Armstrong Economics Blog/BRITAIN Re-Posted Dec 20, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
The very fact that Boris Johnson is having parties when people are being thrown in prison for doing the same thing PROVES that this is simply tyranny and has nothing to do with health. If this disease was really that deadly, those in power would not be celebrating behind closed doors. Using a truck with a movie screen is brilliant. They can’t arrest anyone for walking around in protest of what the police themselves realize is an abuse of power and are complicit in the destruction of their own country.
This is a man not fit to lead Britain other than into the arms of tyranny orchestrated by the World Economic Forum.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is deliberately worsening the supply chain crisis by implementing additional power-grab COVID restrictions. Workers in California now must stay home and quarantine for two weeks if they are exposed to COVID. It does not matter if they are vaccinated. It does not matter if they are vaccinated AND test negative. Some workplaces will allow “exposed” employees to return to work earlier, but they must wear a mask and remain six feet away from their coworkers and customers to let the public know they are potentially one of the diseased.
Around 40% of the nation’s imports arrive at California ports. If one worker is exposed to someone who contracted coronavirus, entire businesses could shut down. Social distancing in a warehouse or shipping yard would be nearly impossible, and this law will affect the entire economy by diminishing the ability to import/export. Governor Newsom’s anti-business policies have earned his state the title of having the highest unemployment rate in the country at 7.3%. How many businesses will need to flee the state of California before people stop voting for Newsom?
QUESTION: I found your comment on Pope Francis not being the “Peter the Roman” who is supposed to be the last Pope before the destruction of Rome. As you know, the text of Malachy came to light in 1595, in a book by Benedictine monk Arnold de Wyon. Malachy is said to have experienced a vision of future popes during a trip to Rome in 1139. He wrote down a series of 112 cryptic phrases that described each pope in turn. The text was said to have lain unnoticed in Rome’s archives until Wyon published it.
Pope John Paul II has been attributed to No. 110, “From the labor of the sun,” because he was born on the day of a solar eclipse and was entombed on the day of a solar eclipse as well. Then came Benedict XVI, No. 111, who is supposedly “glory of the olive” because some members of a branch of the monastic order founded by St. Benedict are known as Olivetans.
So that brings us to No. 112: “In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit … Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.” Can Socrates confirm or deny that Pope Francis will be the last Pope? Has it changed it mind given thsat Pope France is clearly in bed with Schwab and the WEF?
Curious
REPLY: I did not factor in prophecies into Socrates, for they are subjective and cannot be definitively used as scientific input. They fall into the category of BELIEF, which I cannot program. That said, many look at the forecasts of Socrates as being independent, and if they happen to line up with religious prophecies or even astrology, they are often used as interesting correlations by some. What is part of the economic cycle is that changes in religions indeed unfold with the model, for they are typically driven by the underlying economic conditions. For example, the persecution of the Christians took place BECAUSE Rome was collapsing and people blamed the Christians for making their gods angry by refusing to worship them.
Nevertheless, the Christians typically misrepresented other religions as paganism, whereas their view of their gods was never the same. They did not see them as their “creator” of the world or humans but more as mischievous super-beings who would torment humankind. For example, you would bring a gift and pray to Poseidon because you were about to sail someplace, and you were asking him for safe passage. He was never seen as anything more than being in charge of the ocean. So you brought him gifts hoping for calm seas.
The closest thing to the idea of one god was Sol Invictus which was a cult promoted from the East by Emperor Aurelian (270-275 AD) because this was when Rome was under siege by the barbarians. It was Aurelian who built the wall around Rome, which still stands today.
The name “Invictus” meant invincible, and it was his feast day, December 25, which eventually became the Christian Christmas. The promotion of Sol was the sun god, and he was invincible because he returned to the sky every day. This was intended to inspire hope and confidence that Rome would survive. Even the statue of Liberty has the same sun rays protruding from her head as was the case of picturing Sol.
Hence, changes in religion have always been linked to economics. There was this cult of Sol combined with Hercules, who was the son of Zeus and defender of humanity against evil. These concepts allowed many to convert to Christianity since it was not so radically different.
In this respect, religion has changed over time with the turning points in the model. Interestingly enough, most religions seem to have this idea of a battle between good and evil, which predates everything back to the Zoroasters, who were the three wise men to visit Jesus at birth. This is really why the visit of the three wise men was so significant, for it was an endorsement from antiquity. Yet most religions also had this idea of the last judgment and some even resurrection like the Egyptians. Among the Greeks, when you died, Zeus did not judge you, but he made a recommendation to the Three Fates who delivered the last judgment, and this is also why a panel in a court of appeals also has three judges.
There has been this common theme with variations throughout most religions. What is clear is that when the economy turns down hard and the end seems inevitable, you find major upheavals in religion throughout history, right down to the schism in both Christianity as well as Islam. To whatever extent our model may align with religion or even astrology, rest assured that neither are input into Socrates to make forecasts. Many have seen correlations, but I believe the driving force is always economic.
What we must understand is that Pope Francis is a Communist at heart. He was influenced by Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara (1909–1999) of the Brazilian Catholic Church, who was a self-proclaimed Marxist. He was the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife between 1964 to 1985. He is not to be confused with Cardinal Jaime de Barros Câmara (1894–1971), who was elevated to the cardinalate in 1946 by Pope Pius XII. From 1962 to 1965, it was Cardinal Câmara attended the Second Vatican Council who was anti-communist and assisted Leo Joseph Suenens in delivering one of the closing messages of the Council delivered on December 8, 1965.
Archbishop Câmara disagreed with the church’s conclusion. He attended all four sessions of the Second Vatican Council and even played a very important role in drafting Gaudium et Spes. However, on November 16, 1965, Archbishop Câmara led 40 bishops who met at night secretly in the Catacombs of Domitilla outside Rome on the Via Appia Antica, which are spread over 17 kilometers underground. They signed a secret document under the title of the Pact of the Catacombs with 13 points that were inspired by Karl Marx. This small group of Marxist priests meeting in secret has been the beginning of an existential threat to our very future. Because South America has been unable to rise above Marxism, it has been part of the Catholic Church in that region to adopt the doctrine of the Pact of the Catacombs despite the fact it was never sanctioned by the Vatican until Pope Francis, who has practiced this distorted doctrine his whole life, for it focuses on material wealth rather than on the spiritual concerns for the soul. Section #10 of that Catacomb Pact reads:
“We will do our utmost so that those responsible for our government and for our public services make, and put into practice, laws, structures and social institutions required by justice and charity, equality and harmonic and holistic development of all men and women, and by this means bring about the advent of another social order, worthy of the sons and daughters of mankind and of God.” Paragraph 10 of the Catacombs Pact
The reason this obscure meeting was so important is that it was, according to Klaus Schwab, this doctrine that changed his life as he says in this next clip.
Indeed, Archbishop Câmara spoke at Davos in 1974. From that time onward, Schwab has been trying to influence world leaders and convince them it is time to adopt Marxism. Note, when Archbishop Câmara addressed the Davos meeting of capitalists, there was a time of economic crisis as well. This was the first major recession which exposed that the idea of Keynesianism proved incorrect. It was Paul Volcker who delivered his famous Rediscovery of the Business Cycle in 1979 stating.
“The Rediscovery of the Business Cycle – is a sign of the times. Not much more than a decade ago, in what now seems a more innocent age, the ‘New Economics’ had become orthodoxy. Its basic tenet, repeated in similar words in speech after speech, in article after article, was described by one of its leaders as ‘the conviction that business cycles were not inevitable, that government policy could and should keep the economy close to a path of steady real growth at a constant target rate of unemployment.”
Câmara, who was apparently the most influential person in Schwab’s life, was an advocate of liberation theology, which is a theory that emphasizing the liberation of the oppressed must be the objective. The foundation is Marxism engaging socio-economic analyses, rather than theology, pushing economic materialism rather than spiritual objectives. It argues for the social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples whereby its core is “inequality” materially claimed to be driven by race or caste rather than ability. Câmara admittedly is famous for saying: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.”
I do not see Pope Francis making it to 2032. I am not sure if Pope Francis is “Peter the Roman.” Still, there is a serious risk that he may bring the Catholic Church to a major tribulation, as they say, because he is really abandoning religion and advocating communism. Interestingly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis on March 13, 2013, when he was named the 266th pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He did not take the name of Peter, and he is not from Italy. His papal title was taken after St. Francis of Assisi of Italy. Becoming Pope on March 13, 2013, was spot on for a 51.6 years wave, beginning with the signing of that secret Pact of the Catacombs.
Therefore, if I look at this from a purely mathematical perspective, 266 divided by 8.6 is 30.9. Consequently, my concern would be for the next pope which would be a derivative of pi. Since the model projects that Schwab will fail, for Marxism is against human nature and even the Ten Commandments, it would not surprise me if there is an upheaval in the church and that the next Pope will be a reaction to the material doctrines of Pope Francis who is fully cooperating with Schwab. I do not see how Pope Francis’ support for the Pact of the Catacombs does not violate everything the church has stood for through the past 265 popes. Ironically, there were 148 emperors/caesars until the fall of Rome, which was 17.2 x 8.6.
Schwab also says in this clip that he was the first to develop stakeholder economics. That is simply not true. That was an idea that surfaced during the Great Depression, which became obsolete when Roosevelt came to office with the New Deal. This idea was that corporations had a duty to society during a period when there were NO social programs whatsoever. From what I can tell, both stakeholder economics and this Great Reset, where you will own nothing and be happy, come from the Pact of the Catacombs. Indeed, Schwab invited Pope Francis to speak at Davos in January 2014, just after he was made pope, displaying he knew they shared the same economic philosophy. The pope talks more about the economy and “inequality” than he does about salvation.
Armstrong Economics Blog/Great Reset Re-Posted Dec 19, 2021 by Martin Armstrong
Sen. Joe Manchin has announced that he won’t support President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better package. The West Virginia Democrat, who has tried negotiating with the White House on the massive social spending bill, has said that he is a no vote on the legislation.
“I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation. I just can’t. I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there,” Manchin said. “This is a no.”
The Build Back Better Act is far more than the president’s signature domestic policy bill or the wish-list of the AOC progressives/communists. While his bill narrowly passed the House last month over the unanimous opposition of Republicans, this near $2 trillion spending spree which is totally uncalled for as some stimulus plan for the economy, includes a number of progressive priorities, such as free preschool, major climate change initiatives and extending the child tax credit. But with that money for free preschool comes federal strings attached as to the theories that will be taught to children too young to understand they are being brainwashed which was precisely the objective of Communism behind the Berlin Wall.
The amount of spending with the combined Infrastructure Bill and this Build Back Better agenda which is fashioned by the World Economic Forum to further Marxism which may yet be called Schwabism is so irresponsible when the economy is NOT in a Great Depression. Not even John Maynard Keynes ever advocated such a spending spree when the economy was not in a Depression. It has been this type of fiscal mismanagement that is bringing down Western Civilization for the AOC progressives hate anyone who creates jobs and thinks the government is the source of all radiance – not the private sector nor the sun as the source of any global warming.
This Build Back Better agenda was floated at Davos in January 2019. It was an agenda sold to world leaders because of the sovereign debt crisis and this spending spree is in preparation of simply defaulting on all government debt. They have the perfect president who is clueless that he is the knife being used to assist the United States to commit suicide with its own Constitution.
Part of this agenda that is being pitched by Schwab that you will own nothing and be happy is a clever ploy to make you think they are wiping out all debt and this is really for you. This agenda is driven by the fact that governments can no longer continue to borrow year after year with no intention of ever repaying. The entire Keynesian Model is collapsing before our eyes.
Thank God for Joe Manchin for he is the only Democrat rejecting this directive coming from Klaus Schwab. The Democrats look at the progressive promises and think that this will buy their votes for 2022. But then what? Do they then create Build Back Better 2.0 for 2024 and increase the spending by $5 trillion? These politicians cannot look past the immediate moment and the personal self-interest. What are they doing to the nation and the future? To hell with the nation!
What about the agenda of indoctrination attached to preschool? Even the Critical Race Theory teaching that white are inherently racists is undermining civilization which is the result of everyone coming together for their mutual benefit. Dividing society by race and religion is to ensure the people will never ban together against the government. This is how tyranny flourishes. They know how to do it for the only history they refer to is how to suppress the people for their own self-interest.
There is nothing they do not twist around for personal agendas. Slavery in the United States began with whites from England being sentenced to indentured servitude for even shoplifting an apple. The Constitution expressly forbids indentured servitude. The English Crown sold you to the highest bidder. Law became profitable to punish people they could then sell for labor to Plantations in America. Ben Franklin objected and said how you England like it if they bagged all the rattlesnakes and shipped them to England? Only when the American Revolution began did England then send their criminal to Australia. Many people who also wanted to get a new life, intentionally committed a minor offense to get free passage to the New World.
The abuse of this WOKE movement is the lack of any historical research. They simply said Jefferson owned slaves to justify removing his statue. But he inherited the slaves and he was the one against slavery and created the political storm by inserting in the Declaration of Independence that “all” men were created equal. They fail to understand that one could not just free his slaves at that point in time for there was no employment or a local Starbucks and they would own no property to even grow their own food. Jefferson was the inspiration behind the whole anti-Slavery movement. When in 1861 Russia abolished serfdom, the people owned nothing. That is what led to the Russian Revolution which first began in 1905.
Thomas Jefferson’s words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson’s views on black Americans and slavery were very clear that he undoubtedly hated slavery and believed that the self-evident truths he had set forth in 1776 ought eventually to doom the institution in the United States.
The majority of states, including New York, were slave states. It was NOT a North v South issue at that time. But the slavery had begun as indentured servitude. To now fault Jefferson simply because he owned slaves in a system that was slave-based to diminish the shortage of labor in a new world, is to ignore the history and a man who was bucking the establishment of his time. Tearing down his statue because of slavery or that of Christopher Columbus who did not create slavery 300 years later only shows the ignorance behind this agenda. Columbus believed he landed in India.
It was Amerigo Vespucci (1451-1512) who America is named after for he is the one who figured out it was a new continent. Yet they tear down statues of Columbus and the day named in his honor October 12, 1492, Biden declared Oct. 11 as Indigenous Peoples’ Day when no Indigenous people were made slaves. European settlers invaded their lands. So to rectify that, all whites should just be deported to where their families came from?
Also ignored was the legal justification for slavery that not merely extended into ancient times, but also explains why the Dutch imported black slaves from Africa when there was an ample supply of Indians in America who could have been less expensive to turn into slaves. A slave was legal as the spoils of war. Rome sold all the inhabitants of Carthage into slavery finally to end their Punic wars with Carthage. The “Slavic” ethnicity of the Balkans means “slave” for they were often the source for slaves from war. Since the American Indians were not the spoils of war, it was legally and religiously forbidden to take them as slaves.
The Dutch were buying the Africans from other Africans who told the Dutch they were the spoils of war to satisfy the legal and religious distinction for a slave. Thus, the Africans were imported as slaves to replace the white trade in criminal labor from England.
In Ancient Times, Africans trained elephants and participated in battles as mercenaries. They would ride the elephants they trained during the Punic Wars. They were not slaves for they were not the spoils of war.
The problem with Critical Race Theory is simply that it ignores history and implies that it is white against all people of color without ever explaining what the American Indians were excluded from slavery. This has set off a serious crisis where they have sought to even teach Critical Race Theory in Britain where the same issues of slavery did not exist. The Critical Race Theory has even emerged on the floor of Parliament.
This entire agenda of Critical Race Theory is dividing the country, which is precisely opposite of what is needed to reduce civil unrest. This is all about retribution for previous generations when history is even distorted. It certainly appears that this is intended to divide the people to prevent a unified uprising against the government as it moves down this path of the Great Reset and Sovereign Debt Default.
Senator Manchin is the ONLY Democrat willing to defend his country against this foreign invasion to transform the world into the dream of Klaus Schwab, who is very much a control freak the very same type of character as Bill Gates.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 21stDecember 20, 2021 | Sundance | 158 Comments
Division has been used as a tool by some of the most dangerous leaders throughout history. One of the more famous examples was “the clean versus unclean” agenda of Germany.
The White House has a message in advance of, and in preparation for, a national address on a new set of federal rules and regulations that will be carried out unilaterally by the Biden administration:
(VIA NBC NEWS) – President Joe Biden will deliver a speech Tuesday to address the omicron variant and unveil new steps the administration is taking to help communities in need of assistance, a White House official told NBC News on Saturday.
Biden is expected to go beyond his already unveiled “winter plan” with additional measures while “issuing a stark warning of what the winter will look like for Americans that choose to remain unvaccinated,” the official said.
The news comes amid a rise in Covid-19 cases and pleas from federal health officials for people to get vaccinated. Aides said the Biden administration is “prepared for the rising case levels” and that Biden intends to explain how his team “will respond to this challenge,” the official said. (read more)
Perhaps there will be new domestic travel restrictions for the unclean (unvaccinated) class of citizens. Perhaps there will be new mandates, or future punishments announced for the employers of those who continue to support the unclean. Perhaps the White House is preparing to announce new cleansing measures to target the unclean.
Regardless of the potential new rules and regulations the U.S. government is prepared to unleash, it is worthwhile to consider now exactly where your line in the sand might be located. Where exactly will you and your family draw the line?
Ten years ago, CTH warned people to think very carefully about their family and specifically think about their physical location. It wasn’t some arbitrary intellectual exercise, moving takes time. Uprooting your entire family away from the comfortable social network and community is no small undertaking. People scoffed when we warned of an open intent to fundamentally change the structure of our united states assembly.
What I am suggesting now, for those who previously might have not been willing to become uncomfortable in the details of those answers, is to get very serious in thinking and talking about exactly what level of intrusion is too much. Only you and your family can make that decision. Where is your line, beyond which you simply will not permit government to cross?
There are no wrong answers, and you do not need to feel pressured to answer that question for anyone except yourself. However, I strongly encourage you to do the thinking, and to do it post haste.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 191 Comments
The apoplectic response to Joe Manchin’s rebuke of Biden’s Build Back Better deal in general, and specifically, their reaction to losing the climate change agenda within it, points toward the original intent of COVID-19 in the first place.
In this tweet, communist stenographer and narrative engineer Sam Stein (Politico/MSNBC) says the quiet part out loud:
Point One – The “Build Back Better” agenda was never about anything except radical climate change legislation. Once you accept that, now admitted, baseline, things start to become much clearer.
Point Two – The “Build Back Better” phrase came from the World Economic Forum and was promoted by a multitude of international leaders and left-wing organizations. That reality then brings up the most important point. To get to “building back better”, you first need to destroy something. That thing they needed to destroy was how the global economic dependency on carbon-based fuel supplies (oil, gas, coal, etc.).
Point Three – In order to destroy the ‘something of that scale’, the energy program for the entire world, something massive is needed to fundamentally change the entire world approach toward energy production. Something is needed to create the crisis that provides the origin for the process to initiate.
Point Four – That triggering mechanism was/is SARS-CoV-2, or what we now call COVID-19 and all variants therein.
There you have it. That’s the summary soup to nuts explanation of why a virus was created, and the subsequent panic pushing to create social structures that would facilitate the global acceptance of an entire new economic system that would be designed around saving the planet.
Through the prism of that motive, all irreconcilable panic-selling from government entities starts to make sense.
You don’t have to be a true believer at the top of the climate change pyramid to see the massive financial opportunities created by an agenda to structurally change the entire foundation of energy use on a global scale.
Factually, I would be surprised if the biggest people within Klaus Schwab’s WEF believed in anything even resembling climate change. However, they would see the opportunity for a massive shift in global wealth, and with that comes a myriad of mechanisms and more opportunities to control it.
As I have repeated on these pages for a decade, everything is downstream from the economics of everything. The love of money and power is at the root of all evil.
Fascism was traditionally defined as an authoritarian government working hand-in-glove with corporations to achieve objectives. A centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, using severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
That system of government didn’t work in the long-term, because the underlying principles of free people reject government authoritarianism. Fascist governments collapsed, and the corporate beneficiaries were nulled and scorned for participating. Then, along came a new approach to achieve the same objective.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was created to use the same fundamental associations of government and corporations. Only this time it was the multinational corporations who organized to tell the government(s) what to do. The WEF was organized for multinational corporations to assemble and tell the various governments how to cooperate with them, in order to be rewarded by them. Corporatism was/is the outcome. The government now doing what the multinationals tell them to do, and in return the multinationals install the compliant politicians
Fascism, the cooperation between government and corporations, is still the underlying premise; the World Economic Forum simply flipped the internal dynamic putting the corporations in charge of handing out the instructions.
What results is a slightly modified definition of fascism:
…A massive multinational corporate conglomerate; telling a centralized autocratic government leader what to do; and using severe economic and social regimentation as a control mechanism; combined with forcible suppression of opposition by both the corporations and government.
Doesn’t that define our current reality, especially in the era of COVID?
The instructions from the multinationals to government would be called “Build Back Better”.
The triggering mechanism to create the crisis (BBB is designed to solve), is called SARS-CoV-2.
The program to control backlash and ensure sheeple compliance from various populations would be called “a vaccine.”
Driving fear of the Rona would be needed and disproportionate to the risk itself. This keeps backlash in line (lockdowns, regulations etc). If any opposition to the agenda begins to mount, the same people pushing the originating narrative then create and push a variant. The variant, real or imagined, is then pushed forward in order to get compliance (acceptance of the BBB objective) back on track.
In my opinion, structurally changing the global economy around the threat of climate change is what this entire Coronavirus mess is all about. They needed the virus to trigger the crisis. The crisis then creates the roadmap to rebuilding all society -on a global level- away from fossil fuels.
Put another way: the motive behind the origin of the Coronavirus is climate change.
.
.
“For the want of a nail the shoe was lost, For the want of a shoe the horse was lost, For the want of a horse the rider was lost, For the want of a rider the battle was lost, For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horseshoe-nail.”
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 32 Comments
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been a thorn in the side of the federal offices of COVID compliance for the entire year. Florida has almost no restrictions on any activity and yet has no negative COVOD impacts. There are 22 to 25 million people living in Florida.
Governor DeSantis’ approach has been to protect the most vulnerable, make treatments and therapeutics readily available, and keep all systems of society and the economy functioning as normal. His approach has been very successful.
In this interview, Governor DeSantis contrasts his experiences leading a massive state through the pandemic, against what he sees as hysteria and nonsensical approaches by some blue states and the federal government. WATCH:
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 119 Comments
It’s easy to forget the previous position of nationally recognized and prominent Democrats regarding vaccine safety and efficacy. However, this short video summary provides examples of where they stood only a few months ago.
Not only did the top national Democrats question the safety of the COVID vaccine, but some also wanted to see the FDA and CDC taken apart so they could not push the vaccine upon American citizens. WATCH:
In order for Democrats to advance their ideological agenda, they will ALWAYS pretend not to know things.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 385 Comments
The people who benefit from the weaponization of a virus to attain ideological political objectives are losing control over the COVID narrative. The over-the-top proclamations of danger from the Omicron variant are their visible reaction. The people who need the control that COVID provides fear losing that control, thus, they need Omicron.
Dr. Francis Collins made several media appearances today, but only one of them is hidden from public view and difficult to find in order to share, the Collin’s appearance on FOX News Sunday. Why is that interview hidden? Because NIH Director Francis Collins was challenged to explain the email he wrote demanding a “quick and devastating takedown” of three renowned scientists whose opinion ran counter to Collins and Fauci lockdown and pro-vaccine agenda.
The critiquing scientists wrote: “We have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of prevailing COVID-19 policies. Continuing current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long term public health.” Collins responded to that criticism by demanding the scientists be targeted.
I cannot provide the video, but if you find it – watch it for his physical discomfort. However, I can share the transcript: UPDATE: Found it, see below
COLLINS: […] How did we get all of this so mixed up with social media, misinformation, and political insertion into the discussion? This is the thing for me on my last day as NIH director that I find particularly frustrating.
Fox News' Bret Baier asked Dr. Francis Collins about his email calling the Great Barrington Declaration authors (@DrJBhattacharya, @MartinKulldorff) "fringe epidemiologists."
Collins: "Hundreds of thousands of people would have died if we had followed that strategy."
BAIER: Yes. Dr. Collins, we always hear follow the science and, you know, science is observation, description, experimentation and explanation, but it seems that a lot of health policymakers have been trying to silence opposing views.
In a newly released set of emails received from Freedom of Information Act between you and Dr. Fauci in October 2020, you reference the Great Barrington Declaration, that was a group of epidemiologists and public health scientists who wrote, quote, “We have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of prevailing COVID-19 policies. Continuing current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long term public health.“
In this email to Dr. Fauci and Cliff Lane at NAH, you write, quote, “Hi Tony and Cliff, see” — and you connected the Great Barrington Declaration link. “This proposal from three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention — and even a co-signature from a Nobel Prize winner Michael Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating public takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet. Is it underway? Francis.”
Did you write that?
COLLINS: I did write that, and I will stand by that. Let me explain. What was being proposed there was basically saying, let’s not worry about mitigation, let’s just let this virus rip. This is, of course, before we had vaccines and, basically, these — I will call them fringe epidemiologists who really did not have the credentials to be making such a grand sweeping statement — were saying, just let the virus run through the population and eventually then everybody will have had it and we’ll be OK. Hundreds of thousands of people would have died if we had followed that strategy, so I’m sorry, I was opposed to that, I still am and I am not going to apologize for it. There are times when people make crazy proposals on the basis of pseudoscience, and that needs to be called out.
BAIER: Right. But I guess it just follows this track with the early days downplaying or try to discredit the lab leak theory from Wuhan, why spend the time doing that when we’re talking about observation, description, extermination, and explanation? I mean, now it seems like the lab leak is a real possibility.
COLLINS: Well, Bret, I’m really sorry that the lab leak has become such a distraction for so many people, because, frankly, we still don’t know. There is no evidence really to say. Most of the scientific community, myself included, think that is a possibility but far more likely this was a natural way in which a virus left a bat, maybe traveled through some other species and got to humans, and there was no lab leak involved. We won’t know until — unless China decides to open up about this, which they have not done, and shame on them for that.
Francis Collins is making a strawman argument as to the justification for his political demand to undermine scientific opposition. The three scientists were not advocating to put vulnerable people at risk, or letting the virus just run through the population. They were arguing the severity of the NIH and CDC response. The lockdowns and mitigation effort, was disproportionate to the risk the virus presented.
The scale of overreaction -not only in the email- from the medical and scientific establishment to any counter opinion or criticism only points out how those who made these decisions were/are incapable of accepting criticism. That is a dangerous personality trait.
Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins are thin-skinned, unstable ideologues with visions of grandiosity. They have wreaked havoc on our nation and permeated a major crisis on the global stage. These are not mentally or emotionally stable people, and it shows.
These are people who needed a career operating in government systems and institutions, because they could never be successful in the private sector. They are devoid of skills needed outside academia and institutional structure. These are very disturbed minds who have allowed their power to influence their narcissistic self-image.
History will not look well upon Collins or Fauci any more than history reflects well upon Josef Mengele.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house December 19, 2021 | Sundance | 184 Comments
Within the U.K., Neil Oliver has surfaced as a reasonable and articulate voice for the average person, amid a nation of political leaders that seemingly have lost their ability to think rationally about COVID-19. Indeed, we have watched Oliver speak eloquently to a rapidly growing audience thirsting for truth, amid a storm of widespread overreaction to COVID from U.K. government officials.
However, in the U.K. overall, there are few outlets for people to hear from any voice that runs counter to the government narrative.
Like Australia, the controls by British government over approved speech and appropriate discussion create heavy pressure upon media outlets who must obey rules and regulations that do not permit dissent on issues deemed ‘in the public health.’
As a result, this interview between Neil Oliver and Dr. Robert Malone is somewhat groundbreaking in how the GB News outlet is willing to broadcast a discussion that is generally forbidden by those who retain their tenuous grip on power through fear and intimidation. Hopefully, this interview represents the first crack in the darkness for the British people, as they are exposed to professional medical opinion that runs counter to the government narrative for the first time.
Doctor Malone specifically states, in this interview, that children should not be vaccinated based on the risk/benefit analysis. Additionally, Malone now states he is coming to the conclusion that COVID vaccines are no good foranybody any longer. For a U.K. broadcast this is a very controversial statement.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 