The Great Reset, page 19
Dr. Denis Rancourt, a physicist and former professor and environmental-science researcher at the University of Ottawa, ripped the “follow ‘The Science’ ” narrative. “Do not trust science. Practice valid scientific methods. Period. Actual science never asks to be trusted. Science asks you to think independently, and always be willing to re-examine, that’s all,” Rancourt wrote.113
“We’re Going to Kill Ourselves because of Stupidity”
Allan Savory trashed consensus science, calling it “stupidity” in the 2020 documentary Return to Eden. As Savory, a Zimbabwean ecologist and research biologist, explained, “People talk glibly about science—what is science? People coming out of a university with a master’s degree or a Ph.D.; you take them into the field and they literally don’t believe anything unless it’s a peer-reviewed paper.
“It’s the only thing they accept, and you say to them, ‘But let’s observe. Let’s think. Let’s discuss.’ They don’t do it. It’s just, ‘Is it in a peer-reviewed paper or not?’ That’s their view of science. I think it’s pathetic.”
Savory was just getting warmed up: “Gone into universities as bright young people, they come out of them brain dead, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers, et cetera. No, that’s academia. And if a paper is peer-reviewed it means everybody thought the same therefore they approved it.
“An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never ever be peer-reviewed. So we’re blocking all new advances in science that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in science, almost always they don’t come from the center of that profession—they come from the fringe, people who see it differently. The finest candlemakers in the world couldn’t even think of electric lights. They don’t come from within, they often come from outside the bricks. We’re going to kill ourselves because of stupidity.”114
Rancourt echoed Savory’s sentiments, agreeing that today’s academia produces “obedient intellectuals.” He explained that professors today are “virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals.”
“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” Rancourt said.
This system “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” Rancourt pointed out. “When you do find something bad, you quickly learn and are told you better toe the line on this—your career depends on it.”115
Renowned Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis explained how the powerful, politically determined COVID-19 narrative corrupted science. “The retraction of a highly visible hydroxychloroquine paper from The Lancet was a startling example: A lack of sharing and openness allowed a top medical journal to publish an article in which 671 hospitals allegedly contributed data that did not exist, and no one noticed this outright fabrication before publication. The New England Journal of Medicine, another top medical journal, managed to publish a similar paper; many scientists continue to heavily cite it long after its retraction,” Ioannidis wrote.
Ioannidis, a professor of biomedical science and statistics at Stanford University, explained how his field of specialty became compromised during COVID-19:
The pandemic led seemingly overnight to a scary new form of scientific universalism. Everyone did COVID-19 science or commented on it. By August 2021, 330,000 scientific papers were published on COVID-19, involving roughly a million different authors. An analysis showed that scientists from every single one of the 174 disciplines that comprise what we know as science has published on COVID-19. By the end of 2020, only automobile engineering didn’t have scientists publishing on COVID-19. By early 2021, the automobile engineers had their say, too.
At first sight, this was an unprecedented mobilization of interdisciplinary talent. However, most of this work was of low quality, often wrong, and sometimes highly misleading. Many people without subject-matter technical expertise became experts overnight, emphatically saving the world….
Anyone who was not an epidemiologist or health policy specialist could suddenly be cited as an epidemiologist or health policy specialist by reporters who often knew little about those fields but knew immediately which opinions were true. Conversely, some of the best epidemiologists and health policy specialists in America were smeared as clueless and dangerous by people who believed themselves fit to summarily arbitrate differences of scientific opinion without understanding the methodology or data at issue.116
When you believe you are saving the world, the only science that matters is “The Science” that supports your preconceived political views.
CHAPTER 7 Censorship and Tech Tyranny
Imposing a Great Reset on the global population requires taking control of all means of communication. The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset envisioned by Klaus Schwab requires power over the flow of information.
Let’s take a look at how Schwab’s vision is playing out in the real world, post–COVID-19. Very well, it turns out. In the years following 2020, we saw major interference in our ability to communicate on a range of topics and a rapid descent toward total control of speech, as cancel culture and suppression of “misinformation” took over social media, government, private business, and the corporate world.
In order to achieve the Great Reset, it is necessary to silence dissent and control information that does not comport with the dear leaders’ sweeping vision. The ability to censor and cancel any opposing thought or person or organization at a whim is central to the Great Reset.
German economics professor Antony P. Mueller explained why restrictions on speech are so critical for the advance of tyranny. “Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable.”1
Event 201
A chilling example of how forward-thinking and prepared the visionaries of the Great Reset were for the censorship regime that is being imposed now was an exercise that took place in October 2019. As we have seen, a pandemic simulation exercise titled “Event 201” was conducted as part of a joint effort sponsored by the World Economic Forum, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in October 2019, just as COVID-19 was beginning to spread in Wuhan.2
Event 201 portrayed a hypothetical coronavirus pandemic that would kill sixty-five million people, necessitating a global response coordinated between governments, international organizations, and global business concerns. Event 201 hearkened back to the Rockefeller Foundation’s 2010 future-scenario event that we discussed in chapter 2. The visions on display at both events were eerily similar.
And when it came to combating the imaginary projected pandemic in Event 201, guess what one of the key takeaways was? A massive, coordinated censorship campaign by governments, Big Tech, and health organizations, all colluding to silence dissenting voices and inconvenient facts—justified by the excuse of “misinformation.” In other words, they were planning and practicing the very technique that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube actually used following COVID’s debut in 2020 to keep divergent voices from challenging the ever-changing narrative. What follows are excerpts from the October 2019 “Event 201 Pandemic Exercise: Segment 4, Communications Discussion and Epilogue Video.”3
A woman playing a newscaster named Chen Huang breathlessly reports, “Alarming news emerging from social media companies today about the CAPS pandemic. Twitter and Facebook are reporting they’ve identified and deleted a disturbing number of accounts dedicated to spreading this information about the outbreak.”
A fictional reporter named Catalina Parks claims, “Countries are reacting in different ways as to how best to manage the overwhelming amounts of dis- and misinformation circulating over the Internet. In some cases, limited Internet shutdowns are being implemented to quell panic.”4
“Controlling and Reducing Access to Information”
A mock news report and panel discussion about how to stop “misinformation” is presented in the Event 201 video.
“It is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation…. The task of identifying every bad actor is immense. Experts agree that new disinformation campaigns are being generated every day. This is a huge problem that’s going to keep us from ending the pandemic and might even lead to the fall of governments, as we saw in the Arab Spring. If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice,” a panelist called Kevin McAleese says in the Event 201 video.
The video of the hypothetical Event 201 pandemic goes on to report, “Some governments have taken control of national access to the Internet. Others are censoring websites and social media content and a small number have shut down internet access completely to prevent the spread of misinformation. Penalties have been put in place for spreading harmful falsehoods, including arrests.”
An Event 201 panelist named Matthew Harrington explains: “We’re at a moment where the social media platforms have to step forward and recognize their moment to assert that they’re a technology platform and not a broadcaster is over. They in fact have to be a participant in broadcasting accurate information and partnering with the scientific and health communities to counterweight, if not flood the zone, of accurate information.”5
Event 201 makes crystal clear how the architects of the Great Reset were prepared to pounce when COVID-19 appeared on the scene.
And what actually happened in 2020 and 2021, when a real pandemic appeared? Supposed “misinformation” about the coronavirus and the COVID-19 vaccines was censored on social media—and people who spread it were canceled. Twitter, for example, repeatedly warned former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson (who had over three hundred thousand followers) against spreading “misinformation” when he posted inconvenient facts about the pandemic. When he persisted in publicizing scientific studies and data about problems with the vaccines, he was permanently suspended.6
“A Nation That Is Afraid to Let Its People Judge the Truth”
“We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” —President John F. Kennedy in an address on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America on February 26, 19627
“The Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Schwab’s World Economic Forum all started planning tabletop pandemic scenarios several years prior to the covid fiasco. Now all of them are involved in the development and implementation of digital vaccine passports, providing the basis for the digital ID and social credit regime that will be at the core of technocratic totalitarianism of the 4th Industrial Revolution, with China leading the way,” author Raelle Kaia pointed out in an analysis titled “Why Are They Doing This?”
“We are also increasingly living under a regime of censorship, blacklisting, surveillance, and authoritarian measures directed at dissidents and nonconformists,” Kaia wrote.
According to Kaia this “fits with the pre-existing aims and activities of these entities, and it also fits with the evidence of a coordinated global media and technocratic covid response, in imitation of China. In addition, this hypothesis helps explain the deeper purpose served by the lockdowns. They provide an excuse for Western democracies to disrupt their societies sufficiently enough to install Chinese-style authoritarian control measures. Social distancing and prohibitions on public gatherings stifle dissent and force much of life into the digital realm. Mask mandates dehumanize the individual and instill fear and disdain for organic human biological processes. This conditions the populace to accept future transhuman biological modifications. Censorship and cancelling regimes encourage silent compliance and obedience to technocratic authority.”8
“Mass Formation Psychosis”
“How does this happen?” asked virologist Dr. Robert Malone on The Joe Rogan Experience. Malone, whose research was instrumental in the invention of the mRNA technology that the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines are based on, was referring to the fact that “a third of the population [is] basically being hypnotized.” Malone argued that the public fear of the coronavirus can be explained by looking at Germany in the 1930s. Germany had “a very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad. And how did that happen? The answer is mass formation psychosis,” he explained.
“When you have a society that has become decoupled from each other and has free-floating anxiety—in a sense that things don’t make sense, we can’t understand it—and then their attention gets focused by a leader or series of events on one small point, just like hypnosis, they literally become hypnotized and can be led anywhere…. The data are irrelevant. And, furthermore, anybody who questions that narrative is to be immediately attacked; they are the other. This is central to mass-formation psychosis, and this is what has happened.”10
“The Suppression of a People”
“The suppression of a people, of a society, begins—in my mind—with the censorship of the written or spoken word. It was so in Nazi Germany, it is so in many places today where those in power are afraid of the consequences of an informed and educated people. In a mature and incredibly diverse society such as ours, the access to all perspectives of an issue becomes more and more important…. That process cannot and should not be stifled.” —songwriter John Denver, testifying about warning labels on music to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on September 19, 19859
Biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, author of the book Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam, warned that the merger of corporate and government power is the greatest threat to freedom. “It is not big government alone,” he said, “It is this new hybrid of big government and big business.”
“We have spent the last 40 years defending the castle of capitalism from the front door without recognizing that that castle was invaded through the back door from woke activists to the Chinese Communist Party,” he explained.11
A concept known as “managerialism,” which “fuses industry and government” is being implemented, noted Pedro Gonzalez, associate editor at Chronicles magazine explained. “Just a handful of billionaires own America’s newspapers, for example, while six corporations control virtually all media outlets.”12
The real-world response to COVID-19 has followed the path laid out in the Event 201 scenarios disturbingly closely. Post-COVID, social media became enforcers for the WHO, the CDC, and other public health bureaucracies to suppress any opinions and even any news not in-line with the approved narrative.
“New Dark Age Cometh”
In the world of the Great Reset, climate change, and COVID-19, no dissent can be allowed. Everyone must support lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, the Green New Deal, UN climate pacts, COVID curfews, mask mandates, church closures, and mandatory vaccines. There must be no questioning the claims about “The Science.” If you dare question, you will be promptly silenced, defunded, marginalized, and de-platformed.
Nobel Prize–winning Stanford University chemist Michael Levitt was canceled for his COVID wrongthink.
Professor Levitt, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2013, was set to be a keynote speaker at the First International Biodesign Research Conference in December of 2020. But Levitt’s invitation was withdrawn after he spoke publicly in opposition to COVID hysteria and lockdown policies.
“My keynote uninvited,” Levitt explained. He was told that the “other speakers… all complained about your COVID claims” and were “threatening to quit” unless he was canceled.
“New Dark Age Cometh,” Levitt wrote. “I had no intention to talk about COVID19; it is not the theme of the meeting. All my work until 26 Jan. 2020 has been non-COVID computational biology.”13
Crushing Dissent
“Climate change skeptics have seen this type of crushing of dissent for decades when it comes to ‘climate change.’ Whether you support COVID lockdowns equates to whether you support the UN Paris Pact or Green New Deal in the climate world. If you oppose mandatory masks, that is like not believing in the alleged ‘97% consensus’ on climate. Can the government ‘control’ a virus equates to can government ‘control’ the climate. The COVID/Climate connection runs deep.” —Marc Morano, commenting on Stanford University’s Michael Levitt’s facing cancel culture over COVID-1914
Levitt was an early critic of viral panic and lockdowns. “I am a real baby boomer—I was born in 1947, I am almost 73 years old—but I think we’ve really screwed up…. We’ve left your generation with a real mess in order to save a relatively small number of very old people,” Levitt had said of COVID-19’s mass global-lockdown policies.15
