Jared Kushner

Politico: Kushner’s Team Seeks Nat’l COVID-19 Surveillance System

A Patriot Act for health care? A national data dragnet for patient data would result in mass exposure of private information and health records. Well, Patriot Act I was also brought to us by another Republican, President George W. Bush. ⁃ TN Editor

Critics worry about a Patriot Act for health care, raising concerns about patient privacy and civil liberties.

White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s task force has reached out to a range of health technology companies about creating a national coronavirus surveillance system to give the government a near real-time view of where patients are seeking treatment and for what, and whether hospitals can accommodate them, according to four people with knowledge of the discussions.

The proposed national network could help determine which areas of the country can safely relax social-distancing rules and which should remain vigilant. But it would also represent a significant expansion of government use of individual patient data, forcing a new reckoning over privacy limits amid a national crisis.

Health privacy laws already grant broad exceptions for national security purposes. But the prospect of compiling a national database of potentially sensitive health information has prompted concerns about its impact on civil liberties well after the coronavirus threat recedes, with some critics comparing it to the Patriot Act enacted after the 9/11 attacks.

Already, the Trump administration has sought to ease data-sharing rules and assure health data companies they won’t be penalized for sharing information with state and federal officials — a move driven in part by Kushner’s push to assemble the national network, according to an individual with knowledge of the decision.

“This is a genuine crisis — we have to work through it and do our best to protect people’s health,” said Jessica Rich, a former director of the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection bureau. “But doing that doesn’t mean we have to destroy privacy.”

Currently, the federal government plays only a limited role in handling health information, with its access restricted by various privacy laws and in many cases reliant on voluntary data-sharing agreements with individual states.

The project — based on interviews with seven tech executives, government officials and other people familiar with its contours — would draw on detailed information collected from multiple private-sector databases. It would allow federal officials to continuously track elements like hospitals’ bed availability and the flow of patients into specific emergency rooms across the country — thereby enabling the government to rush resources to parts of the country before they’re hit by a surge of coronavirus cases.

“It allows you to be much more targeted and precise in how you engage,” said one person involved in the discussions. “They need data to make the policy decisions, and so that’s what we and others now have been asked to do.”

Read full story here…

Imperial College

Imperial College Clearly Linked To US Pandemic Response

My recent article, The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria is again proven correct that the U.S policy has been unduly influenced by Imperial College and its lead statistician, Neil Ferguson, PhD.

Considering that Imperial College is a leading social activist with a well-known agenda for climate change hysteria and Sustainable Development, it has no business whatever in American politics. Imperial’s true historical agenda follows the United Nations in perfect harmony: destroy Capitalism and Free Enterprise in order to usher in the UN’s Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

In other words, this entire debacle, originally “spooked” by Imperial, the World Health Organization and the United Nations, is not about COVID-19 at all.

Oh world, you had better wake up to send these carpet baggers packing lest you fall into George Orwell’s vision of the future: “imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.  ⁃ TN Editor

Leading disease forecasters, whose research the White House used to conclude that 100,000 to 240,000 people will die nationwide from the coronavirus, were mystified when they saw the administration’s projection this week.

The experts said they don’t challenge the numbers’ validity but said they don’t know how the White House arrived at them.

White House officials have refused to explain how they generated the figure – a death toll bigger than the United States suffered in the Vietnam War or the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They have not provided the underlying data so others can assess its reliability, and have not provided long-term strategies to lower that death count.

Some of President Trump’s top advisers have expressed doubts about the estimate, according to three White House officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. There have been fierce debates inside the White House about its accuracy.

At a task force meeting this week, according to two officials with direct knowledge of it, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told others that there are too many variables at play in the pandemic to make the models reliable: “I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models.”

Robert Redfield, director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the vice president’s office have similarly voiced doubts about the projections’ accuracy, the three officials said.

Jeffrey Shaman, a Columbia University epidemiologist whose models were cited by the White House, said his own work on the pandemic doesn’t go far enough into the future to make predictions akin to the White House fatality forecast.

“We don’t have a sense of what’s going on in the here and now, and we don’t know what people will do in the future,” he said. “We don’t know if the virus is seasonal.”

The estimate appeared to be a rushed affair, said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist and the director of Harvard University’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics. “They contacted us, I think, on a Tuesday a week ago, and asked for answers and feedback by Thursday, basically 24 hours,” he said. “My initial response was we can’t do it that fast. But we ended up providing them some numbers responding to very specific scenarios.”

Other experts noted that the White House didn’t even explain the time period the death estimate supposedly captures – just the coming few months, or the year-plus it will take to deploy a vaccine.

Almost the entirety of what the public knows about the death projection was presented on a single slide at a briefing Tuesday from the White House coronavirus task force. A White House representative said the task force has not publicly released the models from which it drew, out of respect for the confidentiality of the modelers, many of whom approached the White House unsolicited and simply want to continue their work without publicity.

A representative for Fauci did not respond to a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Vice President Mike Pence declined to comment. On a Thursday call with conservative leaders, Pence said that it was “difficult” to view the models but that “the president thought it was important to share with the American people.”

Among epidemiologists, the estimate raised more questions than it answered – not just about methodology and accuracy but, perhaps more importantly, about purpose.

The primary goal of such models amid an outbreak is to allow authorities to game out scenarios, foresee challenges and create a coherent, long-term strategy – something some experts worry doesn’t exist within the White House.

“I wish there were more of a concerted national plan. I wish it had started a month and a half ago, maybe two months ago,” Shaman said.

Natalie Dean, a biostatistician who was not involved in the White House effort but is working on coronavirus vaccine evaluation with the World Health Organization, pointed out that “the whole reason you create models is to help you make decisions. But you have to actually act on those projections and answers. Otherwise, the models are useless.”

At Tuesday’s briefing, Trump announced the government’s projected death count, saying it was based on data “that has been, I think, brilliantly put together.”

The coordinator of Trump’s coronavirus task force, Deborah Birx, then projected a slide with a high-arcing mountain showing the worst-case scenario: 1.5 million to 2.2 million deaths if Americans and the government did absolutely nothing to stop the virus. And a smaller – but still imposing – hill with 100,000 to 240,000 deaths if measures such as social distancing are taken.

Birx said the projection was based on five or six modelers, including from Imperial College in Britain and Harvard, Columbia and Northeastern universities. “It was their models that created the ability to see what these mitigations could do, how steeply they could depress the curve,” Birx said, referring to the trend line on a graph depicting infection counts.

But two models appeared to have been particularly influential: the one by Imperial College and one from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at University of Washington (IHME).

At a news briefing Sunday, Birx explained the process this way: Her task force initially reviewed the work of 12 models. “Then we went back to the drawing board over the last week or two, and worked from the ground up, utilizing actual reporting of cases,” Birx said. “It’s the way we built the HIV model, the TB model, the malaria model. And when we finished, the other group that was working in parallel – which we didn’t know about,” referring to the IHME group.

The IHME model initially that estimated deaths through this summer would total 38,000 to 162,000 – a lower projection than many others and beneath the White House’s own estimate. But because of its lower figure and Birx’s comments, experts believe it to be a main source for the White House’s best-case scenario of 100,000 to 240,000 deaths.

Meanwhile, the White House appeared to rely on Imperial College for its worst-case scenario. That study estimated as many as 2.2 million US deaths if no action were taken, 1.1 million deaths if moderate mitigation strategies were adopted, and an unspecified number if drastic measures were taken.

(TN Note: emphasis added)

Read full story here…

Technocratic Agenda Dominates COVID-19 Panic

TN contributor Jacob Nordangård, PhD presents the view from Sweden in succinct detail with relevant historical perspective. Not surprisingly, the European perspective on Technocracy is no different than that in America. ⁃ TN Editor

The Corona Crisis has in a matter of weeks profoundly affected every aspect of life and become the perfect trigger event to kick-start the Great Digital Transformation with its “smart” solutions and stringent surveillance measures. In the wake of this crisis we now see rekindled calls for Global Government, a restructuring of the economic system, and an “opportunity” to include the European Green Deal in the stimulus package. This is a crisis which in record time can lead to a global Technocracy. To paraphrase Naomi Klein: this changes everything!

The Climate Change narrative, increasingly dominating the news in 2019 and a high priority at the 2020 World Economic Forum in January 2020, has now been replaced by another invisible threat, the Corona Crisis. The measures discussed to win the war against this new enemy are, however, eerily similar to the those proposed against the first. This coincidence may be explained by the fact that they both share a common origin as useful threats to usher in changes on a global scale.

With an early interest in medical research, the Rockefeller foundations and institutions have had a huge impact on the development concerning health and medicine. Rockefeller Brothers Fund’s Special Studies Project from the late 1950s, resulting in the Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, can be seen as a starting point with the mission to shape a new international order in all its dimensions – spiritual, economic, political, and social. This report stated that global health issues, together with oceanography and meteorology, were important areas to support due to their international dimensions and being interconnected problems that span the globe. One of the main architects of the project was Henry Kissinger. The Rockefellers, who were also involved in the creation of World Health Organization (WHO) in 1948, have since been deeply involved in sounding alarms about global health and climate issues and building support for global solutions.

Another important player is the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the leading forum for Public-Private Partnerships, with membership comprising big corporations, banks and foundations. WEF’s Global Risk Programme was initiated in 2004. In 2006, WEF released the first Global Risks Report with warnings about global problems and suggestions on how to solve them with aid from Big Business. The purpose was to “advance the thinking around more effective mitigation of global risks”. Three main threats were identified in the first report: Terrorism, Climate Change, and Pandemics. The consequences of a lethal flu could be severe and in the end reshape the world.

A lethal flu, its spread facilitated by global travel patterns and uncontained by insufficient warning mechanisms, would present an acute threat. Short-term economic impacts would include severe impairment of travel, tourism and other service industries, as well as manufacturing and retail supply chains. Global trade, investor risk appetites and consumption demand could suffer for more extended periods. Deep shifts in social, economic and political relations are possible. (World Economic Forum, Global Risk Report, 2006)

WEF concluded that “the impact on society might be as profound as that which followed the Black Death in Europe in 1348”. The advise was to develop a strategy to mitigate these risks:

  • Top-down surveillance of threats at the global level (such as satellite monitoring of the environment);
  • Effective dissemination of information from the bottom-up (such that transparency allows for the quick responses needed to contain, for example, SARS or avian flu);
  • Early-warning mechanisms (for example, to provide early warning of future earthquake-induced tsunamis in the Indian Ocean);
  • Appropriate mechanisms to inform the public about risk (such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to prevent “infodemics” and create appropriate expectations of risk;
  • Exchanges on global best practice (including through trade associations), and advice that can be shared between governments and businesses on their risk assessments and mitigation strategies.

Another recommendation was to harness expertise from the private sector as they were said to be “ahead of the public sector in its mitigation of risks”.

Soon after the release of the Global Risk Report, reports about the Bird Flu (H5N1) started to make headlines and scare the public. It did, however, soon blow over without making the profound impact on society that had first been indicated. What it did do was make governments take precautionary measures in cooperation with the business community.

This became obvious with the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic. A global drama that stirred some controversy when some governments bought large stocks of poorly tested vaccine from WEF-partner GlaxoSmithKlein with the aim to mass-vaccinate their citizens to prevent the flu from spreading. A unexpected side effect of the Pandemrix vaccine administered in Europe was that hundreds of children and adolescents developed narcolepsy. The experiment received criticism for how it was handled by authorities, especially in Sweden, and was an early example of the Public-Private Partnership which WEF believes to be the solution to all the world’s ills.

Just like now, the pandemic was top focus of the media.

In 2010, Rockefeller Foundation and the consulting firm Global Business Network released the report Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. The report was written with the aim of investigating four future scenarios for the world (Lock Step, Clever Together, Hack Attack and Smart Scramble). One of the scenarios, Lock Step – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback, dealt with a severe Pandemic and had quite chilling similarities to the development and response to the ongoing Corona Crisis.

From the report:

The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

It made predictions of tight control over the citizens to contain the outbreak.

The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.

China was seen as a role model and other nations soon followed their example.

During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified.

Even the technological solutions somewhat coincide with the current situation.

• Scanners using advanced functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology become the norm at airports and other public areas to detect abnormal behavior that may indicate “antisocial intent.”

• New diagnostics are developed to detect communicable diseases. The application of health screening also changes; screening becomes a prerequisite for release from a hospital or prison, successfully slowing the spread of many diseases.

• Tele-presence technologies respond to the demand for less expensive, lowerbandwidth, sophisticated communications systems for populations whose travel is restricted.

• Driven by protectionism and national security concerns, nations create their own independent, regionally defined IT networks, mimicking China’s firewalls. Governments have varying degrees of success in policing internet traffic, but these efforts nevertheless fracture the “World Wide” Web.

The report did, however, predict that the tight regulations wouldn’t be accepted by the public in the long run.

The following year the film Contagion was released. The script was written in collaboration with experts on diseases and had been inspired by the Swine Flu outbreak. With A-list actors dying shortly after exposure only minutes into the film, it surely helped lay a solid foundation of fear about what might come.

In 2014, the ebola virus made headlines but was limited to West Africa. The ebola outbreak had, however, become a real concern for the World Economic Forum, resulting in a report called Managing the Risk and Impact of Future Epidemics: Options for Public-Private Cooperation (written with Boston Consulting Group in 2015). Work was initiated with the ambition of building up a response to how future outbreaks could be managed through the use of Public-Private Partnerships:

There is also momentum now behind an agenda for change regarding how the global community will respond to outbreaks and epidemics in the future. The challenge is to translate this passion and commitment into public-private collaboration models that are better prepared to engage collectively in the next crisis.

That same year, WEF partner Bill Gates in a TED Talk also warned of a new pandemic and that we might not have the capacity to respond adequately to. But, on a more hopeful note, he also said that we now had technology that could make a difference. Smart phones and satellites that could be used to inform and track people’s movements and new specifically tailored vaccines. The only thing lacking, in his opinion, was a global health system and a better global coordination.

WEF continued the work at hand with advice from, among others, WHO, UNICEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Henry Schein, Inc., GlaxoSmithKlein, and Johnson & Johnson, with the aim “to start a dialogue between the private sector, the international community and the leaders who will form collaborations moving forward”. In 2019 they published the white paper: Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact: Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy. The paper concluded that:

…with increasing trade, travel, population density, human displacement, migration and deforestation, as well as climate change, a new era of the risk of epidemics has begun. The number and diversity of epidemic events has been increasing over the past 30 years, a trend that is only expected to intensify.

The call to action included:

  1. Build connections between in-country operators and the public sector
  2. Create expertise-based groups
  3. Improve information flow and the ability of greater private-sector contributors to connect to the response

The time was now set for the business community to step up in order to protect the planet from diseases. World Economic Forum joined forces with Johns Hopkins University and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (and a wide range of other stakeholders like health care supplier Henry Schein ) for a live simulation of a pandemic in October of 2019. Both the American and Chinese centers for disease control attended. The result was shocking with a total shutdown of the society followed by an economic recession and closely resembled what would unfold the months that followed. The exercise, Event 201, was soon to become a reality. The first cases of COVID19 are reported to have started in China around the same time (although the Chinese Government did not publicly admit there was a crisis until December).

That was also the time then the Green Deal package was presented by the European Commission. An ambitious plan to implement a circular economy and transform the society with digital technology in order to fulfill United Nations Agenda 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals and reach carbon neutrality to 2050. The digital transformation was seen as a “key enabler for reaching the Green Deal objectives”.

In late November 2019 a climate emergency was declared by the European Parliament. The house was said to be on fire and the European Union would now lead the fight against “the existential threat”. There has, however, been some opposition and not all European countries have approved the policies. Sceptic voices have questioned the climate rhetoric that “we don’t have time” and “the time for action is now”.

But, like an intervention from the gods, things would change dramatically. The COVID19 crisis, which was declared a pandemic by WHO on March 11, has overnight introduced measures closely related to the criticized hard stance climate change policies. It has crippled the economy, put a break to consumption, and minimized travel and air traffic. People have been quarantined and many social meetings, jobs and schooling have been transferred to the digital realm. Control and tracking of everyone on a constant basis is now on the table. A new Digital Identification (seed-funded and supported by Rockefeller Foundation with partners like Bill Gates GAVI- the Vaccin Alliance and Microsoft) is being introduced worldwide. It could open up for a future where vaccinated people are allowed to move about more freely while the non-vaccinated will live with restrictions. It is a triumph for World Economic Forum, the tech-giants and their Fourth Industrial Revolution.

The backside of Coronavirus prevention is the totalitarian society that comes with it, i.e., the digital fascism that Professor Dirk Helbing has warned about:

  • mass surveillance
  • unethical experiments with humans
  • social engineering
  • forced conformity (“Gleichschaltung”)
  • propaganda and censorship
  • benevolent” dictatorship
  • (predictive) policing
  • different valuation of people
  • relativity of human rights
  • and, it seems, possibly even euthanasia for the expected times of crisis in our unsustainable world.

Few opposing voices have been heard as the solution combines the dreams from Right-wing nationalists about tighter border control and surveillance of refugees with Left-wing ambitions to control and tax the air we breathe. Some influential players, like UN General Secretary António Guterres and Swedish Climate Czar Johan Rockström, now view the corona crisis as a golden opportunity to reach their desired sustainable technocratic future. As Rockström just wrote in Svenska Dagbladet :

Here lies an opportunity to weld together the EU Green Deal with the work to save EU from the Corona Crisis. It is the same agenda. (Johan Rockström, 28 March 2020)

In order to be saved from the economic constraints you have to adhere to the green agenda. It comes with strings attached. The crisis has also become a concern for the G20 – the leading global governance forum with close connections to World Economic Forum and the international organizations (this year led by Saudi-Arabia). Plans are now made to deliver a firm global response and coordination of the Corona Crisis (just like Bill Gates has called for).

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic is a powerful reminder of our interconnectedness and vulnerabilities. The virus respects no borders. Combatting this pandemic calls for a transparent, robust, coordinated, large-scale and science-based global response in the spirit of solidarity. We are strongly committed to presenting a united front against this common threat.

G20 decided to develop some urgent actions.

  1. Strengthen WHO’s mandate to coordinate the international fight against Corona.
  2. On a voluntary basis commit resources to WHO’s COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance (created by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).
  3. Increase research on vaccines and medicines, leverage digital technologies and strengthen scientific international cooperation.
  4. Ask the Central Bank Governors to develop a G20 action plan in response to COVID-19. Work closely with international organizations to deliver international financial assistance.
  5. Ask ILO and OECD to monitor the pandemic’s impact on the employment.
  6. Enhance global cooperation through front-line organizations like WHO, IMF, World Bank Group and multilateral and regional banks.
  7. Ask top relevant officials to coordinate the pandemic’s impact, including through border management measures and providing assistance to repatriate citizens (if necessary).

The world is at war against the virus. But nations act in a way that make things more chaotic. Former British P.M. Gordon Brown wants the G20 to get more muscles, include the UN Security Council and act as an executive council. The similar opinion is shared by Rockström which calls for a powerful world government, implementing the New International Economic Order and the 4TH Industrial Revolution.

This means that a real political–economic Technocracy might just be around the corner. Unless we peacefully but firmly say NO to these measures now.

The Common Roots Of Climate Change And COVID-19 Hysteria


People want to know: just how bad is the COVID-19 virus and is fighting it worth the destruction of the world’s economic and financial system while disrupting the lives of hundreds of millions of people? The story behind the story will make it clear that things are seldom as they seem.

In short and when seen through the lens of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, the whole world has just been punked and then panicked into destroying itself over COVID-19.

The culprit? A world-class Technocrat in Britain: Dr. Neil Ferguson, PhD is a professor at Imperial College in London that bills itself as a “global university”. It is thoroughly steeped in Sustainable Development and more dedicated to social causes than academic achievement. In fact, Imperial is very well-known for its alarmist research reports on climate change, carbon reduction, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, etc.

The problem with the global warming meme is that it is a tired, worn-out racehorse that much of the world simply ignores. Global warming alarmists have tried every trick in the book to stampede the world into Sustainable Development. They have knowingly falsified climate data, flooded the world with inaccurate academic reports, held world meetings like the Paris Accord in France, threatened and bullied their critics, created a global youth movement to shame leaders into action, etc. All of these strategies have failed to usher in the UN’s Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and show little promise of success in the future.

What the Sustainable Development crowd needed was to put their non-performing racehorse “Global Warming” out to pasture and find a brand new horse that could finally run and win the race to what the UN calls “deep transformation” of the entire global economic system. The new horse is named “COVID-19”. Different horse, same jockey, same race, same finish line.

Imperial College

The President of Imperial College is Professor Alice Gast. She considers the college to be part of a “new paradigm of the global university” that promises to be “a contributor to a better future.” Gast also notes the three general areas of focus of Imperial are “epidemics, shortages of natural resources and environmental crises.” In other words, the environment, natural resources and epidemics are seen as intertwined and inseparable.

The “global university” is indeed a new paradigm, and one that radically transforms the traditional role of education into one of social activism. Success is measured by social impact on society and not according to scholastic achievement.

Furthermore, the global university is invariably framed as a champion of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development and Imperial is no exception. The head of Sustainability at Imperial is Professor Paul Lickiss. His web page states, “Sustainability should run through the whole of College thinking and activity at all levels and across all campuses.” A casual examination of the various departments at Imperial confirm this statement: sustainability, environmentalism and climate change themes are seen everywhere.

The Work Begins

Once the release of COVID-19 in Wuhan was recognized as a potential pandemic, academic researcher Dr. Neil Ferguson went to work developing a computer model to track and forecast its rapid spread. At the top of his field, Ferguson is a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College in London, and has had extensive experience in tracking other infectious diseases such as the swine flu in 2009, Dengue in 2015 and Zika in 2016.

Ferguson is a British epidemiologist and a professor of mathematical biology at Imperial College. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),

Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events (including disease), and the application of this study to the control of diseases and other health problems. Various methods can be used to carry out epidemiological investigations: surveillance and descriptive studies can be used to study distribution; analytical studies are used to study determinants.

With a Master of Arts degree in physics, he received a Doctor of Philosophy degree in theoretical physics. He has no medical or related degree, but rather chose to apply his education to use his mathematical skills by modeling the spread of infectious diseases.

In other words, Ferguson is a data-driven Technocrat with direct access to policy-makers around the world. According to the New York Times,

Imperial College has advised the government on its response to previous epidemics, including SARS, avian flu and swine flu. With ties to the World Health Organization and a team of 50 scientists, led by a prominent epidemiologist, Neil Ferguson, Imperial is treated as a sort of gold standard, its mathematical models feeding directly into government policies.

Ferguson’s COVID-19 Study

Early on in the COVID-19 outbreak, Ferguson began to advise officials in Britain and the United States on the spread of the infection as well as ways to fight it. Thus, he served as both researcher and policy advisor at the same time.

Ferguson’s conclusion that COVID-19 would kill as many as 500,000 people in Britain and over 1.1 million in the United States, set off a tidal wave of panic that has not subsided. His policy recommendations were just as shocking, namely, that societies must be entirely locked down in order to survive.

On March 16, 2020, Ferguson finally released his formal report, Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand.

Here are some quick observations from reading this report:

  • Well before publishing, he advised policy makers. His modeling study “informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks”
  • Comparable to 1918 Spanish flu: “it represents the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic”
  • Applied this and previous model to UK and US: “we apply a previously published microsimulation model to two countries: the UK (Great Britain specifically) and the US”
  • There are two possible strategies: Mitigation and Suppression
  • Mitigation: This proposed social distancing, home-isolation of sick, home-quarantine of relatives, “We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half”
  • In spite of reducing deaths by half, “the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over”
  • Thus, he argues that Suppression is the only option
  • Suppression: Additional measures include social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of infected, household quarantine of family members, school and university closures
  • Long term: Suppression “will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)”.

These doomsday predictions, based entirely on computer simulations similar to those used in climate studies, were believable enough that national leaders accepted them at face value. Worse, they also accepted Ferguson’s policy recommendations, which were then implemented with precise detail. Here are some of the more prescient excerpts from the report’s conclusion section:

Our results demonstrate that it will be necessary to layer multiple interventions, regardless of whether suppression or mitigation is the overarching policy goal. However, suppression will require the layering of more intensive and socially disruptive measures than mitigation. The choice of interventions ultimately depends on the relative feasibility of their implementation and their likely effectiveness in different social contexts. (p. 14)

Overall, our results suggest that population-wide social distancing applied to the population as a whole would have the largest impact; and in combination with other interventions – notably home isolation of cases and school and university closure – has the potential to suppress transmission below the threshold of R=1 required to rapidly reduce case incidence. A minimum policy for effective suppression is therefore population-wide social distancing combined with home isolation of cases and school and university closure. (p. 14)

To avoid a rebound in transmission, these policies will need to be maintained until large stocks of vaccine are available to immunise the population – which could be 18 months or more. (p.15)

Technology – such as mobile phone apps that track an individual’s interactions with other people in society – might allow such a policy to be more effective and scalable if the associated privacy concerns can be overcome. (p. 15)

Perhaps our most significant conclusion is that mitigation is unlikely to be feasible without emergency surge capacity limits of the UK and US healthcare systems being exceeded many times over. In the most effective mitigation strategy examined, which leads to a single, relatively short epidemic (case isolation, household quarantine and social distancing of the elderly), the surge limits for both general ward and ICU beds would be exceeded by at least 8-fold under the more optimistic scenario for critical care requirements that we examined. In addition, even if all patients were able to be treated, we predict there would still be in the order of 250,000 deaths in GB, and 1.1-1.2 million in the US. (p. 16)

The mind of a Technocrat can be clearly seen in this whole package. All of these draconian measures must be maintained until a vaccine is created, which is at least 18 months. The use of mobile phone apps to track the world’s population could be effective if citizens could be railroaded into it. What is not seen is one word about the destruction of the global economic system that would certainly result from these draconian policy measures.

Climate alarmists who articulated the Green New Deal policies also call for radical measures to transform society and they are likewise silent about the inevitable destructive effects such policies would have on the global economy.

Destroy Capitalism & Free Enterprise

Why do Technocrats not discuss the destruction of Capitalism and Free Enterprise? Because that is their exact goal. When Christiana Figueres was head of Climate Change at the United Nations in 2015. She clearly stated:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.” (emphasis added)

People argue with me that this cannot be the goal, that it’s just too big to comprehend. My reply is that if a killer points a gun at you and angrily says he is going to kill you, will you take defensive action or just stand there and let him shoot you? Hardly. Direct threats must be taken seriously, especially when the perpetrator has the means to carry out the threat.

In the heat of the Great Depression during the early 1930s, Technocrats were certain that Capitalism and Free Enterprise would be dead within months. Their economic replacement system of Technocracy would not and could not work unless the existing economic system was completely failed. Unfortunately for them, Capitalism recovered and Technocracy withered.

Today, however, the United Nations is clearly articulating the same premise and it is at the ready with its resource-based economic system called Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. The most clearly articulated example of Sustainable Development is the Green New Deal as recently unveiled by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA).

The World Panics

Thanks to Neil Ferguson and Imperial College, the entire world has panicked over COVID-19 and worse, leaders have implemented all of their policy recommendations lock, stock and barrel. Meanwhile, the entire global media obediently follows behind, fanning the flames of fear into a raging forest fire.

As a result, the U.S. economy is in a tailspin, the financial system is on the verge of total collapse, stocks have entered a full-blown bear market, some U.S. Treasury notes are trading at negative interest rates and unemployment claims soared to 3.3 million last week as businesses shut their doors. Employment experts forecast that over 40 million Americans will have lost their jobs by the end of April.

In short, the economy has been dealt a mortal wound. Even if all restrictions were immediately lifted globally, it is highly doubtful that the economy could recover to its former state. Moreover, that doubt is increased for every week that restricted activity continues.

In the United States, the primary agent of panic has been the highly-esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci who also has close ties to the World Health Organization. According to National Review, Fauci hypothesized in late February in the New England Journal of Medicine that the fatality rate of COVID-19 may be “considerably less than 1% because many people who are infected experience either no symptoms or very mild symptoms and therefore do not report.” And yet, the media routinely states that the mortality rate is 3.4% or higher. Dr. Fauci himself continues to claim that COVID-19 is 10x as bad as the flu, even though his own estimates of 100K to 200K deaths compares to the CDC’s reported deaths during the 2019-2020 flu season of between 24,000 and 62,000. If Fauci’s 10X figure is accurate, then he should be estimating between 240,000 and 620,000 deaths, which he is not. His numbers simply do not add up!


We are all rightfully saddened for anyone who loses their life to COVID-19, but we are going to be a lot more sorry for having trusted a Technocrat to tell us how to deal with the pandemic. The destruction of the economy will result in many more deaths and hardships than COVID-19 could ever imagine.

There is much more to be written on this topic. The main point of this article is to establish the “panic of 2020” as a Technocrat operation so that Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, can be quickly moved forward if not completely ushered in. Furthermore, it is a replacement strategy for global warming to induce panic. As stated above, different horse, same jockey, same race, same finish line.

For full documentation and further explanations on Technocracy, please see my books Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order. Both are also available at Technocracy.news.

Is Killing The Economy Worth Killing The Virus?

Destroying the economy is the primary goal of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. However, far more people will suffer and die in a chaotic, collapsed economic system, than from the coronavirus itself for ironically, there will be no resources left to help save those lives. ⁃ TN Editor

“We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself,” tweeted the president on Sunday night, adding that, after the current 15-day shutdown, “we will make a decision as to which way we want to go.”

President Trump is said to be privately expressing a deepening concern at the damage the coronavirus shutdown is doing to the U.S. economy and debating whether it can be safely reopened.

Though castigated for his remark, Trump has a point.

The U.S. is rightly using extreme measures to meet the threat and control the virus that threatens the lives of millions of Americans, with the elderly sick foremost among them. And we need to do so without killing the economy upon which scores of millions of other Americans depend.

Clearly, America was unprepared for this pandemic.

And there will be time enough to assess responsibility for the lack of surgical masks, medical gowns, rubber gloves, respirators, ventilators and hospital beds.

The immediate imperative is to produce those beds and that equipment and get it delivered to doctors, nurses and hospital staff, the front-line troops in the battle to control the virus.

However, during this shutdown, all “nonessential businesses” are being closed and their workers sent home to shelter in place and to keep “social distance” from friends and neighbors to minimize the risk of spreading this easily transmissible virus.

Unfortunately, what is “nonessential” to some — bars, restaurants, hotels, stores, cruise ships, tourist sites, shops, malls — are places of employment and indispensable sources of income for millions of other Americans.

Close the businesses where these Americans work and you terminate the paychecks on which they depend to pay the rent and buy the food and medicines they and their families need to shelter and live. And if the salaries and wages on which workers depend are cut off, how are these millions of newly unemployed supposed to live?

How do those who follow the instructions of the president and governors to remain in their homes get their prescriptions filled and buy the food to feed their families?

How long can the shutdown be sustained if the necessities of life for the unemployed and unpaid begin to run out? Is it necessary to create an economic and social crisis to solve the medical crisis?

“We had to destroy the village in order to save it,” was a remark attributed to a U.S. Army officer in the Vietnam War. Must we cripple or destroy the economy to rescue the American nation from the coronavirus crisis of 2020?

Then there is the matter of time. Many Americans can survive on what they have on hand for two or four weeks. Far fewer can survive without income for two or four months.

If we shut down the economy, what will we have when the medical crisis passes, be that in May, June, July, August or September?

Read full story here…

COVID-19 Spells Turning Point For China’s Technocracy

As a Technocracy, China’s bumbling incompetence is being exposed. However, when people don’t recognize that China IS a Technocracy, then it’s all for nothing and Technocrats will sail on undisturbed. This is why is it critical to understand Technocracy in the first place. ⁃ TN Editor

While the world fights the coronavirus pandemic, China is fighting a propaganda war. Beijing’s war aim is simple: shift away from China all blame for the outbreak, the botched initial response, and its early spread into the broader world. At stake is China’s global reputation, as well as the potential of a fundamental shift away from China for trade and manufacturing. Also at risk is the personal legacy of General Secretary Xi Jinping, who has staked his legitimacy on his technocratic competence. After dealing with the first great global crisis of the 21st century, the world must fundamentally rethink its dependence on China.

After months of staying holed up in the Forbidden City, Mr. Xi finally ventured to Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus, to declare victory over the virus as all the makeshift hospitals have been closed. Yet no one knows if Beijing’s claims that new indigenous cases are slowing down are true or not, given long-standing doubt about the veracity of any official Chinese statistics, and the party’s failure to act in the early days of the coronavirus.

The communist government instead is claiming that it has largely controlled the epidemic, even as it suspiciously now blames “foreign arrivals” for new cases of virus. Leaked video from China shows huge lines at a hospital in Chongqing, for example, raising questions about just what is happening around the country.

What Beijing cares about is clear from its sustained war on global public opinion. Chinese propaganda mouthpieces have launched a broad array of attacks against the facts, attempting to create a new narrative about China’s historic victory over the Wuhan virus. Chinese state media is praising the government’s “effective, responsible governance,” but the truth is that Beijing is culpable for the spread of the pathogen around China and the world. Chinese officials knew about the new virus back in December, and did nothing to warn their citizens or impose measures to curb it early on.

Instead of acting with necessary speed and transparency, the party-state looked to its own reputation and legitimacy. It threatened whistleblowers like the late Dr. Li Wenliang, and clamped down on social media to prevent both information about the virus and criticism of the Communist Party and government from spreading.

Unsurprisingly, China also has enablers abroad helping to whitewash Beijing’s culpability. World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus refused for months to declare a pandemic, and instead thanked China for “making us safer,” a comment straight out of an Orwell novel. This is the same WHO that has refused to allow Taiwan membership, due undoubtedly to Beijing’s influence over the WHO’s purse strings.

Most egregiously, some Chinese government officials have gone so far as to claim that the Wuhan virus was not indigenous to China at all, while others, like Mr. Tedros, suggest that China’s response somehow bought the world “time” to deal with the crisis. That such lines are being repeated by global officials and talking heads shows how effectively China’s propaganda machine is shaping the global narrative. The world is quickly coming to praise the Communist Party’s governance model, instead of condemn it.

The reality is that China did not tell its own people about the risk for weeks and refused to let in major foreign epidemiological teams, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. Thus, the world could not get accurate information and laboratory samples early on. By then, it was too late to stop the virus from spreading, and other world capitals were as lax in imposing meaningful travel bans and quarantines as was Beijing.

Because of China’s initial failures, governments around the world, including democratic ones, now are being forced to take extraordinary actions that mimic to one degree or another Beijing’s authoritarian tendencies, thus remaking the world more in China’s image. Not least of the changes will be in more intrusive digital surveillance of citizens, so as to be able to better track and stop the spread of future epidemics, a step that might not have been necessary if Beijing was more open about the virus back in December and if the WHO had fulfilled its responsibilities earlier.

The Stakes for China and Globalization 

Regardless of how much some governments and global voices praise China, Xi and the Communist Party care about dominating the propaganda war because the Wuhan virus has stood their nation on a razor’s edge. Xi’s own legitimacy is not merely at stake. His government is ferociously fighting to divert blame and attention, fearing that the world rightfully may utterly reassess modern China, from its technocratic prowess to its safety. Decades of a carefully curated global image may crumble if nations around the globe start paying attention to China’s lax public health care, incompetent and intrusive government, and generally less developed domestic conditions.

Xi’s fears are well founded, as a global reconsideration of China is long overdue. Legitimate criticisms and doubts about China’s governance and growth model were long suppressed by Chinese pressure and the willingness of many to buy into the Communist Party’s public line. Public shaming of foreign corporations, global influence operations, and “elite capture” — all are policies Beijing has deployed to maintain China’s public image.

Read full story here…

Technocrats Use Coronavirus To Drive U.S. To National Suicide

Dr. Anthony Fauci is unquestionably an expert on infectious diseases, serving as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. He has presided over emerging viruses such as H.I.V., SARS, Swine Flu, MERS, Ebola and others. In every case, the rhetoric that emerged sought to force social and political behavior by suggesting a pandemic and prescribing radical action to combat the threat. Where those other efforts failed to gain traction, the coronavirus COVID-19 has succeeded.

Dr. Fauci has now revealed his true Technocrat colors by stepping beyond his role of merely informing policy-makers to making policy directly. This door was opened when President Trump granted him a policy platform and authority to speak for the Federal government. Big mistake.

Since then, whatever disaster that COVID-19 might bring in medical terms, it has been far surpassed by social, economic and political carnage that can only be described by one term: NATIONAL SUICIDE.

Dr. Fauci might be absolutely correct that COVID-19 is 10 times ‘more lethal’ than the seasonal flu, but since his conclusions and predictions are only verifiable by himself, science has essentially become a god and he has become its sole high-priest.

In any case, his scientific and medical expertise in no way qualifies him as an expert in sociology, economics or political science. Yet, he is driving the shutdown of the entire nation to “prevent COVID-19 from spreading.”

Fear Mongering Wins Again

First, alarmist “sky-is-falling” cries were made that millions of Americans could die. Second, the only way to prevent these deaths is to stop contagion by shutting down social and economic activities. Fauci has since claimed that he is open to a 14 day total national shutdown.

That is, shut down sports and community events, schools, churches, restaurants, transportation, factories, services and any other activity where people would come into contact with each other. This insane mentality has now caused national panic among civic leaders as well as citizens.

Ordinary people are  panicked into the irrational hoarding of toilet paper. Really? State governors are firing off executive orders left and right that are essentially promoting a form of “soft martial law” where civic and religious groups above a certain people limit cannot meet. City mayors are shutting down restaurants, churches, schools and government services.

These irrational measures are ripping apart the social and economic fabric of the entire nation. Store shelves are emptied, the stock market is crashing, national economic activity has cratered, all in the name of saving us from the coronavirus.

This is the exact reason why America should NEVER allow Technocrats to run the nation. And yet, Technocrats ARE running the nation anyway… straight into the ground.

When America regains its senses, it will be too late to mitigate the damage. For now, Technocrats like Dr. Fauci should go back to their laboratories to do something useful for mankind and stay out of the business of running the nation.


Big Tech Has Created An Unelected, Unaccountable Technocracy

Monopolies are not immediately illegal, but they are anti-American and destructive to liberty and freedom. Big Tech is promoting Technocracy as the monopoly to dominate America, and it will do so if it’s ideology is not fully recognized and rejected by Americans. ⁃ TN Editor

What’s wrong with anti-competitive behavior in big tech?
Anti-competitive behavior on the part of big tech creates an un-elected technocracy

Big tech companies like Google and Facebook are under investigation for antitrust by the the FTC and the DOJ. The allegations are that these companies engage in anti-competitive behavior.

Competition creates winners and losers. Those who compete, compete to win, and annihilating the competition has worked well for big tech — so much so — that it is accused of antritust violations.

But what’s wrong with winning? Why punish a company for being successful by stamping out competition? Isn’t that the whole point — to dominate your market?

Contrary to popular belief, monopolies are legal in the United States. A company can rise above the competition when it offers superior goods or services that nobody else can provide.

“It is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge ‘high prices,’ or to try to achieve a monopoly position by aggressive methods,” according to the FTC.

However, there is a Catch-22.

“A company violates the law only if it tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.”

That means a company can legally have a monopoly, but it can’t legally maintain or acquire one through “unreasonable methods,” so what are those methods?

Determining the difference between anti-competitive behavior and just smart business practice is a slippery slope.

In antitrust cases, it is important to look at what is being protected — competition itself or the losing competitors who cry anti-competition.

Equally as important is the general public — what businesses call the consumer. How can anti-competitive behavior on the part of a big tech company negatively affect the consumer?

These questions are at the heart of the antitrust investigations into big tech. What constitutes “unreasonable methods,” what parties are ultimately affected, and how?

When the consumer is negatively affected by anti-competitive behavior, or when all competition is either threatened, bought-out, acquired, or merged, the company is treading on antritust.

When a company acts tyrannical in denying the entry of a competing company into the market space, it begins to wade into anti-competitive waters.

Likewise, when a company self-serves by blocking competition while favoring its own products and services, which may or not be inferior to the competition, it is traversing in antitrust territory.

When illegal, anti-competitive practices are in place. the consumer gets screwed from a lack of options, the competition complains, and innovation is stifled.

The antitrust accusations against big tech have far-reaching implications on society at large because its greatest commodity is data.

By owning and controlling data on billions of people, big tech knows more about you and I than we know about ourselves.

This gives big tech incredible power and influence to sway public opinion with barely any accountability. It does so by controlling the data and controlling what information you and I can access.

Read full story here…

Shilling: Globalists May Become Extinct Species

Although Shilling has had days of illuminated economic insight in the past, he is dead wrong that COVID-19 is ‘driving the last nail into the coffin of the globalists.’ This is their day of victory, not defeat, because Technocracy has been the endgame. ⁃ TN Editor

The coronavirus’s depressing effects on the global economy and disruptions of supply chains is no doubt driving the last nail into the coffin of the globalists.

They believe in the theory first articulated by Englishman David Ricardo (1773-1823) that free trade among nations benefits all of them. He argued for the comparative advantage of free trade and industrial specialization. Even if one country is more competitive in every area than its trading partners, that nation should only concentrate on the areas in which it has the greatest competitive advantage. He used the example of English-produced wool being traded for French wine—and not the reverse.

But Ricardo’s simple trade model requires economies in static equilibrium with full employment and neither trade surpluses nor deficits, and similar living standards. These aren’t true in the real world. Also, Ricardo didn’t consider countries at different stages of economic development and different degrees of economic and political freedom, or exchange rate manipulations and competitive devaluations since gold was universal money in his day.

Ricardo also didn’t factor in trading partners with huge wage differences such as the U.S. and China. As a result, China can produce almost any manufactured good cheaper than America. The result has been the huge and chronic U.S. trade deficit with China.

Trade wars are normal as countries with insufficient domestic demand to create full employment strive to unload their problems on trading partners. They promote weak currencies to make imports more expensive for residents in order to encourage local production and to make exports cheaper for foreign buyers. Subsidies for exporting companies, now widespread in China, are another tried and true technique.

Free trade is rare. Historically, it has been largely confined to periods when a major global power promoted the free exchange of products in its own enlightened self-interest. That was true of Great Britain in the 19th century after it spearheaded the Industrial Revolution and wanted to insure the easy flow of raw materials for its factories from abroad and foreign markets for their output. After World War II, Americans used trade to rebuild Western Europe and Japan to counter the Soviets, and accepted the lack of reciprocity by some of those lands, notably Japan. This was cheaper and more acceptable in the Cold War era than garrisoning more American troops around the world and risking more military confrontations.

Consequently, there were eight global tariff-cutting rounds in the post-World War II era, from the 1947 Geneva Round to the Uruguay Round in 1986-1994. That was it. The 2001 Doha Round has gone nowhere because, by then, Washington no longer needed to support the free world. Also, U.S. trade deficits were chronic and growing, especially as globalization transferred manufacturing jobs to China and other low-cost Asian countries. U.S. factory positions collapsed from 21.7 million in 1979 to 11.5 million in 2010, with only a modest recovery after the Great Recession to 12.9 million in February of this year.

Largely as a result of these developments, real wages for most Americans have been flat for several decades, making voters mad as hell. President Donald Trump played to their plights and was elected by blaming weak incomes on imports and immigrants. Lack of real income growth also convinced voters in Europe that mainstream politicians weren’t effective. The result was Brexit and an attraction to far right and extreme left parties.

Read full story here…

Musk and Grimes

Elon Musk’s Girlfriend Prefers Technocracy Over Government

Where would Grime’s get such an idea? From Elon Musk, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Technocrat and whose grandfather that he grew up with, Dr. Joshua Haldeman, was the national leader of Technocracy, Inc. in Canada during the 1930s and 1940s. ⁃ TN Editor

We can never hold that much of a grudge against the pop savant who gifted our planet with “Oblivion” and Art Angelsbut Grimes’s relationship with billionaire industrialist–mad scientist Elon Musk has certainly alienated some of her fans. The very online singer-producer-dater-of-Musk knows this and addresses the political dissonance of her relationship in a recent interview with Rolling StoneShe supports Bernie Sanders for president and identifies herself as “hard, hard, hard left before,” but now believes more in Musk’s ability to combat climate change than the government’s, even though it means she focuses less on issues like income inequality than before:

“I just really, truly, utterly believe in sustainable energy and the electric future and making humanity a multi-planetary species,” she says. “There are a lot of problems in the world that we need to solve. The government does not truly have the capacity to solve them. My boyfriend is actually doing it, tangibly, visibly — like, you just can’t deny it.”

Grimes’s belief in technocracy over government certainly aligns her more with libertarians than the left, and many scientists assert that the lithium-ion battery waste and mining still make personal electric vehicles like Teslas much worse for the environment than properly government-funded public transit, but, hey, this interview also has Grimes describing the time her survivalist grandfather “locked me in a shipping container with a pistol” and saying “I like the idea of having numerous consciousnesses acting simultaneously in the future,” so maybe we shouldn’t be taking our policy cues from one-half of the celebrity couple henceforth known as Grusk (trademark Vulture 2020). The “multi-planetary species” thing sounds pretty sick though.

Read full story here…