the one can be the case without the other. One can be isolated or kept apart from others without being lonely; the latter only sets in when one feels abandoned by all other human beings. Terror, Arendt sagely observes, can “rule absolutely” only over people who have been “isolated against each other” (Arendt 1975, pp. 289-290). It therefore stands to reason that, to achieve the triumph of totalitarian rule, those promoting its inception would create the circumstances where individuals feel increasingly isolated as well as lonely. It is superfluous to remind anyone of the systematic inculcation of both of these conditions in the course of the “pandemic” through what has been discussed above, particularly lockdowns, the restriction of social contact at all levels, and through censorship, which – as remarked above – was clearly intended to isolate dissenting individuals. And those who were isolated in this way were often – if not usually – abandoned by their family and friends, with the consequence that loneliness could, and sometimes did, follow. In other words, the tyrannical imposition of covid regulations served the (probably intended) purpose of preparing the ground for totalitarian rule by creating the conditions for isolation and loneliness to become pervasive. How does totalitarian government differ from tyranny and authoritarianism, where one may still discern the figures of the despot, and the sway of some abstract ideal, respectively? Arendt writes that (p. 271-272): If lawfulness is the essence of non-tyrannical government and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of totalitarian domination. Terror is the realisation of the law of movement; its chief aim is to make it possible for the force of nature or of history to race freely through mankind, unhindered by any spontaneous human action. As such, terror seeks to “stabilise” men in order to liberate the forces of nature or history. It is this movement which singles out the foes of mankind against whom terror is let loose, and no free action of either opposition or sympathy can be permitted to interfere with the elimination of the “objective enemy” of History or Nature, of the class or the race. Guilt and innocence become senseless notions; “guilty” is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgement over “inferior races,” over individuals “unfit to live,” over “dying classes and decadent peoples.” Terror executes these judgements, and before its court, all concerned are subjectively innocent: the murdered because they did nothing against the system, and the murderers because they do not really murder but execute a death sentence pronounced by some higher tribunal. The rulers themselves do not claim to be just or wise, but only to execute historical or natural laws; they do not apply [positive] laws, but execute a movement in accordance with its inherent law. Terror is lawfulness, if law is the law of the movement of some suprahuman force, Nature or History. The reference to nature and history as suprahuman forces pertains to what Arendt (p. 269) claims to have been the undergirding beliefs of National Socialism and Communism, respectively, in the laws of nature and of history as being independent, virtually primordial powers in themselves. Hence the justification of terror being inflicted on those who seem to stand in the way of the unfolding of these impersonal forces. When read carefully, the excerpt, above, paints a picture of totalitarian rule as something predicated on the neutralisation of people, as human beings, in society as potential agents or participants in its organisation or the direction in which it develops. The “rulers” are not rulers in the traditional sense; they are merely there to ensure that the suprahuman force in question is left unhindered to unfold as it “should.” It takes no genius to perceive in Arendt’s perspicacious characterisation of totalitarian domination – which she relates to Nazism and Stalinism as its historical embodiments – a kind of template which applies to the emerging totalitarian character of what first manifested itself in 2020 as iatrocracy, under the subterfuge of a global health emergency – something well known to all of us today. Since then other features of this totalitarian movement have emerged, all of which cohere into what may be described, in ideological terms, as “transhumanism.” This, too, fits into Arendt’s account of totalitarianism – not the transhumanist character, as such, of this latest incarnation of the attempt to harness humanity as a whole to a suprahuman power, but its ideological status. Just as the Nazi regime justified its operations by appealing to nature (in the guise of the vaunted superiority of the “Aryan race,” for example), so the group of technocratic globalists driving the (not so) “Great Reset” appeals to the idea of going “beyond humanity” to a supposed superior (non-natural) “species” instantiating a fusion between humans and machines – also anticipated, it seems, by the “singularity” artist called Stelarc. I emphasised “idea” because, as Arendt observes (p. 279-280): An ideology is quite literally what its name indicates: it is the logic of an idea. Its subject matter is history, to which the “idea” is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is, but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same “law” as the logical exposition of its “idea.” Given the nature of an ideology, explicated above, it should be evident how this applies to the transhumanist ideology of the neo-fascist cabal: the idea underpinning the historical process has supposedly always been a kind of transhumanist teleology – allegedly the (previously hidden) telos or goal of all of history has constantly been the attainment of a state of surpassing mere Homo and Gyna sapiens sapiens (the doubly wise human man and woman) and actualising the “transhuman.” Is it at all surprising that they have claimed to have acquired god-like powers? This further explains the unscrupulousness with which the transhumanist globalists can countenance the functioning and debilitating effects of “total terror” as identified by Arendt. “Total terror” here means the pervasive or totalising effects of, for example, installing encompassing systems of impersonal, largely AI-controlled surveillance, and communicating to people – at least initially – that it is for their own safety and security. The psychological consequences, however, amount to a subliminal awareness of the closure of “free space,” which is replaced by a sense of spatial confinement, and of there being “no way out.” Against this backdrop, reflecting on the looming possibility that the WHO may succeed in getting compliant nations to accept the proposed amendments to their health regulations, yields greater insight into the concrete effects this would have. And these aren’t pretty, to say the least. In a nutshell, it means that this unelected organisation would have the authority to proclaim lockdowns and “medical or health emergencies,” as well as mandatory “vaccinations” at the whim of the WHO’s Director-General, reducing the freedom to traverse space freely to ironclad spatial confinement in one fell swoop. This is what “total terror” would mean. It is my fervent hope that something can still be done to avert this imminent nightmare. About the Author Bert Olivier works at the Department of Philosophy, University of the Free State, South Africa. He conducts research in psychoanalysis, poststructuralism, ecological philosophy and the philosophy of technology, literature, cinema, architecture and aesthetics. His current project is ‘Understanding the subject in relation to the hegemony of neoliberalism.’ Featured image: Tedros aims to turn the WHO around, Mail & Guardian, 8 June 2018

So, when you get a book that's banned, that means there's something in there that you need to know. So this book is called "A History Of Central Banking And The Enslavement Of Mankind" by Stephen Goodson. What does Hitler, JFK, Lincoln, Gaddafi, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, and Tsar Nicholas II have in common? They all tried to do State banking and they all got either killed or thrown into a war... In "A History Of Central Banking And The Enslavement Of Mankind" by Stephen Goodson, prepare to delve into the shadowy world of finance and power. Unravel the intricate web spun by central banks, designed to control the global economy and enslave mankind in a cycle of debt and servitude. This book exposes the hidden machinations of these powerful institutions, revealing their sinister role in shaping world events. It's a thrilling journey through the corridors of power, where nothing is as it seems and the truth is often buried deep beneath layers of deception. Get ready for a mind-blowing exposé that will challenge everything you thought you knew about money, power, and the forces that shape our world. Thanks to Peacedozer for narrating/editing/rendering of this video. 00:00:02 Chapter 1 - How Usury Destroyed the Roman Empire 00:15:59 Chapter 2 - The Hidden Origins of the Bank of England 00:46:00 Chapter 3 - Napoléon and the Banque de France 01:02:30 Chapter 4 - A Century of Struggle: (((Rothschild))) versus the People 01:54:50 Chapter 5 - The Great Depression 02:25:25 Chapter 6 - The Rise and Fall of State Banking (1932-1945) 99o02:56:13 Chapter 7 - Modern Forms of State Banking 03:07:45 Chapter 8 - The Banking Crisis Release Date: 2024

https://expose-news.com/2024/04/09/digital-information-bill-could-grant/ Big Brother Watch has been running a campaign called “No Spycoin” to alert the public to the risks of the UK implementing a central bank digital currency (“CBDC”). Last year Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties campaign group fighting for a free future,  published a detailed report examining the impact on citizens of CDBC projects in various countries.  None of the projects passed the test of preserving privacy and prohibiting surveillance. Although the Bank of England and the Government stated in January that no decision has been made to pursue a CBDC, also called a digital pound, in the same announcement it was proclaimed that “work will continue during the design phase exploring its feasibility and potential design choices.”  To do this work, three years ago the Digital Pound Taskforce was created to work on the digital pound and related CBDC policy.  Despite claiming no decision has been made, it seems they are indeed pursuing a CBDC. Meanwhile, a bill is moving through Parliament which could grant the Government extraordinary new financial surveillance powers.  Is it just a coincidence? Seven Key Issues Relating to CBDCs Recently, Big Brother Watch made a short video to explain the serious problems for those who live in the UK with implementing a digital pound. “A UK CBDC would have a major impact on this country,” they said and identified seven key issues. 1. A CBDC is a solution in search of a problem. 2. Privacy intrusion – Generalised surveillance of CBDC transactions would be inevitable given the context of the current legal landscape, particularly counter-terror law, anti-money laundering law and investigatory powers law. 3. Programmable money and financial control – The potential to program the public’s personal finances or welfare payments could lead to financial control, an invasion of privacy, potentially a breach of the right to protection of property and, depending on the limitations set, could pose a serious threat to a range of other fundamental rights – from freedom of expression to freedom of assembly and protection from discrimination. 4. Digital ID, CBDC and discrimination – It is nigh on impossible to issue a UK CBDC without a comprehensive digital identity system. Combining digital identity and CBDCs poses a serious risk of surveillance, security breaches, hacking/identity theft, and discrimination. 5. Data exploitation – The consultation points out that providers can use personal data to “develop marketing activities” and “tailor products and services”. Exploiting personal data in this way would endorse mass surveillance and exploitation of the public’s sensitive personal data, further shrinking the private sphere in a growing digital panopticon. 6. Security risks – A centralised CBDC system would create a huge platform of population data and, as such, become a “critical piece of national infrastructure”. This would provide hostile state and non-state actors with a large target to focus cyberattacks on. Combining digital identity and CBDC poses a serious risk of security breaches and hacking/identity theft and a successful breach could put the entire public at risk. 7.  Undemocratic – The decision to develop a UK CBDC should not be made by the Bank of England and HM Treasury alone – yet the pilot planned for 2025 seems to minimise parliamentary involvement. The Government has now committed to introducing primary legislation with a vote in both Houses of Parliament before launching a digital pound. Big Brother Watch: CBDCs | 7 things you NEED to know, 18 March 2024 (5 mins) Last year, Big Brother Watch published their report ‘CBDC – a privacy-eroding pound? Lessons from international central bank digital currency pilots for the UK’ which explored central bank digital currency (“CBDC”) projects in various countries and their severe impact on privacy, surveillance and financial exclusion. The report analysed CBDC projects in Nigeria, Jamaica, Israel, Uruguay, Sweden, the EU and China and found: None of the CBDC projects investigated in our report have been designed, trialled, or launched in a way which properly preserves privacy. None of the CBDC pilots we looked at have been successful. Many have had a low uptake. CBDCs are not a solution to the complex causes of financial exclusion and can make this problem worse. Further reading: Central Bank Digital Currencies are Spycoins, The Exposé, 16 January 2024 Meanwhile, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is making its way through Parliament which could grant the Government extraordinary new financial surveillance powers. The Bill was introduced to Parliament on 18 July 2022 following the publication of the Government’s response to the ‘Data: a New Direction consultation’.  The consultation was part of the UK’s National Data Strategy. Amendments to the largely under-scrutinised bill were announced in November 2023, giving banks powers to monitor the accounts of private citizens under the premise of searching for fraud and error in the welfare system. Banks would then be compelled to flag people who meet unspecified criteria to the Government. Read more: UK Government Pushes For Financial Surveillance Bill, Big Brother Watch The Bill has been passed by the House of Commons and is at the Committee stage in the House of Lords.  The latest Committee debate held on 27 March 2024 highlighted a particular concern regarding Clause 14 of the Bill titled ‘Automated Decision Making’. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) treats a solely automated decision as one without “meaningful human involvement” and the public is protected from being subject to solely automated decision-making where the decision has a legal or “similarly significant effect.” Clause 14(1) inserts a new Article into the UK GDPR, which allows the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation & Technology to make regulations that deem a decision to have involved “meaningful human involvement,” even if there was no active review by a human decision-maker. The new Article also allows the Secretary of State to add or remove any of the listed safeguards for automated decision-making. Lord Clement Jones, who wants Clause 14 to be deleted from the Bill entirely, said: “If the Government wish to amend or remove safeguards on automated decision-making, that should also be specified in the Bill and not left to delegated legislation.” Delegated legislation, also known as secondary legislation, is a form of law created by ministers or other bodies under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament, also known as primary legislation. Baroness Kidron agreed.  “Clause 14 removes the right not to be subject to an automated decision and replaces that right with inadequate safeguards,” she said. “The fact that the Secretary of State has delegated powers to change the safeguards at will … [means that UK citizens] have lost the right not to be subject to an automated decision.” She said that the Government was knowingly diminishing people’s rights. “The fact that the Government have left some guardrails for special category data is in itself an indication that they know they are downgrading UK data rights,” she said. Baroness Kidron noted there was a “steady drum beat of resistance” against the Government’s plans to change data rights to benefit the commercial interests of technology companies at the expense of children. Baroness Harding gave an example of the risk that automated decision-making poses to employment.  She then highlighted the harm Clause 14 would cause to children. “We know that automated decision-making can do irreparable harm to children,” she said.  “If we are unable to persuade the Government to remove Clause 14, it is essential that the Bill is explicit that the Secretary of State does not have the power to reduce data protection for children.” The Committee agreed on an amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 14 which puts a legislative obligation on public bodies using algorithmic tools that have a significant influence on a decision-making process to publish reports under the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (“ATRS”). The ATRS was launched in November 2021 as part of the National Data Strategy to help public sector organisations provide clear information about the algorithmic tools that they use, how they operate and why they are using them. The Committee also proposed another new clause that puts the onus on public sector actors to ensure safety and prevent harm, rather than waiting for harm to occur and putting the burden on citizens to challenge it. This second new clause imposes a proactive statutory duty to ensure that “automated decision systems … are responsible and minimise harm to individuals and society at large.”  It includes duties to be proportionate, to give effect to people’s human rights and freedoms, and to safeguard democracy and the rule of law. It applies to all “automated decision systems” – to partly automated decisions, as well as those that are entirely automated, and systems in which multiple automated decision processes take place. Although the House of Lords Committee is quite rightly showing concern about the risks automated decision-making poses to employment and children, the concerns are far more reaching and have a far larger impact on all of our daily lives. Unless it has been debated elsewhere, it’s worrying that there seems to be no concern in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords that Clause 14 could be used in conjunction with the surveillance of our financial transactions and bank accounts. The National Data Strategy from which the Bill stems, aims to develop a data economy while “ensuring public trust in data use.”  Allowing automated decision-making and granting the Secretary of State the power to further curtail our rights, particularly in light of the looming implementation of programmable CBDCs, makes it appear as if the Government is not making any effort to gain our trust in their use of our data. On the contrary, we could suspect that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is being moved through Parliament in preparation for a CBDC; despite the Bank of England stating “we haven’t made a decision” on whether a digital pound will be introduced and a “decision of whether to build a digital pound will be made around the middle of the decade at the earliest.”  In other words, they are getting the legislation ready and then, when it is in place, the Government and the Bank of England will announce they have decided to introduce the digital pound.