Wednesday, May 25, 2022

Government Support for the World Economic Forum - How Taxpayers Are Funding Klaus Schwab's Dystopian Dreams

There is little doubt that the ruling class members of the World Economic Forum believe that it is their birthright to change the globe into something that suits their needs. In contrast, while they may pay lip service to the sweaty masses/serf class, we are merely pawns in their Global Reset game.  With the ruling class holding its annual meeting in Davos, there is no time like the present to gain a better understanding of how the WEF is funded using your tax dollars.   

As background, in this posting, I outlined the most publicly visible members of the WEF; it is these corporate members who pay homage to the great and mighty Klaus Schwab through fees paid to the organization that he founded and rules over.  This is not terribly surprising given that the corporate world stands to benefit from the new reality that they are about to foist on us through the implementation of digital identities among other things. What surprised me was to find out that governments are also using taxpayers' funds to ingratiate themselves to this unelected "lord of the world".  In this posting, we'll look at one example of how tax revenue gleaned from millions of taxpayers is being used to further Schwab's dystopian/1984-like vision of the future.


From the Canadian government's Public Accounts of Canada transfer payments website:

...we find the following for total amounts spent in fiscal 2020 - 2021 which are scattered throughout a 350 page document:


1.) Under the Contribution in support of Conserving Nature (page 46):


2.) Under the Contribution to Support Establishment and Management of Conservation Measures (page 80):

3.) Under the Contributions from the International Development Assistance for Multilateral Programming section (page 90):


4.) Under the Grants from the International Development Assistance for Multilateral Programming section (page 94):



The donations to the World Economic Forum for fiscal 2020 - 2021 totalled $2,915,095.


This is not the first year that the Trudeau government has donated Canadians' tax dollars to the World Economic Forum as listed here keeping in mind that fiscal years run from April 1st to March 31st each year:


Fiscal 2019 - 2020 - $3,674,191


Fiscal 2018 - 2019 - $2,000,000


Fiscal 2017 - 2018 - $4,000,000


Fiscal 2016 - 2017 - $4,000,000


Fiscal 2015 - 2016 - $3,000,000


Since Trudeau Jnr. took office in October 2015, his governments have donated a total of $21,589,286 to the World Economic Forum to assist the group that represents the world's most wealthy individuals in implementing their Orwellian plan for the world.


Let's compare the Trudeau government's generosity to Klaus Schwab to that of the preceding Harper government:


Fiscal 2014 - 2015 - $1,000,000


Fiscal 2013 - 2014 - $zero


Fiscal 2012 - 2013 - $zero


Given the generosity of the Trudeau government toward the very, very needy World Economic Forum, one has to wonder if this:






....and this ( and since watching Klaus pontificate is about as exciting as watching paint dry, you will be excused if you skip ahead to the 1 hour 8 minute mark):



...may just have something to do with the reasoning behind the wasting of $21.6 million Canadian tax dollars which ended up in an organization with a balance sheet that looks like this:


...compared to Canada's federal debt which has done this since Justin Trudeau took office in 2015:


I wonder how Canadians and people of other nations feel about their hard-earned tax dollars that have become assets of the Kult of Klaus?  While I realize that $21 million is relatively insignificant when it comes to overall government spending, it is the message that governments are sending to their useless eaters/taxpayers that concerns me.  Since the World Economic Forum's Great Reset agenda will benefit the wealthy/parasite class at the same time as the serf class owns nothing and is happy about it, shouldn't the oligarchy be paying the entire shot?

Monday, May 23, 2022

The Monkeypox Exercise - Is History Repeating Itself?

For those of us that were really paying attention during the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying fear porn, we realize that a pandemic desktop exercise took place just months prior to the official declaration of a pandemic.  As you will see in this posting, that particular template worked so well for the ruling class that, coincidentally (or not), there is yet another interesting relationship between the most recent viral threat to human life and a previous simulation that took place only months ago.


For those of you that weren't aware, on Friday, October 18, 2019, Event 201 took place at The Pierre Hotel in New York, New York sponsored by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (aka the Bill Gates World Health Organization) as shown here:


The exercise which simulated the global outbreak of a zoonotic coronavirus consisted of the following:


"...pre-recorded news broadcasts, live “staff” briefings, and moderated discussions on specific topics. These issues were carefully designed in a compelling narrative that educated the participants and the audience."


The purpose of the exercise was to:


"...educate senior leaders at the highest level of US and international governments and leaders in global industries.


It is also a tool to inform members of the policy and preparedness communities and the general public. This is distinct from many other forms of simulation exercises that test protocols or technical policies of a specific organization. Exercises similar to Event 201 are a particularly effective way to help policymakers gain a fuller understanding of the urgent challenges they could face in a dynamic, real-world crisis."


The exercise was also funded by funding from the Open Philanthropy Project which is funded by billionaires Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz who co-founded Facebook.


To put the timing of the Event 201 coronavirus pandemic scenario into context, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020 and a pandemic was declared on March 11, 2020.


With the COVID-19 pandemic fading into the background as the dinosaur media focussed its attention on the actions in Ukraine which really isn't that much of a fear-inducing, rectal puckering event for most of the world, there was an obvious need for another health-related issue to crop up as fertilizer for the cultivation of fear porn.  Thank goodness that monkeypox appeared on the scene to take COVID-19's place as the latest and greatest viral threat to all of humanity.


Here are three recent headlines showing how the dinosaur media is working society into a lather about this rare virus:


1.) CBC News (aka the Trudeau/Freeland Broadcasting Corporation):



2.) BBC News:

3.) ABC News:



Here is a table from BNO News showing the small number of cases of monkeypox that have led to an apoplectic media:


In case "monkeypox science" should change rapidly, here is what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say about the transmission of monkeypox:



Of course, in the interest of fear cultivation, the CDC is certainly going to change "the science" on transmission of monkeypox and we will all find ourselves repeating the masking, lockdown, shutdown and physical distancing experiences of the past two years even though the current science shows that very close physical contact is necessary for transmission.


Now, let's get to the "meat" of this posting.  In March 2021, a tabletop exercise was held at the Munich Security Conference in partnership with the Nuclear Threat Initiative or NTI with support from, you guessed it, Open Philanthropy, one of the funders of Event 201.  The report from this exercise was just released in November 2021 as shown here:


Interestingly, but not surprisingly, one of the participants in the exercise was Dr. Chris Elias, President of the Global Development Division of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Here is a listing of all participants for your perusal:



Here is the most interesting aspect of this particular tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats:


According to the scenario, over the course of the pandemic which was caused by a terrorist attack which, ironically, used a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with "...inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight."  Does this sound familiar in any way given the likely source for the SARS-CoV-2 virus?  At the end of the pandemic, more than 3 billion earthlings were infected and there were 270 million fatalities.

Here is a graphic showing how the scenario was designed:


Please notice that the day of the "attack" was May 15, 2022.  The coincidence with reality is nothing short of stunning.

The exercise looked at two fictional nations; Cardus which kept their economy open and didn't undertake any non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) like masking and social distancing and Dranma which promptly adopted aggressive measures including shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social distancing and masking and implemented large-scale testing and contact-tracing, just like we saw in the West during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here are two graphics from the report showing how Cardus fared much worse outcomes during the outbreak than Dranma:



I believe that is enough to digest for this posting.  Let's close with this "word of wisdom":


"History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes."


It's pretty hard not to see the connections between the Event 201 pandemic scenario and the COVID-19 pandemic and, in looking back, it seems more than a bit coincidental that the March 2021 Munich Security Conference/NTI exercise involved a monkeypox outbreak and the current threat of a monkeypox epidemic/pandemic.  Thanks to the dinosaur media which is just loving its newfound pandemic fear porn business model, the serf class has been set up for its next government-imposed, rights restricting reality.  And, let's not forget governments who have absolutely fallen in love with the powers that they have granted themselves over the useless eater class and, most certainly, do not want to see them come to a permanent end.

Wednesday, May 18, 2022

China's Response to Japan and the Concept of Nuclear Sharing

Back in early March 2022, a rather profound statement by one of Japan's former Prime Ministers has set the stage for a major and threatening change in the Far East.  Let's examine this potential change and how the major power in the region has recently responded.  

Here is the article from Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan's largest newspapers, dated February 28, 2022:


Here are some key quotes from Abe's appearance on Fuji Television Network which is discussed in the article with my bolds:


"Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe floated the idea of Japan “sharing” in the possession of nuclear weapons, as is practiced by some NATO members, a possibility flatly rejected by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. 


Abe expressed his belief on a TV program aired by Fuji Television Network Inc. on Feb. 27.


The former prime minister was discussing NATO’s nuclear deterrence concept with which multiple countries share nuclear capabilities, when debating the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Among NATO members, the United States has deployed nuclear weapons in certain countries in Europe for when they might need them.


“Although Japan is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has adopted the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, we should not regard a discussion on how the world’s security is maintained as taboo,” Abe said....


Abe said in the TV program, “As Shoichi Nakagawa was lambasted for saying we should discuss (possessing nuclear weapons), people avoid debating it. However, I believe that we should discuss the issue.”


Abe also said people are talking about how Ukraine’s fate might have been different if the country had not given up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s. 


Although he said that it is important to make progress toward achieving the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons, Abe also stressed, “We should discuss various options, as far as how defending this country (Japan) and its people is concerned.”...


Kishida (Japan's current Prime Minister) said nuclear sharing would mean that a country makes use of the U.S. nuclear deterrence capabilities for its own defense.


That would allow the United States to deploy its nuclear weapons in the country even in peacetime and maintain an arrangement in which the country can load nuclear weapons onto its own fighter jets in the event of emergencies."


The nuclear sharing/deterrence concept is used by NATO to allow member nations without nuclear weapons to share nuclear weapons owned by the United States.  Beyond the alliances three nuclear states (the United States, United Kingdom and France), five other nations participate in the nuclear sharing program; Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.  Seven other nations participate in the Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics (SNOWCAT) which provide assistance in nuclear missions using conventional air support.  These nations include the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland and Romania.  While the United States and NATO do not disclose exact figures for its nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, it is estimated that there are 100 U.S.-owned weapons located at six bases; Kleine Brogel in Belgium, B├╝chel Air Base in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Incirlik in Turkey.


Currently, Japan, the only nation in the world that has been the "beneficiary" of nuclear weapons use, has a Three Non-Nuclear Principles philosophy to nuclear weapons which was implemented in 1967 as revealed in the following quote from then Prime Minister Eisaku Sato:


"My responsibility is to achieve and maintain safety in Japan under the Three Non-Nuclear Principles of not possessing, not producing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons, in line with Japan's Peace Constitution." 


Obviously, the presence of nuclear weapons in Japan would have a profound impact on the balance of power in the Far East.  China has taken notice of this development and, given the instability of the region over Taiwan, the world should be paying attention.  A recent opinion piece in China Daily, a daily newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party, provides insight into China's interpretation of Shinzo Abe's suggestion:



Here are some quotes (with my bolds) from the opinion piece, keeping in mind that atrocities that imperialist Japan inflicted on China prior to and during the Second World War (between 1937 to 1945 aka the Second Sino-Japanese war):


"Some former Japanese politicians and senior officials of the Liberal Democratic Party have advocated "nuclear sharing", claiming that the deployment of nuclear weapons by the United States in Japan should not be a taboo subject for discussion. The Japan Restoration Party, a right-wing opposition party, also submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan to discuss nuclear sharing.


Although the Japanese government has said it still adheres to the three non-nuclear principles of "no possession, manufacture and import of nuclear weapons", it has said that it is an issue for discussion. This attitude of the Japanese government undoubtedly shows its support for "nuclear sharing".


So-called nuclear sharing is a Cold War nuclear deterrent arrangement between the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.


The Cold War is long over, and "nuclear sharing" should have been relegated to the trash can of history. However, the US and its NATO allies continue to maintain the practice, despite many arguing that the policy violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as these so-called shared nuclear forces are highly opaque, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation and conflict....


The world cannot help but ask what does Japan want with nuclear weapons? The root cause is undoubtedly that Japanese militarism still lingers on. Some forces in Japan are still clinging to outdated security concepts. The international community must not condone Japan's nuclear ambitions.


Japan should abandon the idea of nuclear weapons, earnestly fulfill its international obligations on nuclear non-proliferation, honor its commitment to the three non-nuclear principles and safeguard global and regional peace and security with a responsible attitude."


That's pretty clear, isn't it?


When considering China's views on arming Japan, history must be our guide.  China was invaded and occupied by the imperialist Japanese military between 1931 when Japan invaded and occupied Manchuria and 1945 when Japan surrendered to Allied Forces.  Massive attrocities were committed (i.e. the Rape of Nanking which resulted in the deaths of at least 300,000 people in two months) and recent calculations by China show that at least 35 million military and non-military people were killed over the 14 year period.  It is any wonder that China still distrusts Japan?


Should Japan's leadership seriously consider tossing aside the Three Non-Nuclear Principles that it has upheld for over five decades all in the name of furthering Washington's goals in the Far East, particularly when it comes to Taiwan, we can assure ourselves that China's warning will be accompanied with actions that could ultimately lead to a nuclear war.

Monday, May 16, 2022

The World Health Organization's Pandemic Treaty - Reliniquishing Our Health Sovereignty

Back in December 2021 when everyone was distracted with the first appearance of the Omicron variant, yet another SARS-CoV-2 variant, the World Health Organization (aka the Bill Gates Health Organization) made an announcement regarding a decision that was made to protect the world from future infectious disease crises as announced here:



On December 1, 2021, the 194 members of the WHO's World Health Assembly met in its second-ever Special Session (WHASS) where it adopted a sole decision entitled "The World Together" which established an intergovernmental negotiating body or INB to:


"...negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response ..."


The convention was initially proposed by Chile and the European Union in 2020.


This decision was made with a view to the adoption under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution, or other provisions of the Constitution as may be deemed appropriate by the INB what can best be described as a "pandemic treaty" which, on the surface, sounds delightfully proactive since the underlying logic is to correct the problems of global governance that failed during the COVID-19 pandemic.  


As background, article 19 of the WHO Constitution provides the World Health Assembly with the authority to adopt conventions or agreements on any matter within WHO’s competence. The sole instrument established under Article 19 to date is the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which has made a significant and rapid contribution to protecting people from tobacco since its entry into force in 2005."


The INB held a second meeting on February 24, 2022 where two committee co-chairs reflecting a balance of developed and developing economies were elected along with four vice-chairs, one from each of WHO's six regions. Here is a list of those elected:


Co-chair:  Mr Roland Driece of the Netherlands

Co-Chair:  Ms Precious Matsoso of South Africa

Vice-chair: Ambassador Tovar da Silva Nunes of Brazil

Vice-chair:  Mr Ahmed Soliman of Egypt

Vice-chair: Dr Viroj Tangcharoensathien of Thailand

Vice-chair: Mr Kazuho Taguchi of Japan 


The Method of Work for the establishment of a WHO pandemic treaty was also established in which the six chairs as noted above were to begin the development of a working draft for the treaty which is to be presented for consideration of the INB at its second meeting which is to be held no later that August 1, 2022.  At this point, the INB will identify the provision of the WHO Constitution under which the instrument should be adopted.


The INB held an additional meeting (resumed session) on March 14 and 15, 2022 with the Bureau members proposing the following five ways to bring about a world that is better equipped to prevent and respond to future pandemics:


1.) building national, regional and global capacities based on a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach; 


2.) establishing global access and benefit sharing for all pathogens, and determining a global policy for the equitable production and distribution of countermeasures; 


3.) establishing robust systems and tools for pandemic preparedness and response; 


4.) establishing a long-term plan for sustainable financing to ensure support for global health threat management and response systems; 


5.) empowering WHO to fulfil its mandate as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including for pandemic preparedness and response.


Here is a screen capture showing the recommendations by the INB's chairs and co-chairs:


Note that under the fifth recommendation, the WHO will be the directing and coordinating authority on pandemic preparedness and response, a rather frightening prospect.


According to a 2022 paper entitled "The futility of the pandemic treaty: caught between globalism and statism" by Clare Wenham, Mark Eccleston-Turner and Maike Voss, the following are also part of the proposed issues that should be covered by the treaty:

"...access to medical equipment and countermeasures, including vaccines, diagnostics and treatments; capacity-building and standard-setting of health care systems; cooperation in research and technology; a ‘one health’ approach; data-sharing; reform of the WHO alarm mechanism, the public health emergency of international concern declaration process and travel restrictions; and cross-cutting issues, such as accountability, investment in health systems, increased power for the WHO and increased global coordination. Issues beyond the typical boundaries of health, such as trade and supply chains and international travel, have also been raised as potential substantive topics for the treaty to address.  Finally, many member states framed the development of a treaty in terms of human rights, solidarity and equity, including redressing failures that have occurred during COVID-19."


The authors also note that non-compliance has been a WHO problem for more than 50 years meaning that any treaty would have to use incentives or sanctions to ensure adherence to a pandemic treaty as quoted here:


1.) "Incentives could be designed to ensure that governments adhere to the pandemic treaty, whatever the content might be. For example, if a barrier to implementing effective surveillance systems is financing, a ‘carrot’ would be to ensure that funds are available to help with system-wide development. Similarly, if prompt reporting and sharing epidemiological data is seen as counterproductive to national (economic) security, financial or human resources could be made available upon the submission of such reports, mitigating the sting of any trade challenges."


2.) "Sanctions for non-compliance are the alternative, yet these seem politically unsellable in the present climate. Moreover, sanctions may lead to greater concealment of outbreaks by states not wishing to be punished. Given the WHO's current lack of enforcement power, coupled with a lack of financing, it appears that a pandemic treaty under the aegis of the WHO would merely maintain the status quo in compliance." 


The INB will be holding an additional resumed session between June 6 and 8, 2022.  Here is a complete timeline and list of deliverables for the INB through to 2024:


Let's close with this posting with a couple of points that we should be considering:


1.) Do we want a non-elected body (WHO) to be in charge of forcing governments to implement its agenda during the next pandemic?  Since WHO seems very closely tied to China, what if WHO's recommendation during the next pandemic is a "Shanghai-style lockdown" where people are basically locked into their homes, forced into internment camps and have their pets inhumanely disposed of by the state?  Do we want WHO dictating policies that will have a significant impact on our economies given that their recommended response to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in significant economic losses for individuals and states?


2.) Given this:


...and this, showing that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also a key donor to GAVI which itself is also a donor to WHO:



...and the fact that Bill Gates has never seen a vaccine that he didn't like (a fact that has been proven time and time again during the current pandemic), do we really want to put our future into the hands of man who is best known as a purveyor of virus-prone software and who is profiting from the COVID-19 vaccines?


Unfortunately, the mainstream media has paid very little attention to the ongoing story behind what could turn out to be a very significant development in the global response to the next pandemic, one that would see an elected body of questionably qualified individuals dictating how our governments will respond to the next edition of a "COVID-xx" virus, resulting in nations completely relinquishing their sovereignty to an organ of the United Nations.

One last thing - do you remember electing either of these men to rule the world? I didn't think so.