Injunctions and Injections

Nudge Theory and the New Behavioral Economics

‘It's Joe-ver!’ The Toronto Sun's front page announced on July 22^nd. 'Where the hell is the president?' Asks The Free Press on July 23^rd.

‘On Monday afternoon, Joe Biden’s doctor, Kevin O’Connor, composed a memo designed to reassure the American people. The president, who tested positive for Covid six days ago, has completed his tenth dose of Paxlovid, he wrote, and “his symptoms have almost completely resolved. . .” ’

Was this statement really ‘designed to reassure the American people’? Is it a ‘memo,’ or an advertisement; 'brought to you by Pfizer'? It seems governments everywhere (administrations at least) have become marketing departments for big pharma. It's mid-summer, but it already feels like there's something in the pipeline, with a bird flu summit ‘Event 201’ coming up in October (we all remember what happened last time).

Pfizer stock seems to be building in another run; though tempered, perhaps, by more talk of future liability. The stock is still down 50% from 2021 highs; Moderna is down 75%. A lot of people (I'm guessing) would like to see that experimental mRNA technology in all 500 of the new vaccines — suggested in the United Nations 'Immunization Agenda 2030' (and those already on the schedule too). It would appear the industry’s ‘Hail Mary’ (as it was called in 2017) might not have panned out quite as investors hoped; though you would never know this if you listen to industry boosters. They're not giving up, of course. The pharmaceutical industry (and its investors) would really like another big cash infusion.

This is a subject I don't comment on much here, but it's a story that should be more widely known. Looking ahead (whatever plans are being hatched by the prescient folk at the bird flu summit) there are some lessons we should not forget, beginning with the RT-PCR machine responsible for that alarming ‘casedemic’ – shared so diligently by the mainstream media.

Perhaps my favourite guerrilla protest piece. Toronto. July, 2021.

This oft-quoted article, from NIH PubMed, declares RT-PCR the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis:

‘However, the combination of different diagnostic tests is highly recommended to achieve adequate sensitivity and specificity.’

The next time you're told someone has a ‘positive’ PCR test you might also want to ask: “At how many cycles?”Once upon a time (when academia wasn’t bought and paid for), 20 cycles and above was not considered acceptable in research papers. Beyond this point, random fragments of DNA (and RNA) can be ‘amplified’ to a level that can make them appear significant. Results are not reliable when cycled up above this, yet we know that health departments routinely use 35 to 40 cycles. In addition to this, clinical trials generally do not reveal the cycles (the ‘Ct. value’) when presenting their numbers.

The government disclaimer on the NIH clinical trials page is interesting. Which begs the question of course: just how ‘independent’ are those independent experts on ‘clinical adjudicating committees’? I tend to see all of this through a financial lens (because of my own background) and I just can't help be reminded of those bond rating agencies who gave ‘garbage’ CDOs Triple ‘A’ grades. The “dog shit wrapped in cat shit” which led to the collapse of the global economy in 2007: The Big Short

Similarly, you might want to take a deep dive into the accuracy of those rapid-tests, before submitting to this again. You can read more at Healthline, ‘How Accurate are Rapid Tests’ but let me move on (for now) by quoting from the key paper on this subject (a summary of results, for numerous tests, organized here in bullet points):

• [S]even tests met WHO standards as ‘acceptable’ for confirming and ruling out COVID‐19 in people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19.

• Two more tests met the WHO acceptable standard in one study each.

• No test met this standard when evaluated in people without symptoms.

Investments had been made in this technology though, and government had made commitments to purchase test kits, so they were used.

What we should really be paying attention to here though, is the stealthy introduction of mRNA therapeutic technology; that ‘lavishly funded’ revolution in modern medicine, that a lot of other shrewd investors are betting on.

---

In this neoliberal, Uniparty world, left and right are beholden to the same big-money, corporate interests. The recent announcement of Trump's running mate perhaps isn't so surprising after all. It also seems a bit of a coincidence (or not) that recent MP Jamil Jivani, in the Federal Riding of Durham, Ontario (you may have seen some of my earlier comments on this election), was the ‘best friend’ of J.D. Vance when they were at Yale together, according to Wikipedia.

This pharma connection though, first came to my attention on the ‘Our Greater Destiny’ Substack, which featured a commentary by Dr. Jane Ruby on Vance's company Narya Capital; its investment in Amplify Bio, and partnership with RNAV8 to create more mRNA ‘vaccines.’

For those who have learned something about this technology, warning lights are flashing. The ‘normalizing’ of mRNA gene therapy as a massmarket solution to ‘infectious disease’ is troubling, to say the least. Here’s a quick three minute primer on mRNA (and ‘reverse transcriptase’) from everyone’s favourite medical commentator, Dr. John Campbell. ‘mRNA Future’: New mRNA Shots (from 7:46 mins to 10:13).

We now hear about mRNA everywhere, as casually as if it were the latest development in tooth whitening technology; and of course, there is never a question from the government or mainstream media. The first rule of propaganda of course: ‘repeat, repeat, repeat.’ Gradually an uninformed public becomes accustomed to the new terminology, and comforted by marketing campaigns that promise to keep us all safe. When the products are rolled out there are no questions, instead, people are eager to receive the new treatment (whatever it may be).

What is advertising, after all, if not predictive programming; and it is everywhere these days, in forms we don't even recognize.

“The way to carry out good propaganda is never to appear to be carrying it out at all.” — Richard Crossman (Assistant Chief. Psychological Warfare Division, 1943)

When Facebook and Instagram introduced META in 2021, a cool, new, rebranding of these platforms, it was anything but ‘new.’ The 2010 Battlestar Galactica prequel Caprica, cleverly promoted the concept (and technology) of the Metaversa, complete with the corporate logo you now see at the bottom of Facebook and Instagram pages: E-Paper

Most of the content we see on televisions serves another purpose of course; hence the term ‘programming’ (which is why the entertainment industry is so well-financed). News media serve a similar, related function. In this polarized world, the words we use can so easily make us sound like crazy people (to those conditioned by mainstream culture to only accept information in line with the official ‘narrative’). Facts hardly matter in this emotionally charged world, where pre-programmed trigger words automatically shut down conversation.

Certain words, like ‘freedom’ or ‘constitution,’ seem particularly inflammatory now, and can instantly change a person's demeanor. Out on the canvassing trail, we jokingly spoke of the ‘Manchurian Candidates.’ “I can see where this is going,” one doctor in Port Perry said to me, before abruptly closing the door. None of us were ever assaulted (we didn’t activate any unwitting sleeper-agent assassins) but we did trigger some harsh words on occasion, and then we would move on as quickly (and politely) as we could. The film below is certainly worth watching, and apropos in many ways.

Manchurian Candidate (2004) — The Vice President Nominee Raymond Shaw

One of the reasons people are so emotionally charged these days can, in part, be attributed to the 1953 CIA ‘Doctrinal Program’ PSB-D33/2, which undertook numerous cultural projects in the name of fighting Communism. These were designed / chosen, largely to undermine the primacy of reason, and then substitute emotions and feelings as the basis for determining reality and functioning in the world. Non-objective abstraction for instance (AbEx), was one of the program’s first big ventures, in conjunction with the Rockefeller’s Museum of Modern Art (a fascinating story).

Needless to say, those who make decisions based on emotions can be more easily manipulated. The 1999 introduction of the Young British Artists (YBAs) in North America, with their exhibition ‘Sensations’ (which Mayor Rudy W. Giuliani famously tried to shut down), was yet another stage in the evolving cultural indoctrination. Almost all of my posts here (as you may have noticed) touch on this subject.

It is important to consider that we are all ‘programmed’ (to some degree) by the culture in which we live; we make decisions based on emotions far more than we would like to admit. Can we really be certain that all of the thoughts we think are ours? Moving forward, therefore, we must question everything.

I’d like to share a comment I posted on the Our Greater Destiny Substack, ‘J.D.Vance Installed as Running Mate.’ I’m perhaps a little more careful than Dr. Ruby when I chose my words (because of what I explained above), but maybe this is the wrong approach now; maybe it’s time for ‘stronger’ language. Slowly undermining society with tried and trusted psychological techniques has proved far more effective than anyone could have imagined, but Yuri Bezmenov's warning (from 5:25 mins) should be seriously contemplated by today’s so-called progressives.

July 18th

There are not many politicians I would trust (in fact, the only people I would be less inclined to believe these days are the owners of pharmaceutical companies). Having said this, I think there is an important distinction here in the word ‘therapeutic’ (that we should be making). Gene therapy was a thing before the mRNA ‘vaccines’ (so-called); primarily for use in the treatment (potentially) of conditions like cancer.

It is encouraging, in this ‘new normal’ world, that a lot of everyday people now know of things such as ‘reverse transcriptase,’ and that they understand messengerRNA transcribes (and reverse transcribes) into DNA; hence, ‘gene therapy.’ Marketing departments (even pre-2020) often gave these ‘therapies’ the familiar label ‘vaccine.’ This is a familiar and ‘con’forting term; such word plays are the marketeer's stock in trade of course. Notwithstanding the (egregious) fact that the definition of the word vaccine was recently changed in order to mass-market mRNA Gene therapy treatment to an 'uninformed' public, mRNA ‘therapeutics’ may still have (limited) applications in the future; though not ‘mass’ market (IMHO).

It is good that Dr. Ruby draws attention to this however; this is a subject that, absolutely, should not disappear down the memory hole of our cultural, collective amnesia . . . Hey, maybe there's a vaccine for that now ;-)

To continue. It is important to remember there is a larger agenda, irrespective of the success (or failure) of any one campaign. The ‘Flu Commissioner’ of Belgium, Marc Van Ranst, explains the techniques of emotional manipulation he used to ‘influence’ the public, at a Chatham House presentation in 2019.

Stakeholder Conference: How to join forces in influenza pandemic preparedness

This is the ‘stakeholder capitalism’ business model at work. A copy of this video on Youtube titled ‘How to Sell a Pandemic’ was taken down. The ‘stakeholders’ in question, however, are largely medical industry corporations and ‘revolving door,’ public-private technocrats, and this presentation is all about marketing. The clever misinformation employed here to increase the uptake of their product (12.50 mins) is also unsettling, but you must be the judge. Importantly though, we gain an incredible unsight into nudge theory and behavioral economics; something the public was totally unaware of until 2020, when we first started to hear of ‘nudge units.’ This term meant nothing to public, of course – which was completely distracted, and inured by postmodernism's flood of empty words – but this was technocracy emerging from the shadows. What is most fascinating here, is to see how lessons the technocrats learned at the time of H1N1 were refined, and rolled out again in 2021. This is something we must examine in more detail, later, because these techniques will used again.

The larger agenda, as outlined in the United Nations document mentioned above, is clearly defined (page 10); this goal is central to the current WHO / IHR discussions too, of course. The media, and most politicians, will never draw the public’s attention to any of this, as we have seen, and they will dismiss and disparage anyone who questions the prevailing vaccine narrative. It is no wonder then, given all that is going on behind the scenes, that people have become even more critical (and desperate to draw attention to this issue).

Some of you may recall, in the darkest days of the global lockdown, when a video supposedly quoting Jacques Attali went viral. In this case, Snopes, went to work debucking the CLAIM:

‘Jacques Attali, a former adviser to French President François Mitterrand, supported a pandemic-driven mass killing in his 1981 book "Verbatim."’

You can read some of the text at then link above, but lets look at this ‘infodemic of misinformation.’ Interestingly, the words are not specifically debunked (you must read deeper for this), rather, they are labelled ‘Misattributed.’ Fact checker sites, in general, have a trick of debunking a very specific claim, while not actually addressing the real question; thus, the whole issue can be labelled misinformation and dismissed. Those who wish, without any further effort, can claim: “Oh, but that's been debunked.”

I'm not defending people who just make things up of course. But what has been debunked here? Jacques Attali himself denies advocating for pandemic-driven euthanasia. However, he does warn (here and elsewhere), of euthanasia. So what does Attali say? You can read the entire book excerpt at Archive.com, but let me present a few of his Future Life predictions here:

'[T]he more efficient a healthcare system becomes, the more it heals and prolongs the life of all. As a result, it becomes more necessary to allocate a growing share of the country's resources to healthcare. And if we do not do so, the growing threat becomes what I’ve feared and denounced for decades: an economic euthanasia of the poorest.'

'Make no mistake: it is already the case in many countries, where care is lacking, surgeries are delayed, and emergency services are overwhelmed; for the poorest. Great Britain and the United States are extreme cases of it.'

'[T]he core interest of power in any society since the dawn of time is linked to its relationship with death: a society that rations healthcare, does not manage the last years of life with decency, organizes an implicit euthanasia of the poorest. . .'

'It has happened many times in the last millennia. And without a doubt, it is a threat to our capitalist societies.'

I include these comments (the latter in particular), as they directly link to my previous piece on neoliberalism and technocracy. What Attali writes could only be misconstrued as 'advocacy' for euthanasia by someone who hasn't read the text.

I would point to criticism of the Frankfurt School here (as a similar example). The members of which are routinely dismissed for the ideas they put forward, which (as many will suggest) were designed to undermine the fabric of western society. Their work too, reads as a warning (to those who will listen and read). These writers are telling us precisely what techniques will be used by the power elite to undermine the population. It is for us to see where this is happening, and stop it, as Attali suggests.

For argument's sake, even if these works did constitute a ‘framework’ for corrupt powers, we should be even more inclined to read them. ‘Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.’ If these writers were subversives working with the powers that be against the best interest of the people, then we must know what ideas are outlined in their works. The same also goes for Bertrand Russell and, perhaps, the most important publication of his career: The Impact of Science on Society.

This book might be considered one of the most important of our times, and yet, for a long time, it was next to impossible to find. We should be happy that people are now posting these works and making them accessible, but the introduction below illustrates the point I make above.

'Bertrand Russell was a "scientific consultant" to evil psychopaths who wanted to run a world tyranny. In this book, he lays out a framework for a "scientific" global dictatorship, and ponders the intricacies of bringing it about, while blithely penning his sociopathic rationalizations for moving forward with it.'

And what did Russell write about the future?:

'Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.'

Again, echoes of “You will own nothing and be happy.” The cold, calculated objective of this ‘regime’ is alarming, but this is not something Russell is advocating; it is a warning, for us. The government in this situation, of course, would present all of this (forced dietary changes, mandatory medical therapies and other directives) as beneficial and wholesome, safe and effective even – what else could they say? Today, suggestions are made, by futurist technocrats at the World Economic Forum (and even on Government of Canada websites), that genetic modification might be seen as desirable, even essential, to function in the future economy. In light of this, it is no wonder that a lot people see other motives (not just financial) behind this ‘revolution in medicine.’

Attali is spuriously quoted as saying: “The stupid will believe it and ask to be treated.” However, Russell's unchallenged statement, suggests something even darker: ‘that those treated will be made stupid by these therapies.’ This seems to be what Russell is suggesting here. He presents many other chilling ideas in this work, along with historical precedents. Needless to say, as the complexity of our technological society increases, the level of sophistication required to function in this society also must increase. There is a lot of documentation though, suggesting that precisely the opposite is happening.

One of the funniest things I’ve read in the last little while (to lighten this up a little) was a Time article suggesting that humans now have a shorter attention span than Goldfish. You can’t help but laugh, but the implications are alarming. Here’s the Time article, and one of the Fact-checkers. This might be interesting too, looking down the road: TikTok brain explained.

The converging lines on the chart above are completely arbitrary of course, but they serve to illustrate a point. Does such a point exist? If so, does that fateful day await somewhere in the near future, or did we cross this ‘event horizon’ already? Here's a real brain teaser: If we crossed this line, would we know it? As Bertrand Russell said:

“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world, the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

Interestingly, a similar question exists with respect to AI: What happens when Artificial Intelligence becomes smarter than we are? Definitely, food for thought. The most intelligent people (even those not full of doubt), unless they have the appropriate information, remain woefully unprepared for the technocratic future. In a technocracy, after all, those in power do not need (or want) the people to be capable of making their own decision. The technocrat's raison d'être is to make your decisions for you.

The technocratic ‘left’ appears to have lost the advantage for the moment (in the current political spectacle) but we must pay very close attention to what the right is saying, and doing now. Corporate interest disguised as free-market, laissez-faire economics can take us to exactly the same place (only a little more slowly perhaps, and less obviously). Please refer to my last Substack for specifics on this: ‘Mammon and the Banana Republic.’

Whether it is bureaucrats shaping the world, or venture capitalists, we should be equally vigilant, and even more informed. Despite everything, I am increasingly optimistic, because more and more people are questioning those who seek absolute power today, through technology. The most talked about technology today — the most powerful and the most dangerous — many would say, is the mRNA platform and delivery system. “This is the moment that surveillance started going under the skin.” Is it any wonder there are a few ‘conspiracy theories’ out there?

Let us ensure the ‘evil psychopaths’ mentioned above (whoever they may be) never gain absolute allowed control of the technologies that would really allow them to run that 'world tyranny' Bertrand Russell described.

Thank you for your interest and on-going support.

David