It’s quite evident that the kind of society the technocratic elites are pushing us all toward is one that emulates China: one where lip service is paid to human rights while the population is held in an iron grip of high-tech surveillance.
China’s authoritarian-style rule is something artist and freedom activist Ai Weiwei is deeply familiar with. In a November 12, 2021, interview with PBS “Firing Line,” (above)1 Weiwei discussed his struggles with the Chinese government, which he also reveals in his memoir, “A Thousand Years of Joys and Sorrows.”
After years of political persecution, Weiwei escaped China in 1981 and ended up in New York City. In 1989, a peaceful protest in Tiananmen Square turned bloody, as the Chinese military slaughtered many of those in attendance. Several were friends of Weiwei’s. In his book, he writes:2
“Young people in China today have no knowledge at all of the student protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and if they knew they might not even care, for they learn submission before they have developed an ability to raise doubts and challenge assumptions.”
[The] young generation, they have no way to even to raise the question or challenge this conclusion from the government. So basically, the whole generation, or generations — the Chinese majority — will be on the side of the government, which is a pity …
Today, as we struggle against government COVID propaganda, the effectiveness of this kind of totalitarian brainwashing is becoming clear. There’s no doubt we’re in the most sophisticated war in the history of mankind, and anyone capable of rational thought and an inkling toward freedom is the designated enemy.
It’s not hard to imagine a future where the population is so grossly misinformed about the basics of science and medicine that there’s no one left to even consider questioning the narrative handed to them. As noted by Weiwei, we’re already well on our way:4
“Certainly, in the United States, with today’s condition, you can easily have an authoritarian [ruler]. In many ways, you are already in the authoritarian state. You just don’t know it. Many things happening today in the U.S. can be compared to the Cultural Revolution in China — like people trying to be unified in a certain political correctness. That is very dangerous.”
Ashley Rindsberg, author of “The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History,” dissects the news coverage of SARS-CoV-2’s origin in her Tablet magazine piece, “The Lab Leak Fiasco.” In it, she suggests China is largely behind the unscientific denial of the lab leak theory. She writes:5
“For over a year the media enforced falsehoods about the pandemic’s origins, never evaluated the evidence, never apologized, and was never held accountable … Jan. 24, 2020, British peer-reviewed journal The Lancet published a study6 on the novel coronavirus it identified as 2019-nCoV.
The study substantially contradicted the official Chinese government narrative about when and how the virus originated … While the Chinese government had pointed to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market … the paper found that at least one-third of initial cases — including ‘patient zero’ … — had no connection to the market whatsoever.”
Initial news coverage criticized the Chinese government’s handling of the crisis and questioned the narrative coming from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Then, at the very end of January 2021, the tide suddenly shifted. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton was ferociously attacked for stating that:7
“We still don’t know where the coronavirus originated. Could have been a market, a farm, a food processing company. I would note that Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”
In her article, Rindsberg details how mainstream media created a “bioweapons straw man,” conflating the accidental lab leak theory, which had relatively widespread support and plenty of evidence, with the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon, which very few, and certainly not Cotton, were claiming at the time.
That “something else” is China, which wields undeniable influence over American business, including news media and entertainment. As noted by Rindsberg, there’s “an awareness that when the CCP bares its teeth, or, if necessary, goes on the attack, it can alter the fortunes of billion-dollar companies, thousands of employees, and millions of shareholders …”
Even a corporate behemoth like Amazon is not immune to the CCP’s power. According to Rindsberg, half of the top 10,000 sellers on Amazon are in China, so the CCP could easily throttle Amazon’s profits simply by restricting access to those vendors. Amazon is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, one of several news outlets that suddenly turned coat-tails and disparaged the lab leak theory as a fringe conspiracy.
The CCP has also strategically invested in media companies around the world, giving it the ability to sway coverage to its advantage more directly. “The list of major U.S. media companies with substantial ties to China is so long that it is … difficult to name one that isn’t dependent in one way or another on Chinese cash,” Rindsberg writes.
Some of the scientists involved in dangerous gain-of-function research, the kind suspected of having spawned SARS-CoV-2, are also beholden to China. But beside that, they’re also incentivized to discredit the lab leak theory in general, regardless of where the lab might be situated, as their careers would be lost if gain-of-function research were to be banned.
Not surprisingly, people involved in some of the riskiest research of this kind don’t want anyone to suspect their work might produce a global killer. A prime example is EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak,9 who was subcontracting coronavirus gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. February 19, 2020, 27 scientists published a letter in The Lancet,10 condemning “conspiracy theories” that suggest COVID-19 has an unnatural origin.
In mid-September 2021, it was finally revealed that the letter had been cooked up by Daszak, and 26 of the 27 signatories had ties to the Wuhan lab. In the meantime, however, Daszak had been “uncritically interviewed, cited or tapped as a talking head” by a long list of legacy media, Rindsberg notes.
Everywhere he went, he preached the natural, zoonotic origin theory. According to Daszak, the virus jumped from animal to human, most likely a bat. He also stressed that the pandemic was a direct outgrowth of mankind’s greedy encroachment on nature. This is a talking point straight out of The Great Reset agenda, to which the Green New Deal belongs.
“Together, these formed what we might call Daszak’s triangle, a mental model that made lab leak a social and political impossibility for anyone who did not want to be branded as an anti-science, right-wing xenophobe.”
Daszak was also a staunch defender of China’s research on zoonotic viruses with human emergence potential in general. “The media enthusiastically embraced this notion as it reported on China as a global model for fighting the pandemic and handling major crises more generally,” Rindsberg says.
And that brings us back to where we started. U.S. media have glorified China as a role model for how to “win” the war against the virus. The fact that this “safety” has come at the price of freedom is something the media have skirted almost entirely.
Indeed, many have opined that people shouldn’t expect to have human rights during a pandemic such as this. CNN’s Don Lemon openly suggested the unvaccinated should be banned from grocery stores12 — an inhumane suggestion of such epic proportions, many couldn’t believe their ears, yet this is happening today in India.13
Indeed, banning the unvaccinated from society, including removing some of the most basic rights, is underway by governments around the world, to varying degrees — all for an illness that has killed just .012% of the population and 1% of those infected.14,15
And let’s not forget that the reason a pandemic could be declared and combated with gene-based therapies in the first place is because basic definitions were altered. Reality didn’t change. Science didn’t change. Medical knowledge didn’t change. Only words did, and based on altered verbiage alone all sorts of falsehoods have been promoted.
As just one example, a “vaccine” has since its inception been known as a product that protects you from disease by producing immunity (even if only temporary).16 That definition has now changed to a product that stimulates an immune response against a given disease.17
This definition was obviously contrived to describe the limited function of the COVID-19 gene therapy injections, which do not make you immune and can’t prevent you from getting or spreading the infection. By any definition of a vaccine in use before 2021, the COVID shot is not a vaccine.
At best, the shot will reduce your symptoms. This also means they cannot, ever, produce herd immunity. This despite the redefinition of herd immunity, from being something produced as a result of natural infection, to something resulting from mass-vaccination.
So, why did media turn against the lab leak theory? As noted by Rindsberg, “Which theory is more likely — lab leak or zoonotic spillover — is … the key question for science. The question for the media is why it chose sides so quickly, so vigorously and so collectively, before there was enough evidence either way.” The answer, Rindsberg argues, goes back to China’s influence over American business, science and media.
As evidence she cites a May 27, 2021, article in Nature,18 which stated that “rhetoric around an alleged lab leak has grown so toxic that it’s fueling online bullying of scientists and anti-Asian harassment in the United States, as well as offending researchers and authorities in China whose cooperation is needed” — the key sentence there being “offending researchers and authorities in China.”
“In these few words — more ham-fisted but also more revealing than anything you’d find in a leading consumer news outlet — Nature drew back the curtain on not just the connection the media drew between lab leak and racism, but the media’s broader take on the role that China played in the pandemic,” Rindsberg writes.19
This question is at the core of what might be one of the greatest journalistic scandals of our generation. That there appears to be no accountability, self-reflection, or Iraq-WMD-style reckoning on the horizon only compounds the problem.
If and when it does, we are likely to conclude that the false narrative around the pandemic’s origins represented a tipping point — a comprehensive failure in journalistic quality and mores … We might also discover that public trust in an institution essential to democracy was damaged beyond repair.”
“In China, we have a saying: ‘To deal with anything, you have to be strong yourself.’ I don’t think the West is strong enough themselves to deal with China … I don’t think the U.S. has the ability to really examine the situation of its own moral and [ethical] behavior.”
Where does that leave us? It’s now undeniable that the U.S. is becoming more totalitarian by the day, and many of the incoming changes to society are patterned after the CCP’s iron rule, with round-the-clock digital surveillance, a punishing social credit score and draconian censorship system, the likes of which Americans cannot even fathom. Even the smallest dissenter is hunted down and punished.
People who grow up under this kind of regime will never know anything else. They’ll accept it as a condition of life. Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren? If not, there’s no time to waste. You have to speak out against and peacefully resist anything and everything that brings us closer to that end.
Importantly, as explained by Mattias Desmet,21 professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in Belgium, totalitarianism differs from dictatorships in that totalitarian regimes commit their worst atrocities once dissenting voices have been silenced.
By keeping the pressure on, by vocalizing dissent, many planned horrors can be kept at bay. By speaking out and uniting in the fight for freedom we also provide those who otherwise would simply go along with the program, for fear of being ostracized, a better alternative. They can join the resistance rather than joining those who are trying to destroy society as we know it and take away our freedoms.
“In my opinion, it is not an option to stop speaking,” Desmet says. “It’s the most important thing we can do.” We also need to create parallel structures — businesses, organizations, technologies, movements and creative pursuits that fit within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within the totalitarian world.
According to Desmet, totalitarianism will always self-destruct in the end. The psychological underpinnings are so self-destructive that the system ends up killing its own. That’s the good news. The bad news is a totalitarian system can survive for long periods of time before petering out, and there tend to be few survivors at the end.
That said, Desmet believes this new global totalitarianism is more unstable than regional dictator-led totalitarian systems, so it may self-destruct faster. So, the key is to survive outside the totalitarian system while we patiently resist it and wait for its self-destruction.
If you appreciate this content please share!