by Iain Davis
In order for authoritarian power and influence to deliver real world results it was converted into policy. Once enacted by governments and local authorities, the policy made a material difference to our lives. Whether we appreciated it or not.
Through a cascading system of authority, with each level under the command of the one above, the core conspirators merely needed to control the global authorities for the pseudopandemic to work. Compartmentalisation added the necessary information security and plausible deniability.
As the core conspirators must have controlling interests in the global financial authorities, such as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and national central banks, they control the monetary system [1] and thereby intergovernmental organisations and national governments. With the addition of a tiny handful of informed influencers in each respective government, that control is comprehensive.
The UK government’s partnership with the BMGF goes back many years. The consistent theme throughout that partnership has been the development of biosecurity. This is presented to us as protection against bio-hazards. The core conspirators have exploited this misapprehension to further population control.
We will discuss motive later in the series, but it is important at this juncture to consider what biosecurity really means. For this we can reference [2] the philosopher Giorgio Agamben [3].
Drawing on the work of Patrick Zylberman, Agamben summarised how biosecurity actually creates a new form of biosecurity State. We can further summarise this as follows:
Data is presented to maximise the perceived threat level. This enables government to claim a constant extreme situation and demand population wide behaviour change in response.
It is the public's belief in this claim of an extreme threat which enables the biosecurity State to control citizen's behaviour. Without this perception, such draconian diktats would not be tolerated. Therefore the threat must be constantly reinforced by the biosecurity State to maintain fear and thus compliance.
By imposing behavioural conditions, to which the citizen must adhere, the citizen's relationship with the State is fundamentally altered. The people no longer receive public health protection. Rather, public health becomes a behavioural obligation demanded by the biosecurity State.
The vast majority of us accepted the pseudopandemic threat. Most lived in fear both of succumbing to the disease and of infecting others, especially loved ones. Consequently, we were mostly willing to comply with our orders.
We are all bio-hazards in the new biosecurity State. We are the threat, each of us a danger to each other. As the biosecurity State claims the authority to keep us safe, all bio-hazards must be controlled. Therefore we must be controlled.
Our individual behaviour is now an existential threat to all. This means we are no longer allowed to be free human beings with autonomy. Walking the dog, shopping, visiting family, enjoying live music or the company of friends have become potential acts of bio-terror.
Therefore, no aspect of our lives is beyond the reach of State authority. We have to comply with the orders of the biosecurity State to stay safe.
Any who didn't, possibly because they realised the pseudopandemic was a fraud, were equated with terrorists [4] in the psychologically manipulated minds of the terrorised. Dissenters were described and perceived as "science deniers," "anti-vaxxers" and "conspiracy theorists." They became the morally repugnant wrongdoer, thus making them the focus of anger for the fearful. This empowered the core conspirators to silence their opponents with censorship and propaganda, while simultaneously claiming they were protecting the people they abused via their pseudopandemic.
As the saviours of the terrified they were free to issue their orders without any notable resistance. Those orders came to us in the form of legislation, regulation and policy. For the core conspirators to seize dictatorial power over humanity, they merely had to control the informed influencers in governments through their relationships with private stakeholder partners.
In 2000 the United Nations formed their Millennium Development Goals (MDG's). In their 2005 document Connecting For Health [5], the World Health Organisation (WHO) noted what the United Nations goals meant for global health:
"These changes occurred in a world of revised expectations about the role of government: that the public sector has neither the financial nor the institutional resources to meet their challenges, and that a mix of public and private resources is required......Building a global culture of security and cooperation is vital....The beginnings of a global health infrastructure are already in place. Information and communication technologies have opened opportunities for change in health, with or without policy-makers leading the way.......Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation."
The WHO acknowledged that a range of stakeholders, such as private corporations, philanthropic organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's), would "partner" with government in a culture of security and cooperation. Government's role had been revised. Plans for global health governance could proceed "with or without" government policy makers. This placed the relationship between government and private interests (stakeholders), which has always existed, on an official footing. Affording the core conspirators more direct policy control.
With the establishment of U.N MDG's governments would no longer lead global health policy. Rather their role was to enable the environment of global health security through investment. In 2016 MDG's gave way to U.N Sustainable Development Goals [6] (SDG's) under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
The UNDP has oversight of SDG's but also brings together numerous United Nation's specialist agencies in order to pursue them. The United Nations is nominally an intergovernmental organisation but it is actually a public private partnership [7]. The UNDP describes this partnership:
"The private sector has a huge role to play in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In addition to offering a wealth of expertise and disruptive innovation, businesses can help mobilize much needed capital in support of the SDGs......Achieving the SDGs could open up US$12 trillion of market opportunities......Incorporating the SDGs into the private sector’s business model will actually bring profits in the long-term......UNDP aims to make markets work for the SDGs."
Sustainable development is sold to the public using key words like "inclusive," "equality," "sustainability," "resilience" and "safety." The repetition of these words is a public relations [8] marketing tactic. Like the pseudopandemic itself, they are intended to deceive the people. In truth, as clearly stated by the UNDP, SDG's are designed to create new markets. These innovative markets are engineered via disruption.
This is why global investors, such as the Rockefellers, are such avid supporters of the United Nations [9]. The UNDP supposedly lead the SDG philanthropy platform [10]. However, it is a Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) between the U.N and the Rockefeller, Hilton, Brach and Ford families.
This partnership exemplifies how global authority (power) is concentrated into the hands of tiny number of people. This in no way suggests that everyone associated is complicit in the pseudopandemic, but the core conspirators and informed influencers are able to manipulate such partnerships.
In order to understand how this power centralisation process works, we need to consider what government authority is and our relationship to it. "Governance" is a set of rules by which we agree to live in order to achieve our shared goals. "Government" claims the authority to control governance at national level. Intergovernmental organisations claim the same authority at an international and global level.
Government claims that it determines governance (the rules) through legislation. Legislation should not be confused with law. Law stems from Natural Law and protects our inalienable rights from, among others, the government. Government legislation claims authority over those rights. Authority it does not have.
The government have access to financial resources solely through taxation. Borrowing does not put the government in debt but rather the tax payer.
There is no such thing as government investment. All investment is tax investment and all tax is taken from the labour of the people. Even the assets the government claims as its own belong to the people. We create the government and we give it our resources.
The government is not administered by politicians but by bureaucrats. We call them the Civil Service in the UK. Politicians set policy and form new legislation. Thereby changing the rules we all supposedly agree to live by.
However, there are limits. The City Remembrancer [11] is positioned in the UK parliament to protect the interests of the corporation of the City of London [12]. The City of London corporation is effectively the council for the Square Mile, which is the one of the world's financial centres, often referred to as the City. The Remembrancer makes sure the government doesn't accidentally reduce corporate profits with its legislation.
The full extent of our democratic control over this system is that we get to "elect" a new batch of politicians every few years. We do not elect the bureaucrats nor the partners of the government. They are permanent and no amount of voting can change that.
Once every 5 years (1825 days), in the UK, we have a say in the legislative process through elections. In the meantime we can form pressure groups, protest and write petitions, but the government is under no obligation to listen to us. The government's "partners" are able to influence legislation (the rules) on every one of those 1825 days.
Some partners have enough money to fund political parties, politicians and their campaigns. This network of government partners owns the mainstream media, controls the corporations and a powerful lobby industry. They can make or break ambitious politicians as they wish. In every decade we are allowed two days where we can choose some of the politicians they have selected for us.
Government partner status is afforded by immense wealth. Partners are joint investors, with government (using tax revenue) in various governmental and intergovernmental programs and projects. With additional resources to fund political campaigns and bestow patronage, it is the private partners, without any democratic mandate, who dominate.
We call this system representative democracy. It is nothing like true democracy [13] but we are encouraged to believe in it, because it maintains the status quo.
Intergovernmental organisations, like the U.N, are conference venues for the people the core conspirators, among others, have allowed us to select. Government representatives are already the chosen influencers of the core conspirators. The only question is whether they are deceived or informed influencers.
In meetings with government partners, the elected representatives facilitate access to all of our resources. Through their financial support [14] of intergovernmental organisations, the core conspirators can then exploit their partnerships and decide how they want to divide up our resources amongst themselves.
Just as the WHO has come under the control of its partners, such as the BMGF, Gavi and the World Bank, so the U.N is also controlled by private investors. The core conspirators are part of that financial and corporate network.
From its inception in 2000, the BMGF has been a key partner to governments, intergovernmental organisations and global authorities. In 2002 the WHO commissioned a research paper titled Global Health Governance [15] (GHG). The researchers stated:
[An] example of state-nonstate governance is so-called global public-private partnerships (GPPPs).....The idea of building partnerships with business is at the centre of UN-wide views on the governance of globalization (Global Compact)....[the] WHO and the World Bank are shown as central.....At the same time, they are accompanied by a cluster of institutions.....the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO) [etc.]...........GHG also includes the wide variety of actors within the private sector and civil society.....Some of these actors (e.g. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) have become highly prominent in recent years. Others...can be influential on a more policy specific basis."
This idea of global health policy controlled by the GPPP led to the 2005 revision of the International Health Regulations [16] (IHR). The IHR's are an internationally binding treaty which created the WHO as a global public health surveillance system. The IHR define how governments (nations) respond to acute public health risks, such as pandemics.
The WHO's IHR Emergency Committee [17] advises whenever a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) emerges. Those advisors are chosen by the Director General [18] (DG) of the WHO.
Given the possibility that DG is an informed influencer it is reasonable to suspect that this was part of the mechanism which rendered the global pseudopandemic possible. This was combined with the appointment of informed and deceived influencers in national governments to convert the pseudopandemic into policy.
Bill Gates has maintained a constant dialogue with the UK Government for decades. This often took the form of secret chats with influential politicians. In our open and transparent democracy there are no minutes of these meetings.
In July 2010, in the midst of the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis, Bill was among the first to have an informal discussion [19] with then newly appointed UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Without minutes, we were reliant upon whatever Mr Clegg and Bill chose to disclose about that meeting. Clegg said:
"Today is the beginning of a close and productive relationship between their [BMGF] Foundation and our [Coalition] government......The global economy has undergone a major trauma....The New York talks are a huge opportunity to get the Millennium Development Goals back on track."
In 2009 former Clinton campaign manager and Whitehorse Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel observed [20]:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
It seems clear that Clegg and Bill Gates were well aware that a crisis presents opportunities. In this case, the turmoil of a financial crisis was viewed as an opportunity to further the MDG's. Which meant, among other things, a new form of GPPP to manage global health security and foster new markets.
Following their chat [21], Clegg clarified this when he was dispatched to address the United Nations General Assembly [22] He stated:
"Together we can reach the Millennium Development Goals....These are the technocratic terms in which governments must necessarily trade......Growth in the developing world means new partners with which to trade and new sources of global growth......When the world is less secure, the UK is less secure....When pandemics occur, we are not immune."
Only a few weeks later Bill Gates dropped in to see the UK Department for International Development [23] (DfID - subsumed by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office in September 2020). Bill spoke about the BMGF partnership with DfID to deliver the MDG's. He said:
"Closer collaboration, as we see what works and what doesn’t work, will be important to us."
DfID, a government department funded entirely by the UK population, needed to understand what was important to the BMGF. They decide what works and what doesn't. In exchange for this partnership key political influencers benefit from the revolving door between government, NGO's and the private sector.
For example, the BMGF created [24] the NGO pressure group called ONE [25] to bring together the worlds most influential and powerful philanthropists, foundations and corporations. Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron (Clegg's boss) was appointed to the board of directors [26] alongside other industrialists, corporate board members, bankers and celebrities who all share a commitment to save humanity.
ONE's enthusiastic supporters [27] include George Soros' Open Soci
ety Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Rockefeller Foundation. Their collective aim is to lobby "political leaders in world capitals" and "pressure governments to do more." Where doing more means taking more money from the tax payer to fund the development of their new markets.
Under Cameron's steerage, ONE's sister organisation 'RED' subscribes to the same ideals. It brings other humanitarian organisations [28] such as Merck, Roche, Twitter, Google and Facebook into the family. Nick Clegg was appointed Facebook's Head of Global Affairs [29] in October 2018.
Joining David Cameron on ONE's board is Joe Cerrel, the BMGF's Managing Director for Global Policy and Advocacy. Joe too has revolved between the government and corporate world and his board profile [30] illustrates how the political means required to manage the global pseudopandemic were acquired:
"Joe oversees the Foundation’s relationships with donor governments in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East. His team seeks to expand the Foundation’s partnerships with these governments, but also corporations, foundations and other non-governmental organisations, to support increased global engagement and progress on global health."
In September 2019 UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations [31]. The UK was in the middle of negotiating its withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit), yet this warranted scarcely a mention. Johnson's apparently rambling, off topic speech was met with almost universal bewilderment.
Instead of Brexit and global trade he chose to expound upon a coming scientific and technological revolution. He described a future form of technocracy [32], sweeping aside Luddites who question the essential tools of progress, such as nanotechnology vaccines: a world of gleaming smart cities, to be controlled by a centralised system of global partnerships.
In hindsight this speech was truly remarkable for its prescience. It was almost as if the UK Prime Minister knew that, in just a couple of months, a deadly pandemic would emerge. He accurately foresaw that the solution to it would be a technological revolution, orchestrated at the global level, not by governments but by academics, corporations and others acting in partnership with government.