While it may be hard to believe, the evidence suggests the COVID-19 pandemic is anything but accidental. As I will review in this chapter, simulations done a mere 10 weeks before the outbreak were eerily identical to the events that have played out in the real world. At the same time, technocrats around the globe were quick to use the pandemic as justification for rolling out plans that have been decades in the making behind the scenes.
(Please enjoy this excerpt from the book and consider supporting the Authors)
While it’s difficult to identify who the technocratic elite are, experts like Patrick Wood, an economist, financial analyst, and American constitutionalist who has devoted a lifetime to researching and understanding technocracy, suggest we look at private, global organizations that play a leading role in shaping our global economies and social and environmental movements.
While technocracy used to be an actual private club, the technocrats of today do not necessarily have membership cards. Key players, however, are the members of the Trilateral Commission. Well-known names in the US Trilateral group include Henry Kissinger, Michael Bloomberg, and Google heavyweights Eric Schmidt and Susan Molinari, the company’s vice president for public policy. Other groups to look at include:
The Club of Rome.
The Aspen Institute, which has groomed and mentored executives from around the world about the subtleties of globalization. Many of its board members are also members of the Trilateral Commission.
The Atlantic Institute.
The Brookings Institution and other think tanks.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the medical branch of the UN, also plays a central role in the technocratic plan, as does the World Economic Forum (WEF), which serves as the social and economic branch of the UN and is the organization that hosts the annual conference of billionaires at Davos, Switzerland. The World Economic Forum was founded by Klaus Schwab, who also wrote the books The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018), and COVID-19: The Great Reset.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation became the WHO’s largest funder when the US government, in mid-April 2020, halted funding until a White House review of the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic could be completed.1 Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a partnership between Gates and Big Pharma with a stated aim of solving global health problems through vaccines, is also a top donor to the WHO and one of the primary initiatives of the WEF.2 The way Klaus Schwab describes Gavi says a great deal: “In many ways [Gavi] is a role model for how the public and private sector can and should cooperate—working in a much more efficient way than governments alone or business alone or civil society alone.”3
It may sound appealing, until you realize that they are working efficiently to strip us of our liberties.
The World Economic Forum is a conglomeration of the world’s largest and most powerful businesses, all of which are helping to further the technocratic agenda along. They include Microsoft, which made Bill Gates a billionaire; MasterCard, which is leading the globalist charge to develop digital IDs and banking services; Google, the number-one Big Data collector in the world and a leader in AI services; as well as foundations started by the world’s wealthiest people, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.4
When you peek behind the curtain at the WEF and the WHO, you find all the same wealthy individuals and their companies and foundations who, although they claim to be working for a more equitable society and healthier planet, are really only trying to centralize profit and power.
Many of the terms we’ve heard more and more of in recent years also refer to technocracy under a different name. Examples include sustainable development, Agenda 21, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, green economy, the green new deal, and the global warming movement in general. They all refer to and are part of technocracy and resource-based economics. Other terms that are synonymous with technocracy include the Great Reset,5 the Fourth Industrial Revolution,6 and the slogan Build Back Better.7 The Paris Climate Agreement is also part and parcel of the technocratic agenda.
The common goal of the Great Reset and of all these movements and agendas is to capture all of the resources of the world—the ownership of them—for a small global elite group that has the know-how to program the computer systems that will ultimately dictate the lives of everyone. It’s really the ultimate form of totalitarianism. When they talk about “wealth redistribution,” what they’re actually referring to is the redistribution of resources from us to them. A glimpse into this future was offered in a November 2016 Forbes article written by Ida Auken from the World Economic Forum leadership strategy team. It reads, in part:
Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city—or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes … Everything you considered a product, has now become a service … In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there … Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me. All in all, it is a good life.8
If you rent everything and have no private property of your own, then who does own all of those things? The technocratic elite who own all the energy resources. Disturbingly enough, one form of energy resource that modern technocrats apparently intend to harvest, if patents are any indication, is the human body. As just one example, Microsoft’s international patent WO/2020/060606 describes a “cryptocurrency system using body activity data.”9 This patent, if implemented, would essentially turn human beings into robots. People will be brought down to the level of mindless drones, spending their days carrying out tasks automatically handed out by, say, a cellphone app, in return for a cryptocurrency “award.”
The Public Face of Technocracy: Bill Gates
Once you become familiar with the technocratic agenda, you can start to recognize the players rather easily. One of the most obvious ones is Bill Gates. Almost everything he does furthers the technocratic agenda.
Gates, who cofounded Microsoft in 1975, is perhaps one of the most dangerous philanthropists in modern history, having poured billions of dollars into global health initiatives that stand on shaky scientific and moral ground—including the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gates’s answers to the problems of the world are consistently focused on building corporate profits through highly toxic methods, be they chemical agriculture and GMOs, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Rarely, if ever, do we find Gates promoting clean living or inexpensive holistic health strategies, and we’ve certainly seen that during this pandemic. Vaccines and various surveillance technologies have been his go-to answers throughout, and these are the very industries he has vested interests in.
Gates Donates Billions to Private Companies
A March 17, 2020, article in The Nation titled “Bill Gates’ Charity Paradox” details “the moral hazards surrounding the Gates Foundation’s $50 billion charitable enterprise, whose sprawling activities over the last two decades have been subject to remarkably little government oversight or public scrutiny.”
As noted in this article, Gates discovered an easy way to gain political power —“one that allows unelected billionaires to shape public policy”—namely charity. Gates has described his charity strategy as “catalytic philanthropy,” in which the “tools of capitalism” are leveraged to benefit the poor.
The only problem is that the true beneficiaries of Gates’s philanthropic endeavors tend to be those who are already rich beyond comprehension, including Gates’s own charitable foundation. The poor, on the other hand, end up with costly solutions like patented GMO seeds and vaccines that in some instances have done far more harm than good.
In addition to donations given to nonprofit organizations, Gates also donates to for-profit, private companies. According to The Nation, the Gates Foundation has given close to $250 million in charitable grants to companies in which the foundation holds corporate stocks and bonds.10 In other words, the Gates Foundation is giving money to companies from which it will benefit financially in return for its “donations.” As a result, the more money Gates and his foundation give, the more their wealth grows. Part of this growth in wealth also appears to be due to the tax breaks given for charitable donations. In short, it’s a perfect money-shuffling scheme that allows him to evade taxes while maximizing income generation.
Gates’s “philanthropy” has certainly played a central role in the COVID-19 pandemic, and here, too, he is benefiting handsomely—again, by investing in the industries he’s giving charitable donations to, and by promoting a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he’s invested in.
Virtually every aspect of the pandemic involves organizations, groups, and individuals funded by Gates. This includes the World Health Organization, of course, but also the two research groups responsible for shaping the decisions to lock down the U.K. and US—the Imperial College COVID-19 Research Team and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
Neil Ferguson, a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College London, has produced a string of pandemic predictions that have turned out to be spectacularly incorrect, including his 2005 forecast that 200 million people would die from bird flu.11 Meanwhile, in the real world, the final death toll ended up being just 282, worldwide, between 2003 and 2009.12
In 2020 Ferguson’s Imperial College model for COVID-19—relied on by governments around the world—led to the most draconian pandemic response measures in modern history.13 It predicted the U.K. would be looking at a death toll of more than 500,000, and the US some 2.2 million, if no action was taken. This is precisely the kind of convenient disinformation and gross overestimation of risk that Gates needs and relies on to drive his own vaccine and tech agendas forward.
That Gates’s philanthropic endeavors protect his own investments can also be seen in his pro-patent stance. James Love, director of the nonprofit Knowledge Ecology International, pointed out to The Nation that Gates “… uses his philanthropy to advance a pro-patent agenda on pharmaceutical drugs, even in countries that are really poor … He’s undermining a lot of things that are really necessary to make drugs affordable … He gives so much money to [fight] poverty, and yet he’s the biggest obstacle on a lot of reforms.”14
Gates is a staunch and longtime defender of the drug industry, and his intent to further the pharmaceutical agenda can clearly be seen in the current COVID-19 pandemic. From the very beginning, Gates was out in front saying that nothing will go back to normal until or unless the entire global population gets vaccinated and countries implement tracking and tracing technologies and “vaccine passports.” At the same time, he’s pouring money into digital ID projects and cashless society plans. Ultimately, all of these things will be connected, forming a “digital prison” in which the technocratic elite will have complete control over the global population.
Buying Favorable Press
While Gates has faced public backlash a number of times in his career, especially when he was CEO of Microsoft in the 1990s, he’s become increasingly insulated from negative reviews, thanks to the fact that he also funds journalism and major media corporations.
In an August 21, 2020, article in Columbia Journalism Review, Tim Schwab highlights the connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a number of newsrooms, including NPR. These outlets routinely publish news favorable to Gates and the projects he funds and supports. Not surprisingly, experts quoted in such stories are almost always connected to the Gates Foundation as well.
Schwab examined the recipients of nearly 20,000 Gates Foundation grants, finding that more than $250 million had been given to major media companies, including BBC, NBC, Al Jazeera, ProPublica, National Journal, the Guardian, Univision, Medium, the Financial Times, The Atlantic, the Texas Tribune, Gannett, Washington Monthly, Le Monde, PBS NewsHour, and the Center for Investigative Reporting. (The time frame of those grants is unfortunately unclear.)
The Gates Foundation has also given grants to charitable organizations that in turn are affiliated with news outlets, such as BBC Media Action and the New York Times’s Neediest Cases Fund.
Journalistic organizations such as the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, the National Press Foundation, the International Center for Journalists, the Solutions Journalism Network, and the Poynter Institute for Media Studies have also received grants from the Gates Foundation.
Ironically, “The foundation even helped fund a 2016 report from the American Press Institute that was used to develop guidelines on how newsrooms can maintain editorial independence from philanthropic funders,” Schwab writes.
The Gates Foundation has also participated in dozens of media conferences, including the Perugia Journalism Festival, the Global Editors Summit and the World Conference of Science Journalists, and has an unknown number of undisclosed contracts with media companies to produce sponsored content.
Upon scrutiny, it becomes abundantly obvious that when Gates hands out grants to journalism, it’s not an unconditional handout with which these companies can do whatever they see fit. It comes with significant strings, and really amounts to little more than the purchasing of stealth self-promotions that are essentially undisclosed ads.
Another recipient of grants from the Gates Foundation is the Leo Burnett Company, an advertising agency that creates news content and works with journalists, and which you will see come into further play later in this chapter.
Event 201—Dress Rehearsal for COVID-19
There’s a lot of evidence pointing to COVID-19 being a planned event that is now being milked for all it’s worth, even though it didn’t turn out to be nearly as lethal as initially predicted. In October 2019, just 10 weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak first began in Wuhan, China, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation co-hosted a pandemic preparedness simulation of a “novel coronavirus,” known as Event 201, along with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum.
This scripted tabletop included everything that has since played out in the real world, from PPE shortages, lockdowns, censorship, and removal of civil liberties to mandated vaccination campaigns, riots, economic turmoil, and the breakdown of social cohesion.
Just as in real life, “misinformation” they said would need to be countered included rumors that the virus had been created and released from a bioweapons laboratory and questions surrounding the safety of fast-tracked vaccines.
Johns Hopkins University may seem like a reputable institution, but consider that it was started by the Rockefeller Foundation, and that researchers from the Rockefeller Foundation and Johns Hopkins University were behind the infamous and cruel experiments on 600 Black sharecroppers in Tuskegee, Alabama—who were injected by researchers with syphilis without their consent and then were never given actual treatment, only placebos, even as they infected their wives and children.
Rockefeller Foundation and Johns Hopkins researchers were also involved in the horrific Guatemala experiments that occurred between 1946 and 1948, when 5,000 vulnerable Guatemalans, including prostitutes, orphans, and the mentally ill, were barbarically infected with bacteria containing multiple sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis and gonorrhea.15
Bradley Stoner, MD, past president of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association, described the Guatemala experiments as “something right out of Dr. Mengele’s notebook”—a reference to the experiments Jews endured at the hands of the Nazis during the Second World War.16 Together, the Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and Johns Hopkins University form what appears to be a technocratic triad, whose pandemic simulation was more of a dress rehearsal than anything.
Event 201 Predicted “Need” for Censorship
Event 201 planners spent a great deal of time discussing ways to limit and counter the spread of expected “misinformation” about the pandemic and subsequent vaccines. In addition to outright censoring certain views, Event 201 introduced a plan that included the use of “soft power,” a term referring to stealth influencing. This strategy uses celebrities and other social media influencers to model ideal behavior and promote adherence to pandemic response edicts.
Take for example Tom Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson, both of whom reportedly tested positive for COVID-19 early on in the pandemic. They dutifully modeled the desired behavior—getting tested, self-quarantining, and submitting to continued observation for as long as necessary to ensure they didn’t spread it to anyone else—and shared their every step on social media and in traditional media outlets. That’s one example of soft power.
Celebrities also put on a virtual “One World Together at Home” benefit concert to raise money for the WHO and rally citizens of the world around the idea that we can get through this if we all just follow instructions and stay home. In May 2020 celebrities and social media influencers agreed to “pass the mic” by allowing the WHO and other pandemic response leaders, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, to use their social media accounts to share their messages.
If you thought all of these things occurred more or less organically, you’d be wrong. Daily Caller spilled the beans in the July 17, 2020, article “World Health Organization Hired PR Firm to Identify Celebrity ‘Influencers’ to Amplify Virus Messaging.”17 According to Daily Caller:
The World Health Organization hired a high-powered public relations firm to seek out so-called influencers to help build trust in the organization’s coronavirus response.
WHO paid $135,000 to the firm Hill and Knowlton Strategies, according to documents filed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.… The contract earmarked $30,000 for “influencer identification,” $65,000 for “message testing,” and $40,000 for a “campaign plan framework.”18
Hill and Knowlton … proposed identifying three tiers of influencers: celebrities with large social media followings, individuals with smaller but more engaged followings, and “hidden heroes,” those users with slight followings but who “nevertheless shape and guide conversations.”
The WHO isn’t the only organization trying to control the narrative, of course. Many other organizations are involved, all working toward the same end. The United Nations, for example, enlisted 10,000 “digital volunteers” to rid the internet of what they consider “false” information about COVID-19 and to disseminate what they say is “U.N.-verified, science-based content.”
The campaign, dubbed the Verified initiative,19 amounts to an army of internet trolls engaging in censorship in an attempt to shut down opposition and opinions that run counter to the status quo.
Who’s in Charge of Determining What Is True?
The UN’s Verified campaign is reminiscent of another self-appointed internet watchdog, NewsGuard, which claims to rate information as “reliable” or “fake” news, supplying you with an authoritative color-coded rating badge next to Google and Bing searches, as well as on articles displayed on social media.
If you rely on NewsGuard’s ratings, you may decide to entirely skip articles from sources with a low red rating in favor of the so-called more trustworthy green-rated articles—and therein lies the problem. NewsGuard is in itself fraught with conflict of interest, as it’s largely funded by Publicis, a global communications giant that’s partnered with Big Pharma and WEF, such that it may be viewed more as a censorship tool than an internet watchdog.20
What’s more, the Leo Burnett Company, also owned by Publicis, is a recipient of grants from none other than the Gates Foundation. On top of that, NewsGuard and Microsoft—the tech company founded by Gates—are also partners.21
For example, NewsGuard announced that Mercola.com has been classified as fake news because we have reported the SARS-CoV-2 virus as potentially having been leaked from the biosafety level 4 (BSL 4) laboratory in Wuhan City, China, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. NewsGuard’s position is in direct conflict with published scientific evidence suggesting that this virus was created in a lab and not zoonotically transmitted.
Using the Pandemic to Further the Tyrannical Loss of Liberty
Can you start to see the picture of a larger agenda forming?
For decades, the threat of conflict and the fear of attacks have provided the justification needed for war and military occupations as well as the chipping away of our civil liberties. The Patriot Act, rammed through in the aftermath of 9/11, is just one egregious example.
The hysteria whipped up around 9/11 and the anthrax attacks created the conditions for the passage of the Patriot Act—a 342-page document that was clearly already written, not composed in just two weeks after the attack22—which changed 15 existing laws and allowed the TSA to legally record anyone’s phone calls. This was all under the guise of protecting “freedom,” when in reality it was one of the biggest steps toward the loss of civil liberties in the history of the US.
The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress while, ominously, two congressmen who opposed it—Senator Tom Daschle from South Dakota and Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont—had letters with weaponized, military- grade anthrax mailed to their offices.
We can now point to the passage of the Patriot Act as the technocratic elite’s first step toward taking away many of our constitutional rights and personal freedoms and laying down the foundation for a modern surveillance/police state. From the ACLU:
Hastily passed 45 days after 9/11 in the name of national security, the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.23
In short, the Patriot Act normalized invasive surveillance and the removal of privacy rights. Today, pandemics and the threat of infectious outbreaks and bioterrorism are the new tools of war and social control. For the authors of this book, the manipulations and fearmongering that pave the way for a surveillance state are far more dangerous and insidious than the viral infection itself. The global technocratic elite are making George Orwell’s book 1984 a reality. Between the Patriot Act and pandemic measures, the groundwork has been laid for the Great Reset.
For over a decade, Gates also prepared the global psyche for a new enemy: deadly, invisible viruses that can crop up at any time.24 And according to Gates, the only way to protect ourselves is by giving up “old-fashioned” notions of privacy, liberty, and personal decision making.
Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to maintain our physical distance from others, including family members. We are told to wear masks, even in our own homes and during sex. Small businesses have been forced to close, many of which have gone bankrupt as a result. Office workers are told to work from home. We’re told we have to vaccinate the entire global population and enforce stringent travel restrictions to prevent spread. (See chapter 8 for information on the coronavirus vaccine.) We are being tracked and traced every moment of the day and night, and there are plans to implant biometric readers into everyone’s bodies to identify who the potential risk-carriers are. Infected people are the new threat, the new invisible enemy. This is what the technocratic elite (see the “Technocracy Defined” sidebar, page 45, for a breakdown of this term), spearheaded by Gates, want you to believe, and it’s really surprising how, in a matter of months, they’ve been able to convince most of the population of this.
But the technocratic agenda currently playing out was most certainly in place long before the pandemic began. In 2017, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which was founded by the Gates Foundation in partnership with the WHO, the World Bank, and various vaccine manufacturers, decided to provide every child with a digital biometric identity that would store his or her vaccination records.
Shortly thereafter, Gavi became a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, alongside Microsoft and the Rockefeller Foundation. In 2019 Gates collaborated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Robert Langer to develop a novel vaccine delivery method using fluorescent microdot tags—essentially creating an invisible “tattoo” that can then be read with a modified smartphone.
As investigative journalist James Corbett points out in his Corbett Report segment titled “Bill Gates and the Population Control Grid”:25
It should be no surprise, then, that Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers—in their scramble to produce the coronavirus vaccine that, Gates assures us, is necessary to “go back to normal”—have turned to a novel vaccine delivery method: a dissolvable microneedle array patch … As in so many other aspects of the unfolding crisis, Gates’ unscientific pronouncement that we will need digital certificates to prove our immunity in the “new normal” of the post-coronavirus world is now being implemented by a number of governments.
In his coverage of Bill Gates, Corbett also reviews the rapid development and implementation of biometric identification programs tied in with digital currencies. Undoubtedly, the plan is to connect everything together—your identification, your personal finances, and your medical and vaccination records. Most likely, it will also be embedded on your body, for your own “convenience,” so you cannot lose it. Never mind the fact that everything that can be hacked at some point has been or will be. On top of that, Western nations can expect the rollout of a social credit system similar to that in China. In December 2020 the International Monetary Fund presented a plan to tie people’s credit scores to their internet search histories.26
As noted by Corbett:
The ID control grid is an essential part of the digitization of the economy … And although this is being sold as an opportunity for “financial inclusion” of the world’s poorest in the banking system provided by the likes of Gates and his banking and business associates, it is in fact a system for financial exclusion. Exclusion of any person or transaction that does not have the approval of the government or the payment providers …
The different parts of this population control grid fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The vaccination drive ties into the biometric identity drive which ties into the cashless society drive.
In Gates’ vision, everyone will receive the government-mandated vaccinations, and everyone will have their biometric details recorded in nationally administered, globally integrated digital IDs. These digital identities will be tied to all of our actions and transactions, and, if and when they are deemed illegal, they will simply be shut off by the government—or even the payment providers themselves.
Indeed, if you think online censorship is bad, consider a world in which your online activity is tied to your biometric chip with all your finances and personal data. What easier way to silence people than to block access to their own money? We’re sure there are many other ways in which such a system could be used to control any and all individuals.
Only the most willfully obtuse could claim to be unable to see the nightmarish implications for this type of all-seeing, all-pervasive society, where every transaction and every movement of every citizen is monitored, analyzed, and databased in real-time by the government … And Bill Gates is one of those willfully obtuse people. This Gates-driven agenda is not about money. It is about control. Control over every aspect of our daily lives, from where we go, to who we meet, to what we buy and what we do.
Facebook: A Tool for Social Control
The backbone and infrastructure of technocracy is technology. Stunning capacities to surveil, analyze, and manipulate our behavior already exist—and the power of technology is advancing at an exponential rate.
Back in March 2020, when the pandemic first began, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy began assembling a task force of tech and artificial intelligence companies to “develop new text and data-mining techniques that could help the science community answer high-priority scientific questions related to COVID-19,” according to CNBC.27 Not surprisingly, the 60 companies included Facebook, which currently creates and shares “disease-prevention maps” derived from aggregated user data with the government, researchers, and nonprofits.
This chapter is about the technocratic elite and their technocratic agenda, which is being pushed through via manipulation of the pandemic. But what exactly is technocracy? The work of Patrick Wood has helped us as we’ve sought to understand the foundational cause of the problem at hand.
If you are interested in taking a deeper dive into technocracy, we recommend his books Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order.
In summary, technocracy is a resource-based economic system that began in the 1930s during the height of the Great Depression, when scientists and engineers got together to solve the nation’s economic problems. It looked like capitalism and free enterprise were failing, so they decided to invent a new economic system from scratch. They called this system technocracy.
Rather than being based on pricing mechanisms such as supply and demand, technocracy is based on resource allocation and social engineering through technology. Under this system, companies would be told what resources they’re allowed to use, when, and for what, and consumers would be told what to buy.
Artificial intelligence (AI), digital surveillance, and Big Data collection play very important roles, as does the digitization of industries and government, such as banking and health care. Together these technologies allow for the automation of social engineering and social rule, thereby doing away with the need for elected government leaders. Nations are to be led by unelected leaders who own all the world’s resources and decide what is to become of them.
Technocrats have silently and relentlessly pushed this agenda forward for decades, and it’s now becoming increasingly visible, with world leaders openly calling for a global “reset” of the economy and how we live in general.
The only reason technocracy has not yet been able to completely overtake the US—although, as you’re now seeing, they’re getting incredibly close—is because of the US Constitution. This is why we must fight to protect our Constitution at all costs, through grassroots movements and getting involved in local politics.
When people use Facebook apps on their phones, maps are generated, though the information is not shared with the general public.28 Facebook says the maps, generated by a project called Data for Good:29
… are designed to help public health organizations close gaps in understanding where people live, how people are moving, and the state of their cellular connectivity, in order to improve the effectiveness of health campaigns and epidemic response.
These datasets, when combined with epidemiological information from health systems, assist nonprofits in reaching vulnerable communities more effectively and in better understanding the pathways of disease outbreaks that are spread by human-to-human contact.
Despite assurances of anonymity and no plan to track individuals, enlisting Big Tech companies to work directly with the government is concerning when it comes to preserving your privacy. Who can forget the 2018 scandal in which Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm, gained access to private information on more than 50 million Facebook users?30
Though Facebook says its data is anonymized, only shows general trends, and is not used to track individuals, the task force plans would enlarge Facebook’s role in providing data to the government. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said privacy concerns around tracking fears are “overblown.” Moreover, while some tech companies already share aggregated data generated by users, Wired notes that “… it would be new for Google and Facebook to openly mine user movements on this scale for the government. The data collected would show patterns of user movements. It would need to be cross-referenced with data on testing and diagnoses to show how behavior is affecting the spread of the virus.”
Caroline Buckee, associate professor at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, told Wired that though aggregated, anonymized location data is already available from Google, Facebook, Uber, and phone companies, the worry is that the collected data will be reverse-engineered to track people.
Privacy suspicions do not just stem from the Cambridge Analytica scandal. During the Washington State COVID-19 outbreak, Facebook data were fed into models produced by the Institute for Disease Modeling in Bellevue, which collaborates with, shocker, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other groups.
Forbes reported that Gates called for a “national tracking system similar to South Korea … to understand where the disease is and whether we need to strengthen the social distancing” in response to the COVID-19 epidemic.31
Gates responded to a question during a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” session by saying: “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered, or been tested recently, or, when we have a vaccine who has received it.”32
“Digital certificates” … are you seeing the puzzle and picture coming more and more together now? You can be assured that virtually everything you do and say online is mined and manipulated by the social media companies.
We operate under their control; we separate into tribes, fight with one another, and live in fear, and this is a highly effective way to ensure control. Social media, tracking devices, 5G, satellites, artificial intelligence … even though it sounds like a dystopian science-fiction novel, it’s becoming painfully obvious that we are far along in following the plots of futuristic movies like Terminator and The Matrix. We’re watching it happen in real time.
The Great Reset
By now, you’ve probably started hearing world leaders speak of “the Great Reset,” “the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” and the call to “Build Back Better.” As mentioned earlier, all of these terms refer to the new social contract planned for the world, which is just a new term for the New World Order.
“The Great Reset” was introduced in mid-2020 by the World Economic Forum. Yes, that World Economic Forum—the organization that partnered with Gates to host Event 201.
The leaders of the WEF, the WHO, the UN, and their partner organizations have had this idea for a long, long time. A conglomeration of the world’s largest and most powerful businesses has been working toward the Great Reset, which ultimately boils down to the greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world. It’s a long-term plan to disempower and disenfranchise all but the wealthiest by monitoring and controlling the world through technical surveillance. While a world war would have been ideal, President Trump’s peace efforts appear to have put a damper on that strategy, resulting in the pandemic being used as the justification for a reset instead.
As the WEF clearly points out, after the Great Reset is implemented, you won’t own anything. What they don’t tell you is that the partners at the WEF will own everything instead, and that your willingness to follow their rules will be directly tied to how many provisions you are allotted.33
Ultimately, the technocratic agenda seeks to integrate humankind into a technological surveillance apparatus overseen by powerful artificial intelligence. Ironically, while the real plan is to usher in a tech-driven dystopia free of democratic controls, they speak of this plan as a way to bring us back into harmony with nature.
According to the World Economic Forum, the Great Reset “will address the need for a more fair, sustainable and resilient future, and a new social contract centered on human dignity, social justice and where societal progress does not fall behind economic development.”34
They’re using feel-good terms like sustainability, social justice, food justice, climate-smart agriculture, and poverty reduction. And that’s on purpose: They know people want these things, so they’re saying that’s what their plan offers. The price, however, is your personal liberty. In his report, investigative journalist James Corbett summarizes the Great Reset thus: “At base, the Great Reset is nothing more, and nothing less, than a great propaganda, marketing rollout campaign for a new brand that the would-be global elite are trying to shove down the public’s throats … It’s just a fresh coat of lipstick on a very old pig. This is The New World Order, just redefined. It’s just a new label for it.”
And as explained by Corbett, for those who forgot about what the New World Order was all about, it was all about “centralization of control into fewer hands, globalization [and] transformation of society through Orwellian surveillance technologies.” In other words, it’s technocracy, where we the people know nothing about the ruling elite while every aspect of our lives is surveilled, tracked, and manipulated for their gain. Far from being the end of globalization, the Great Reset is globalization turbocharged. The plan is not to “reset” the world back to some earlier state that will allow us all to start over with a cleaner environment and more equitable social structures. No, the plan is to circumvent democracy and shift global governance into the hands of the few.
As noted by Klaus Schwab in his book, COVID-19: The Great Reset:35
When confronted with it, some industry leaders and senior executives may be tempted to equate reset with restart, hoping to go back to the old normal and restore what worked in the past: traditions, tested procedures and familiar ways of doing things—in short, a return to business as usual. This won’t happen because it can’t happen. For the most part, “business as usual” died from (or at the very least was infected by) COVID-19.
Build Back Better
To be sure, the pandemic has caused widespread economic devastation. So don’t we need to “build back better?” Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. Joe Biden, whose campaign slogan in his winning 2020 presidential bid was “Build Back Better,” has a long record of being anti-privacy and pro-technology.
According to a 2008 CNET article:
On privacy, Biden’s record is hardly stellar. In the 1990s, Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and introduced a bill called the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act … A second Biden bill was called the Violent Crime Control Act. Both were staunchly anti- encryption, with this identical language:
“It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law.” Translated, that means turn over your encryption keys.36
But the phrase build back better did not originate with Biden. In fact, it was introduced by the UN in a press release. It reads:
As the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery, the United Nations is calling on Governments to seize the opportunity to ‘build back better’ by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies. “The current crisis is an unprecedented wake-up call,” said Secretary-General António Guterres in his International Mother Earth Day message. “We need to turn the recovery into a real opportunity to do things right for the future.”37
The UN has directly exhorted nations worldwide to “build back better” after Covid-19,38 and the phrase has been widely adopted by government leaders in Great Britain,39 New Zealand,40 Canada, and elsewhere. In addition to decimating privacy, part of the “building back better” plan is to shift the financial system over to a central bank digital currency (CBDC) system,41 which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones.
There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years. Contrary to popular belief, these CBDCs will not be anything like existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. While Bitcoin is decentralized and a rational strategy to opt out of the existing central-bank-controlled system, CBDCs will be centralized and completely controlled by the central banks, and will have smart contracts that allow the banks to surveil and control your life.
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid
It goes without saying that to achieve this kind of radical transformation of every part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if they were aware of the details of the whole plan. So to roll out the Great Reset, the elite have had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool there is.
As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, there’s an entire school of public health research that focuses on identifying the most effective ways to frighten people into accepting desired public health measures.
By adding confusion and uncertainty to the mix, you can bring an individual from fear to anxiety—a state of confusion in which you can no longer think logically—and in this state you are more easily manipulated. Figure 3.1 illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.
Keep in mind that, as we’ve illustrated in this chapter, technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”
The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this firsthand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the World Health Organization, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.
If we allow this censorship to continue, our civil liberties will be rapidly eroded and replaced with tyrannical suppression of the constitutional rights that our ancestors fought and died for. We simply must keep pushing for transparency and truth. We must insist on medical freedom, personal liberty, and the right to privacy.
One fight in particular that I don’t see us being able to evade is the fight against mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. If we don’t take a firm stand against that and fight for the right to make our own choice, there will be no end to the medical tyranny that will follow. We will cover vaccines much more in chapter 8. Meanwhile, let’s turn to examining the virus itself more closely to evaluate its true dangers—or lack thereof—so that we can start to dissipate some of the fear that the technocracy is counting on to make their Great Reset easier to implement.