UK government seeks contract for “excess body storage” in preparation for mass extermination event

(Natural News) The Westminster City Council is seeking “temporary body storage services” to prepare for mass extermination events over the next four years. These new facilities are being erected to store bodies in a dignified and respectful manner. Under code 45215000, the UK government is looking to secure contracts for construction work “for buildings relating…

CDC illegally extends eviction moratorium for another two months, despite U.S. Supreme Court ruling it has no such authority

(Natural News) The Biden regime has ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention‘s (CDC) eviction moratorium, which was recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, will be extended through October regardless of what the law says. To keep the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic ruse going for as long as possible, Hunter’s dad, bowing to…

Covid hospitalizations among the fully vaccinated spike 10-fold in Israel

(Natural News) The latest data out of Israel completely annihilates the government narrative that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” are safe and effective. Updated daily, the figures show that hospitalizations for the Chinese Virus are up tenfold – not among the “unvaccinated,” mind you, but among people who obeyed the medical fascists and got the jab….

UK dials down coronavirus app as self-isolating workers cause severe labor shortage leading to empty shelves at grocery stores

(Natural News) The U.K. government has dialed down the National Health Service (NHS) COVID-19 app to avoid a labor shortage caused by self-isolating essential workers. Following pressure from trade unions and businesses, Downing Street said the app will now instruct fewer people to self-isolate. It added that the NHS COVID-19 app will now instruct close…

A War on (Free) Natural Immunity

bertrand borie
Photo by Bertrand Borie via Unsplash

This article was originally published here.

As I am typing this, we are on the receiving end of a top-down war on everything that’s natural, be it natural free expression, natural immunity, or natural ability at large.

Different aspects of today’s bizarre reality are connected like pieces of a puzzle. The trendy political correctness, for example, draws from the same logical root as vaccinating people with natural immunity.

How so? Well, political correctness exists to ensure that conversational spaces are safe spaces — and the need to make them safe is based on the premise that human beings are not capable of navigating unregulated conversational spaces without being harmed. Those who are capable of doing so should act as if they are not.

The assumption here is that the natural ability to deal with unregulated conversations does not exist, is not necessary to develop, and mentioning the need for it is cruel. Similarly, forcing the famous medical product on those with natural immunity is based on the premise that artificial immunity is superior to natural immunity.

Furthermore, the strong push for the product, combined with an attack on anyone who even squeaks about comparable benefits of anything natural — be it a healthy life style or actual natural immunity — presumes that artificial tools and mechanisms should be used to replace the natural ability of the body to stand up to pathogens.

And similarly, both an expectation of natural immunity in anyone and a refusal to supersede or replace one’s natural immunity with an artificial one are framed as cruel. I posit that in logical and commercial terms, this war on the natural world, natural immunity — and natural ability at large — can be explained with clarity in terms of what is known as the “blue ocean strategy,” with an infusion of transhumanist ideology of human body as a [product] platform.

The blue ocean strategy is a business strategy that proposes creating a brand new market out of thin air and dominating it (a blue ocean) — as opposed to trying to compete in an existing market (an ocean red with blood).

Here’s how it applies to natural immunity. A healthy person with a natural immunity might be a happy person — but to a 2021 biotech entrepreneur, who views the human body as a market to dominate, he is a sheer insult. From the standpoint of that entrepreneur, replacing the default natural immunity of the past millions years with a fully artificial tool that requires a “subscription” throughout one’s entire lifetime (see “variants” and “boosters”) is desirable.

Replacing the default natural immunity with an artificial tool is a very successful case of creating a brand new market (“artificial immunity market”) out of air. A life-long subscription to artificial immunity, with an ever-expanding range of necessary “upgrades,” is a lot more profitable than some rookie traditional shop selling vitamins. Even better, if artificial immunity destroys the natural immunity, customer loyalty is guaranteed. See how elegant?

Somewhat similarly, the notion that people can say what they think, and everyone officially survives unscarred, does not help sell censorship or behavioral modification as a means of “protecting others.”

If, on the other hand, people are officially deemed as lacking the ability to talk over differences or to process information and make reasonable sense of it — or if people’s natural ability to communicate with others in a healthy way is artificially impaired through social distancing, face wearables, and political correctness — lots of new needs are generated right then and there.

Among other things, it opens new market opportunities for mass scale “mental health management systems” and the behavioral modification tools, including behavioral modification software, known as “digital vaccines.” Now, let’s look at the other side of it. Let’s look at the economy at large from the psychological perspective of an extremely wealthy person, trillionaire-level wealthy.

A question: Who are we, regular citizens, to the people with near-unlimited financial and political power? Who are we to those who can invest into their vision almost infinitely, and thus shape our society and perception?

It seems like to the people with the most financial and political resources, we are four things: One, we are clay from which they like to mold their play reality, creating worlds and wars, experimenting, and testing out hypotheses. Two, we are the labor, producers of goods and services.

Three, we are the consumers, buying stuff that their production facilities have produced and contributing to the semblance of a functioning market, even though they make most of their money on extraction and speculation. And four, we are a natural resource, like land or water.

Historically, during the times of feudalism, we were mostly one and two. Then, when the industrial revolution happened, number three was added to the list due to the sudden drop in production costs and an increase in the amount of stuff that could be made on the conveyor.

And now, we are approaching the phrase where number four becomes very interesting to the most powerful people of our planet. Robotics is mighty, fewer people are needed to make things — and what to do with all the useless eaters?

Well, see, in an artificial world, everything is possible, and useless eaters are not so useless in a fully controlled environment, as long as they are viewed as data bundles, also known as digital twins. As long as they have “needs” (as defined by the people seeking to profit), the “improvement” of their condition can be plugged into various impact investment models, and then our useless eaters they become very useful!

Here is how this economic system works: Let’s say, the “government” — in quotes, because in the 4IR model, the government could be theoretically a software program — generates currency as needed.

Our useless eaters, of course, get universal basic income on the condition of doing what they are told. But their most valuable asset to the economy is their “needs.” I don’t mean their actual human needs — but “needs,” as defined by some kind of World Economic Forum-like set of formal parameters.

Perhaps they are prone to getting infected with a virus and need v-s? Or maybe their mental health does not meet the numerically defined markers? Or else they could possibly be in need of behavioral modification, such as getting treated for meat addiction, because climate change? So many markets! So many opportunities! And who then steps in to improve their condition?

The most nepotistic corporations, of course, through public-public partnerships. So first, the “government,” working with NGOs, funded by the very corporations seeking to profit, announces an important public “need.”

The most nepotistic corporations then receive piles of currency from the “government” to solve those “needs,” from developing housing projects to developing patented artificial foods to creating gene therapies and behavioral modification programs. Those things are then dumped onto the useless eaters, regardless of what they think of it.

And so the useless eaters get stuff “for free” but they cannot choose, and their bodies are part-owned by corporations. Which, if it really goes this way, puts us back into the Soviet Union with a dystopian twist (and that has nothing to do with isms).

And since human beings are not designed to live like mechanical soldiers or remote-controlled meatbags, and this will lead to a very bleak society if we let it happen, we better wake up to the anatomy of how the New Normal really works, and soon. The end.

Government Wants to Dictate Truth

“Misinformation is much more destructive when it emanates from a monopolistic ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Hannah Cox, content manager for Foundation for Economic Education, writes in a July 25, 2021, article.1

“[Anthony] Fauci can’t get his own facts straight, yet the government wants to decide what’s ‘misinformation’ on social media,” she adds, pointing to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Fauci’s testimony during a recent Congressional committee hearing in which Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., questioned him about his funding of gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. Cox writes:2

“In his opening statement, Paul referenced an academic paper3 that further calls into question the origins of the COVID-19 variant that upended the world.

‘We hypothesize that the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV may have originated after sequential recombination events between the precursors of these SARSr-CoVs,’ stated the numerous scientists and doctors who authored the research.

The data is the latest in a long line of evidence that has emerged indicating the viability of the theory that the disease not only came from a lab, but that the NIH actually funded the laboratory and research that may have produced it.

But in a May hearing, when originally pressed on it by Dr. Paul, Fauci denied that his agency funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

Those statements were brought into doubt. The NIH did fund research at WIV that analyzed bat specimens collected from caves in China to study their potential for infecting humans. The grant was made in a roundabout way through a nonprofit called EcoHealth.”

When pressed, Fauci insisted he has never lied before Congress, and would not retract his May 11, 2021, statement in which he claimed the NIH has “never funded gain-of-function research.” According to Fauci, the PLOS Pathogens paper4 Paul introduced as evidence has been “judged by qualified staff, up and down the chain, as not being gain-of-function.”

“It appears that instead of arguing the actual data, Fauci is now resorting to semantics around the definition of ‘gain-of-function,’” Cox writes,5 “but even to a scientific layman it is becoming increasingly clear that Fauci misled the American public for some time on this matter. He knew he authorized the funding and was not forthcoming on that fact — even when asked by a sitting Senator.”

Paul Highlights Verbatim Admission

Paul appears none too impressed with the semantics defense and has publicly called Fauci out as a liar. In a July 20, 2021, tweet, Paul said,6 “Yes, Dr. Fauci’s NIH did fund the Wuhan Virology Lab. Here’s the verbatim admission from their chief scientist Dr. Shi Zhengli.”

plos pathogens

In a follow-up tweet on that same day, Paul stated:7

“MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed this paper that was published with financial assistance from Dr. Fauci’s NIH/NIAID and concluded ‘certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function.’”

July 20, 2021, Paul went on the Hannity program,8 announcing he “will be sending a letter to Department of Justice asking for a criminal referral because he [Fauci] has lied to Congress,” a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, adding “We have scientists that were lined up by the dozens to say that the research he was funding was gain-of-function.” A month earlier, May 12, 2021, Paul made the same argument, telling Fox News:9

“What Dr. Fauci said yesterday was verifiably false. He said no NIH money went to the Wuhan Institute for gain of function. Well, the main doctor there, the one they call … the bat woman … wrote a paper that MIT scientists have looked at that they said was gain of function — meaning juicing up these viruses to make them very potent and infect humans.

She wrote this paper and, in the paper, acknowledged her funding came from Dr. Fauci’s group, the NIAID, which is part of NIH. So, he is verifiably telling you something that is not true. In the grant application … it says it is for gain of function … So, Dr. Fauci came to Congress yesterday and lied.”

WIV Deleted US Research Partners from Website

Before March 2021, NIAID collaboration and funding of research at the WIV could easily be verified simply by visiting the WIV’s website where it listed its research partners. However, shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,10 the WIV suddenly deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and several other American research partners.

As of March 21, 2021, the lab’s website listed the following U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.11

The next day, only two remained: EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.12 At the same time, the WIV also deleted studies with hallmark descriptions of gain-of-function research on the SARS virus.13

According to investigative journalist Ben Swann,14 the NIH/NIAID has funded gain-of-function research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.

At that point, NIAID funding for this kind of research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents he believes prove that Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper15 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.

For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

Grant Letter Dispels Semantics Defense

A letter16,17 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also puts a kink in Fauci’s attempt to change the definition of gain-of-function, and stands in direct challenge to his claim that the NIAID has never funded gain-of-function research, and that Baric’s research never involved gain-of-function. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause …

The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader. Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo.”

‘Fauci Found It Appropriate to Lie’

“This would certainly not be the first time Fauci has been caught giving the American people false information,” Cox writes.18 “From the very beginning of the crisis, Fauci found it appropriate to lie to the people and control valuable information around the pandemic.”

She goes on to highlight Fauci’s ever-changing opinion about mask wearing. Scientific evidence shows face masks do not prevent viral illnesses.19 This includes COVID-19-specific research20,21 from Denmark, which found that mask wearing may either reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or increase your risk by 23%. Either way, the vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed those who did not adhere to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no difference. Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls.


Back in March 2020, Fauci was on the right track, publicly stating that masks cannot prevent viral infection. The video above features one such appearance. At the time, Fauci stated22 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams also sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”23 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.24

Fauci Admits Issuing Intentional Misinformation

By July 2020, Fauci admitted his initial dismissal of face masks was an intentional fib, as there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) at the time and he wanted to ensure there would be enough for frontline workers.25 “If we listen to Fauci’s account, he essentially believed it was alright to prioritize some lives over others and lie to people in the process,” Cox writes.26

This is a classic illustration of the use of what Plato calls the Nobel Lie. It is fine to lie as long as it is for the greater good. Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci suggested adding goggles and full face shields, in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.27

Interestingly enough, a March 31, 2020, report28 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28). What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers, and if you wear goggles or a face shield, you may be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,29 gaining momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021,30 at which time Fauci agreed that wearing two masks instead of just one was “common sense” as it would likely provide greater protection.31

By early May 2021, Fauci introduced the suggestion that we might also start wearing face masks during influenza season after the COVID-19 pandemic recedes “to help avoid spreading or contracting respiratory illnesses like the flu.” Mid-July 2021, Fauci also insisted parents should continue to mask children aged 2 and older, saying:32

“Unvaccinated children of a certain age greater than 2 years old should be wearing masks. No doubt about that. That’s the way to protect them from getting infected, because if they do, they can then spread the infection to someone else.”

No new scientific evidence to support masking against respiratory viruses has been presented, however. Cox also points out that Fauci recommended nationwide school closures even though published science showed children are largely immune33,34 to SARS-CoV-2 infection and are not significant vectors for spread.35 More recent research36 shows children, when infected, also have a survival rate of 99.995%.

Government Nominates Itself as Ministry of Truth

“To add insult to injury, the government has nominated itself as the sole arbiter of truth when it comes to information on the coronavirus,” Cox writes, adding:37

“The Biden Administration has claimed misinformation on social media platforms is ‘killing people’ and has openly been pressuring Facebook to remove posts that do not align with their narrative … This is concerning for multiple reasons.

First and foremost, it is a violation of free speech and the free market for the government to tell any private business how to run its operations. Plain and simple.

Additionally, the government has no business being in a position of determining what the truth is or is not. They’ve been caught lying more times than we can count and are likely to continue, given how misleading the public often serves to increase their own power.

The government’s track record of inaccuracy by no means begins with COVID, but has certainly grown with it. This is the last entity we should trust with a monopoly over information.

Fauci’s disastrous track record of misinformation, laid bare throughout his many rounds with Rand Paul, shows why the government has no business trying to be a monolithic source and arbiter of truth.”

Senator Introduces Bill to Force Online Censorship

July 22, 2021, The Wall Street Journal38 reported Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a bill “that would strip online platforms such as Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. of their liability protections if their technologies spread misinformation related to public-health emergencies, such as the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Section 230 protects internet platforms from lawsuits arising from content generated by users and third parties. Klobuchar’s bill would create an exception to this law, the Health and Human Services department (HHS) would be responsible for dictating what health information is true and what is misinformation.

Internet platforms would then be required to censor accordingly or face potential litigation. Time will tell if this bill will pass and stand up to legal scrutiny.

As noted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in an April 5, 2021, ruling39 in which he weighed in on the ability of social media giants to control free speech, “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

After Censorship, Will Social Credit System Be Far Behind?

If government censorship becomes law, will a social credit system based on government narrative adherence be far behind? “We need to act now to block Britain’s social credit system,” columnist Ross Clark writes in a July 24, 2021, Spectator article.40

While Clark, just 12 days earlier, had estimated it might take two to five years for a British COVID vaccination passport scheme to transition into a full-blown social credit system like that of China, in reality, it’s already being rolled out.

“This morning it was reported that the government is planning to introduce a health app in January which will monitor our shopping, our exercise levels, or intake of fruit and vegetables — and reward us with virtue points which we can exchange for discounts, free tickets … and other goodies,” Clark writes.41

Considering the whole world is acting in lockstep — as described and recommended in the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” report42 — it’s probably only a matter of time before the same kind of social credit score “carrot” gets dangled in front of our faces here in the United States.

First Comes the Carrot, Then the Stick

Looking back, it’s easy to see how the carrot and the stick have been intermittently used to herd the population toward a desired goal. While getting everyone injected with SARS-CoV-2 spike producing mRNA is clearly one goal, it’s not the only one.

As indicated by Clark, a social credit system that grants outside agencies complete control over your life is also being introduced, one small step at a time. And, like with the COVID jabs, carrots to get people to voluntarily embrace this social credit system are deployed first. The stick will come out later, as it has with the COVID shots.

ABC News panelist Margaret Hoover recently told George Stephanopoulos she thinks government ought to make life “almost impossible” for people who reject the COVID shot.43

To that end, she suggests making COVID injectables a requirement for government-provided health and financial services, such as VA treatment, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, “because … we are going to have to take care of you on the back end.” 

PayPal to Block Certain Financial Transactions

Those relying on Social Security aren’t the only ones who might begin to feel the sting of the stick. More than 150 health care workers were recently fired from Houston Methodist for refusing the experimental COVID jab,44 and many other professions face the same “jab or job” dilemma.

PayPal is also using the stick against the self-employed and small businesses that aren’t toeing the desired line. It recently partnered with the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism “to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities,” Reuters reported, July 26, 2021,45 with the aim of “disrupting” such transactions.

The headline, “PayPal to Research Transactions That Fund Hate Groups, Extremists,” had originally included the word “Blocking.” Perhaps announcing that PayPal will actually block the financial transactions of those suspected of harboring anti-government sentiments was too great a truth bomb for the average Reuters audience?

Targeted entities include individuals and companies suspected of supporting white supremacy and anti-government narratives, and anyone spreading information and/or profiting from antisemitism, islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry.

The information collected will be shared with other financial institutions, law enforcement and policymakers. It doesn’t take a genius to deduce where this might end up, considering intelligence agencies are already deploying sophisticated cyberwarfare tools against civilians.46,47,48 As reported by independent investigative journalist Whitney Webb in an article for Unlimited Hangout:49

“British and American state intelligence agencies are ‘weaponizing truth’ … in a recently announced ‘cyber war’ to be commanded by AI-powered arbiters of truth against information sources that challenge official narratives.”

While it can cause discomfort, the best defense is a peaceful offense. If you don’t like where things are headed, peaceful disobedience is likely to be the most effective way to push back, be it against mask mandates, forced vaccinations, a two-tier society of vaccinated/unvaccinated with unequal rights and privileges, mandatory vaccine passports, a social credit system, or all of the above.