All posts by Bill Willers

Masks are a Psychological Preparation for Mandatory Vaccinations

This respirator does not protect against the risk of contracting disease or infection.

Warning with a box of N-95 respirators.

You have no right not to be vaccinated. You have no right not to wear a mask. You have no right to open up your business …. If you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm.

Alan Dershowitz 

The lockdown, along with the fear campaign with its daily doses of death statistics and warnings of impending spikes, is a full assault being advanced stepwise toward a dystopia of globalist design. The masks that now dominate on faces everywhere place wearers and non wearers into one or the other of two sharply defined categories, each category carrying a list of traits in the minds of those in the opposite category. What a perfect, visible way to split The People into competing teams. Wearers are sheep!; the maskless are public hazards!

Corporate media is pushing the division with all of its corporate gusto, and if one is looking for a stark example of MSM divisiveness, it would be hard to beat this from Politico: “Wearing a mask is for smug liberals. Refusing to is for reckless Republicans”. Simple, no? In such an either-or world, fine distinctions within complex issues are not to be entertained, with the result that life-long leftists, if contending against the mask, are assumed to be solidly in the hardcore, rightwing Trump camp, fit for a MAGA hat.

There are different motives for wearing a “respirator”. It is no secret that some people are so terrified of death that they fear the remotest risk. What a helluva a way to live! Others, despite history’s countless lessons, blindly trust any governmental claim. A huge fraction, though, perhaps a majority, wear them simply to avoid the public shaming program and so opt to go along. As Lewis Lapham wrote in Gag Rule, “The willingness to go along to get along is as American as the Salem witch trials and apple pie.” But when “everybody does it”, the spectacle psychologically reinforces the perception of legitimacy of even the fraudulent. In the current environment, just going along — which is not unrelated to apathy — lends support to an unelected global elite now attending to details of an impending Great Reset that will form the basis of the New Normal.

One commentator states, “The only way to survive in Gates’s ‘new normal’ will be to develop a network of service providers who work off the surveillance grid of Big Brother. These will be small mom and pops and sole proprietors.” Alas, small businesses that might serve an underground economy are, as an objective of the lockdown, failing by the tens of thousands monthly. And now, as authorities with endless financial resources can persuade the upper managements of surviving chains and big box stores, what began as a guideline is hardening into an ironclad policy of “no mask, no entry, no exception” that is enforced throughout a company, all the way down to the minimum-wage guards who see that you get masked, or you are barred from buying food. Checkmate!

The screws tighten every week now as Orwell’s vision plays out in plain sight in workplaces and neighborhoods and on TV. Given the impact of masking on those with respiratory diseases, the “no exception” mandate seems a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but during the Covid-19 offensive neither agency is enforcing directives. Besides, how many citizens concern themselves with such details when the specter of impending death dominates daily news cycles? And how many will see conformity to governmental demands as the only logical option when the coming global digital currency makes “off the surveillance grid” a quaint concept of a past era?

The thesis of mask versus the antithesis of anti-mask will be settled, one way or another. If the public obediently accepts, as a resolution of the conflict, that we must be masked or be hit with fines and imprisonment, the self-appointed global elite will see that the masses yielded, conclude that they will yield again, and understand that the road is clear to their world of mandated vaccinations. Refusal to wear a mask is now being framed as making oneself a danger to others. That deception appears to have been a success, and it indicates that those in the future who take a militant stand against mass vaccination will be depicted by the Alan Dershowitz’s of the New World as walking bioweapons.

In the the final analysis, the choice to be vaccinated or not, like the choice to be masked or not, will be based less on one’s political or social views than on the understanding and trust one has gained in a powerful government, and by extension, on a willingness to face down a government grown tyrannical. Benjamin Franklyn, when asked what kind of government we were going to get, answered “A republic, if you can keep it”. Given his response, one suspects that he had doubts. If so, it appears his doubts were justified.

• Postscript: Catherine Austin Fitts, former bank president, Wall Street investor, and Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, has the history, the connections and the fine eye to make observations worth one’s serious attention. Having “left the establishment” (her words), she explains the history of vaccines vis-à-vis the law, the freedom from liability that is gained for anything that can be labeled a “vaccine”, and the prospect of what might be incorporated into injectables. If you read anything today, make sure it’s this!

The Mask as a Symbol of Subjugation

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.
The New England Journal of Medicine, May 21, 2020

(T)hey told us exactly what was coming, and advised us to shut up and follow orders. Tragically, most people have done just that.
CJ Hopkins, 2020

Image: Anadolu Agency

It’s difficult to imagine a crueler attack on the human family than the insidious prevention of person-to-person contact. What amounts to house arrest, plus enforced wearing of masks, plus the order to stay a body length from others, has the stated aim of preventing contagion, but as philosopher Giogio Agamben put it recently, “It is political contagion, let it be understood”. He’s correct. The contagion that must be checked is not viral but political. The triad of official mandates hinders communication that cannot be monitored. If online, unauthorized political discourse and strategy can be recorded for the individual’s dossier. In the street not so, at least not yet.

In 1933, Hitler suspended the Weimar Constitution following the Reichstag fire. Citizen rights under that Constitution were abolished and never reinstated. A similar drama continues to play out in the United States since the 9/11 attack, which resulted in the Patriot Act (of ironic title) that trashes the U.S. Constitution, resulting in free rein for the nation’s intelligence organizations in concert with the social media giants. The First Amendment is being negated according to someone’s definition of “hate speech” or “community standards”, with entire sites of information and opinion being “deplatformed”. The Fourth Amendment is a hollow lie in that each citizen’s every act is recorded toward that planned-for day in which all activities are digitally recorded, and woe betide creative souls who offend the rules.

The lockdown was never really about a pandemic. Covid19 was just the pretext. Bill Gates himself admitted (in an unguarded moment?) that earlier SARS and MERS were more “fatal,” i.e., more lethal, than Covid19, yet they came and went without crashing the economy. But more than just the economy, it was day-to-day existence as we all live it that was a prime target of the lockdown. Ending the lockdown tomorrow would not counter the damage already done. We’ve been psychologically mauled, and there’s no end in sight. Warnings of “spikes” and of future waves come daily. Yes, countless jobs and businesses are being lost, but it is the devastating psychological impact that permeates society throughout that is inescapable. The emotional and spiritual damage will not be healing anytime soon. As intended, we are disoriented and will be for decades as the “conspiring internationalists”, so-called by David Rockefeller, prepare us for a life according to their globalist design.

The cloth masks seen everywhere now are symbolic. However useful in stopping airborne droplets, they do not hinder the passage of viruses, made clear by the warning on a box of the type of mask commonly seen. The media’s favorite expert, Anthony Fauci, stated flatly on CBS 60 Minutes in March that “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask”. Two months later, as lockdown demands intensified, his stance shifted to the mask as “a symbol for people to see”. Review articles indicating that masks are ineffective, or even counterproductive, rarely make it to mainstream viewers, or they are simply disappeared. But symbol the mask certainly is — a symbol of subjugation.

Living fully and free carries a normal level of risk. In addition to assorted germs and parasites that are a part of nature, there are lightning strikes, auto collisions, falling down stairs and being victimized by criminals — primarily elements within our governing structures. We are being conned with a manufactured terror campaign by a power bloc that considers the bulk of ordinary society a herd to be manipulated. The many who understand this, but who nevertheless wear a mask simply to conform to what they assume to be majority agreement, are allowing themselves to become part of the con. Take the damned thing off! Breathe free!

Books Protect History, Cash Protects Privacy

But to judge everyone from the past based on the values of today – there truly is no end to how much of history would need to be erased.
Simon Black

History is punctuated by wars, and it’s the winners whose explanations become the records that following generations assume to be as reliable as if carved in stone. The recent 100th anniversary of the First World War prompted many a rearward exploration for facts about what might have led to the “war to end all wars”. A deep search reveals that many of what had become assumed truths over the years are flat-out wrong.The “good guys” weren’t always good.

Following WWI, the War Guilt Clause of the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to accept total responsibility for the war, and the reparations demanded of that country, already in ruins, were so crushing as to generate a complex of conditions leading to WWII a generation later. And how might one look back to determine exactly what those conditions were? This is not an invitation to debate historical details, but only to show that physical records, however buried and nearly forgotten, are the only concrete means by which historians can piece together webs of events for any given era. Even when solid records exist, disagreements in interpretation can lead to serious academic battles. A classic example is the experience of historian David Irving, whose accounts of details of WWII have been at such odds with prevailing narratives that it brought him to near ruin. Paul Craig Roberts reviews this succinctly.

Prior to the Internet, histories, news and commentary invariably came in physical form, so that researchers could verify. That’s no longer necessarily the case. Online commentators and bloggers, rather than appending a bibliography, typically use hyperlinks instead, and sites often disappear. Liberal Slant, a major site for progressive writers 20 years ago, abruptly vanished — archives and all — leaving no trace for future analysts. Today, readers inclined to pursue hyperlinks often are led to some variant of “This page does not exist”. New books are listing web addresses in bibliographies in addition to concrete sources. And just two decades into the 21st Century, online censorship is on the mad increase, often under the banner of sensitivity to arbitrary “community standards”. As increasing volumes of information are confined to an electronic record that can be manipulated or deleted, what are the implications for future historians and for humanity’s understanding of the past? Powerful interests able to rewrite history to support a given agenda do so without hesitation, and in a purely digital world, the possibility revise expands.

As long as there are books and records of paper and print, history is safe from permanent erasure and manipulation. To insure that records not be confined to the whims and agendas of digital engineers able to erase or edit or create electronic information at will, physical archives must be maintained, so that future analysts can go back to original sources for comparison against whatever the prevailing claims and opinions of their particular slice of time might have become.

Forcing the plebs onto a system of digital fiat currency transactions offers total control via a seamless tracking of all transactions in the economy, and the ability to block payments if an uppity citizen dares get out of line.

Michael Krieger

Despite countless warnings that accepting electronic money as the sole means of exchange would be cultural suicide, the trend in that direction continues. The great majority of world trade is now with digital money. At the personal level, the credit card becomes a de facto Orwellian “chip” in a cashless world, allowing authorities power to shut one out of the economy. It happens. William Binney, the NSA’s retired IT expert, has revealed that since 2001 every shred of information is being collected on everyone — everything! everyone! — and stored in immense electronic facilities. This May, 2020 interview of Binney is disturbing and, at least for the time being, on YouTube. 

Concern for privacy is driving many toward cryptocurrency, the perception being that it can’t be regulated by government or anyone else. Financial data kept in one’s “digital wallets” is stored on a network of computer “nodes”, so that — and this is a big selling point —  there is no single controlling authority. “Blocks” of data form a linear chain, or “blockchain”, where transfers of value are made, allegedly while maintaining anonymity of the individual. But Investopedia reports that cryptocurrencies are “…. theoretically immune to government interference or manipulation”. The key word is “theoretically”. Data mining techniques advance so rapidly it’s difficult to keep up, and governmental/intelligence technology is always way ahead of the public’s.

But even as cryptocurrency is being promoted for its privacy factor, Microsoft has applied for a patent on a “Cryptocurrency System Using Body Activity Data“.  “Body activity” is so broad a concept that it could indicate anything from gross gesture to any of many metabolic processes. The concept, as expressed in Microsoft’s application abstract, is for a “device”, placed on or in a person’s body, to collect data through “a mining process of a cryptocurrency system”. If the system judges the data satisfactory, the “user” gets a cryptocurrency “award”. The exact nature of the device is not made clear in the patent application.

However, in a separate project at MIT, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nanotechnology is used in the creation of a quantum-dot dye that can be introduced into the body along with vaccine via a microneedle patch applied to the skin. The dye is intended to contain a record of one’s vaccination history. But as the MIT report adds, “It’s possible someday that this ‘invisible’ approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications….. “. Indeed, as the technology advances, the volume of  personal information that can be stored will certainly increase significantly. And how that might link to Microsoft’s to-be-patented cryptocurrency system using body activity data as a means of determining “awards”, is worthy of society’s attention.

Here is the bottom line: In 2018, Christine LaGarde, then director of the International Monetary Fund, while creating a case for digital currency, made it abundantly clear that the global power structure has no intention of allowing humanity the privacy that only physical money can provide, when she declared: “Would central banks jump to the rescue and offer a fully anonymous digital currency? Certainly not. Doing so would be a bonanza for criminals.” That’s the ultimate in-your-face word about “elite” intention for the future of personal privacy, from someone with the authority state it. Confounding crooks and tax evaders is their standard argument against cash, but if society buys into it, the price tag is the end not only of individual privacy but also of control over personal finances. With any authoritarian decision that your accounts need a “haircut”, whether as tax or fine or “negative interest”, funds can be, and most certainly would be, docked automatically.

Never let cash be disappeared. If the government stops producing it, let your community, small or large, create its own form for local and regional exchange. As long as physical money is available, whether coin or paper or seashells or clay tablets, off-the-record private exchange is possible. If trade is ever made wholly digital, whether by legislative decree or simply through government’s gradual withdrawal of cash from the public marketplace, the inevitable result will be that the privacy necessary for people to be truly free will have been snuffed.

Collaborators And Resisters

Question: In a society grown dictatorial and oppressive would your good friend X collaborate or resist? If you were to resist, would X support your rights or side with the apparent source of power? If asked by authorities to scrutinize neighbors, would X do so? Would X yield naturally to arbitrary requests or invasive questioning, or would a strong sense of personal identity tend to question authoritarian entitlement? How quickly might X, whom you’ve known only under the conditions of a materially rich and smoothly-running society, turn on you if society were to unravel and X’s interests were suddenly at stake?

“Judge not”, we’re taught, but “taking the measure” of others is not a bad idea, particularly as the Covid Lockdown has provided new insight into the personalities of friends, colleagues, even family members. “Crisis reveals character” it is said, and the Lockdown hit with a suddenness and totality that has brought to the surface character traits not before seen in many of even the most familiar of associates. If one is by nature suspicious of state power and its history of deception and abuse, the spectacle of humanity being so easily herded is disturbing and psychologically isolating in a sense beyond mere home confinement.

One needn’t look far before it’s clear that the government has, over time, lied with alarming consistency. It lied about the sinking of the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, multiple political assassinations, 9/11, babies left to die on cold floors, WMDs and much more. These weren’t mistakes but carefully manufactured deceptions. Nevertheless, the most recent invention, concerning a flu claimed to be so virulent as to require the shutdown of the economy, has been accepted by what appears to be a gullible horde questioning nothing. In fact, early official Covid-19 information was a blizzard of lies designed to count deaths from any cause as Covid-19 deaths. Even so, the most recent CDC data reveal amazingly low mortality, making Covid-19 not radically different from other annual flu events. Trust in government and media continues to fall ever lower, so why were they so quickly believed in this case? Is it strictly because of the death fear factor, or has the picture of Americans as rugged, critical-thinking lovers of liberty just faded away with high-tech and consumerism? Was our bloated description of ourselves just wind after all?

Wordsmithing to control perception has been subtle and devious. “Self-isolation”, the result of official directive, gives mass house arrest an impression of personal choice. Forced indoors, we are said to be “sheltering”. “Social distancing” mandating a 6-foot minimum that has no scientific basis whatever, uses “social” to describe enforced separation. Some are suggesting it’s perhaps acceptable to have normal physical contact within a “bubble” —  aka a “quaranteam” — of a trusted very few. A once solid mass of freely interacting humanity has been quickly — and apparently willingly — fractured into isolated particles and sent indoors where highly-paid televised news readers craft a uniform reality for mass consumption. The many credible voices from the scientific community countering official information are carefully blocked from mainstream outlets that, by now, are owned by only four massive corporate entities. In governmentally-sanctioned outdoor and shopping situations, even the ability to read nuances of facial expression in our fellow humans is diminished by the obligatory mask.

Meanwhile, as in the past with certain political assassinations and 9/11, the “conspiracy theorist” epithet is again being widely applied. Whenever doubts arose regarding governmental story lines — JFK, MLK, 9/11— collaborators were quick to explain the psychological failings of “conspiracy theorists”, as if all such theories must be equally invalid. And so it is with the Covid Lockdown. Here, Huffpost begins by citing such a conspiracy theory: “Bill Gates is plotting to vaccinate the entire population.” The author then cites a psychologist: “People are drawn to conspiracy theories during periods of crisis and uncertainty, and this is certainly one of those times.” But no!, it is known that Bill Gates wants to vaccinate the world, because Gates has stated so on camera as well as by way of his foundation’s financing of organizations dedicated to “global vaccine projects”.

In 1961, President Kennedy told us of an insidious enemy with his revelation that “we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”. While he did not identify individuals involved in the conspiracy, he did elaborate on the immensity of their power. As time has passed, insight into the goal of the conspiracy was made clear by David Rockefeller in his 2002 autobiography Memoirs in a chapter titled “Proud Internationalist”:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Crises create opportunities for carrying out policies that would otherwise meet with resistance. Given that the unprecedented crisis of the manufactured Covid Lockdown has concentrated public attention with such laser-like focus that all other issues pale, one must conclude that actions toward the one world government desired by the “monolithic and ruthless” conspirators about which Kennedy warned, are being put into place “under the public’s radar”. If anything resembling democracy is to survive, and if the mass of humanity is to avoid being reduced to an ant-like colony of workers serving a minority of elites, these one-worlders must be resisted by any means necessary. This will quickly divide society into those who resist as opposed to those who either collaborate by choice (e.g., the great majority of legislators and purveyors of “news”, Wall Street financiers, hedge fund managers, K-Street lobbyists, et al.) or by simply going along. In the face of the despotic, passivity is collaboration. If one recognizes tyranny and does not act to resist it, one is a collaborator.

Now, as the Covid Lockdown has reduced, as planned, more millions to poverty or impending poverty, collaborators are being sought with offers that the unemployed would grab simply in the interest of survival. It’s the principle of making people so desperate that they can easily be brought to heel. The Rockefeller Foundation’s planned Pandemic Control Council would create a “Pandemic Response Corps” of 100,000 to 300,000 individuals at $40,000 per for a “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan.” As the locked-down economy begins to open up, you see, the need for “contact tracers” will continue to grow, because “rebounds” are expected. Strong communication skills are desirable for contact tracers, as they need to gather information on individuals and convey quarantine guidelines. As being a part of this surveillance system is being billed as a cool new career choice, Congress is considering House Bill 6666, the Trace Act, that seeks to provide $100 billion for contact tracing. Yes, indeed, things are moving forward so quickly it almost takes your breath away. 

While Americans of late have remained relatively inactive, French descendants of the revolutionaries who put the guillotine to good use in 1789 have been on the bloody front line against globalist elites — not that it was considered newsworthy in the U.S. Wearing their signature Yellow Vests, they continue to fight in the streets against heavily armed gendarmes. Meanwhile, the U.S. power bloc, not certain when, exactly, resistance might erupt into violent revolt on American turf, has preemptively transformed the nation’s police forces into hundreds of municipal and regional armies complete with swat teams and high-tech military equipment. Haven’t you noticed?

A Plague From Harvard 

Practically speaking, government might do well to maintain a more vigorous countermisinformation establishment.

Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule

In 2008, Harvard law professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule published “Conspiracy Theories” with the Social Services Research Network, and a year later in The Journal of Political Philosophy under the title “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”. In time, the contents became known to a shocked public, because the authors, to summarize, recommended that citizen groups failing to believe official accounts of events should be covertly penetrated by governmental agents who would then work to bring opinion into line with that desired by the government. They called the strategy “cognitive infiltration” and wrote that “conspiracy theorists”, which they equated with “extremists”, suffer from “crippled epistemology”, “cognitive blunders”, even forms of mental illness. To make contact in order to rehabilitate disillusioned citizens, the authors suggested that “Government agents … might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories.” Sunstein, ironically, lists an area of particular interest as “constitutional law”.

While the Harvard professors attempt to wax expert in the area of mass psychology (an odd place for legal scholars to dwell), their principle concern, rather than theories in general, were those surrounding 9/11, with readers assured: “Our focus throughout is on false conspiracy theories, not true ones.” This indicates that their article was an attempt to depict the government’s official explanations of events on 9/11 as beyond doubt, when , in fact, they have been, on many fronts, shown to be false. By the time the article was written, experts from myriad disciplines had already been spotlighting the many physical impossibilities throughout the official account, these including several books by theologian David Ray Griffin. It is not plausible that the authors could have been unaware of such a considerable body of investigation.

Because of their focus on 9/11, one must conclude that it was the single most important element prompting the article by Sunstein and Vermeule. To strengthen their rejection of claims of governmental complicity regarding 9/11, the authors wrote: “But when the press is free, and when checks and balances are in force, government cannot easily keep its conspiracies hidden for long.” Given the extensive history of governmental deceptions that come to light only years later (e.g. here, here, here), one cannot accept such a level of claimed naïveté’ as anything but fake. In addition, it is of more than passing interest that in 2009, following publication of “Conspiracy Theories”, President Obama, an alumnus of Harvard Law, chose Sunstein to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.


Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.

—  Jack Goldsmith, 2020

For Jack Goldsmith, Henry L. Shattuck Professor of Law at Harvard, maintaining social order and its “norms” overrules unwanted dissenting voices that are inevitable when free speech is unqualified, and it is presupposed that citizens may “sift and winnow” freely for truth. Goldsmith also invokes “Russia’s interference in the 2016 election”, a claim disproven, revealed as nothing more than a pop-gun of social media insertions that, beside the long history of U.S. interventions and “regime changes” (de facto invasions) reveal either rank hypocrisy or too high a level of ignorance for a prominent legal figure.

Goldsmith writes “These constitutional limits [i.e., the 1st and 4th Amendments] help explain why, since the Russian electoral interference, digital platforms have taken the lead in combatting all manner of unwanted speech on their networks—and, if anything, have increased their surveillance of our lives.” Ah, yes, he maintains, the U.S. Constitution interferes with government’s potential desire to invade privacy and to control mass freedom of expression, so we’re fortunate that, for out own good, Silicon Valley giants identify and block “misinformation”. Furthermore, he adds, “[T]he government has been in the shadows of these developments, nudging them along and exploiting them when it can.” How true, and how convenient it is that Silicon Valley serves as an indirect means for evasion by government of the 1st and 4th Amendments.

While Facebook and Twitter censorship “policies” are subject to change, governmental-private sector “collaboration” is a constant. And as Goldsmith assures us, “Facebook relies on fact-checking organizations and ‘authorities’ (from the World Health Organization to the governments of U.S. states) to ascertain which content to downgrade or remove.” Governments to validate censorship? Really! Moreover, the WHO has lost trustworthiness, as its funding has shifted from nation states to private sources, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in particular, with its deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry.


Many children are taught to believe in God. I came to believe in the power of systems analysis.

Lawrence Summers

Currency should be becoming technologically obsolete.

Kenneth Rogoff

Harvard Professor then President of Harvard, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Clinton Administration and later Director of Obama’s Economic Council, Lawrence Summers has been, and continues to be, a guiding light at the center of the economic system that has brought us to our present condition. If anyone would qualify as the face of the globalist’s deregulated “free market” pushing for the privatization of everything, of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that, since 1933, had protected depositors from high-risk investment/gambling practices of too-big-to-fail banks, of the protection from regulation of convoluted derivative “instruments”, it would be Summers.

More recently, Summers and fellow Harvard economics professor Kenneth Rogoff, have been promoting a reduction of “anonymous” (Rogoff’s usage) cash in society. In 2016 Summers authored a Washington Post article favoring “killing” the $100 bill, and in the same year, Rogoff published a book, The Curse of Cash. For both, the argument begins with the concept of phasing out large denomination bills on the basis that they are favored forms used in money laundering, tax-evasion and criminal activities such as drug running. Rogoff also complains that cash “handcuffs” central banks, and that without large bills bankers would be able take negative interest rates as low as 4 or 5% should they desire to force spending. As savings accounts are cropped, savers would be forced to spend. It would no longer be a matter of personal choice, but that’s OK with systems analysts.

But the ultimate goal was stated bluntly by, ironically, Steve Forbes:  “The real reason for this war on cash — start with the big bills and then work your way down — is an ugly power grab by Big Government.” And all signs point to exactly that. Summers was a chief economist of the World Bank, and Rogoff was a chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. That Rogoff’s above quote regarding the removal of physical money from society is indeed the ultimate goal was made clear by IMF Director Christine LaGarde in her 2018 “Winds of Change” speech, in which she presented the plan for a new digital currency, stating specifically that it would not be anonymous. Why not? “Doing so would be a bonanza for criminals.”

Well, it would also be a bonanza for government, however tyrannical it might become. It would create a dystopia in which all exchanges can be — and most certainly would be — made a part of one’s digital dossier. When physical money is no longer available (now it is being depicted as a spreader of germs), all exchange would be electronic, and that would render the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution null and void. Privacy would be a thing of the past. The inevitable result would be a self-editing citizenry, fearful of having access to life’s necessities cut off. Any individual that might become an irritant to government could simply have digital access to money snuffed. This is not wild speculation; it has happened.


The totalitarian legal and economic philosophy emanating from Harvard’s upper strata is based on a coldly analytic efficiency requiring a regimentation that is at odds with the autonomous (and anonymous!), even creative, democratic chaos of a free society. This is not a trivial matter, because Harvard students graduate into high positions that await them throughout government and media. Becoming aware of their abundance in the halls of power and communication is eye-opening, and when you start adding the graduates of Yale and other Ivy League schools, you have to conclude that the Ivys, socially and politically connected as they are, run the show. All members of the U.S. Supreme Court were associated with either Harvard or Yale — as student or faculty — as were all four Presidents from 1989 to 2016. And when you look at a rundown of principals at America’s “newspapers of record”, the New York Times and the Washington Post, it’s a clear picture of Ivy League dominance.

This, per individual, is not in itself a negative. But considered together, it reeks of intellectual incest. In 2014, Yale professor William Deresiewicz wrote “Excellent Sheep“, a searing indictment of Ivy education which he described as perpetuating the prestige and affluence of a privileged elite. Students, which he found generally to be intellectually incurious and conformist (“content to color within the lines that their education had marked out for them”), are educated to be leaders while actually becoming isolated from the very society they are supposed to lead. And because, with elite diplomas in hand, they actually do make their ways into positions of real influence, they carry with them the entrenched sclerotic values of an old guard that is an element of a globalist initiative dedicated to resisting opposing interests.

The Boston Marathon Bombing As Trial Run For A Global Lockdown

You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Rahm Emanuel

Not long ago I was sent the link to Sheila Casey’s expose’ of the Boston Marathon Bombing as a staged event. I had been aware the U.S. Military used amputees as crisis actors for training combat soldiers, as CNN had done a report in 2012. In comparing CNN footage with photos in Casey’s report, the Boston production looked embarrassingly amateurish, with an “explosion” produced by what one ex-Marine artillery officer considered to be “a studio-grade smoke machine.”

In paragraph 4, Casey links to a “Boston Globe video on You Tube” to expose faked aspects of the bombing. But the link now leads to a black screen: “Video unavailable”. If you search “Boston Globe video marathon bombing”, you again get a black screen: “Video Cloud video not found”. Both the article and following comments are jam-packed with links leading to black screens or “does not exist”. It is censorship protecting an official account. Nevertheless, Casey details rigorously in text, and the photographs are incontrovertible. Red paint looks nothing like blood, and “Jeff Bauman”, legs supposedly blown off, looks bored as actors race him, upright and with fake tibia exposed, to God knows where. 

There is good coverage of the “bombing” at Searchforthetruth, and this short piece (still on YouTube as I write), reveals the ‘bombing’ to have been a training exercise for the bomb squad. Footage includes an announcement “This is a drill” shortly before an explosion. At minute 6;15 in this video from Bitchute, someone shouts several times to police during a press interview “Why did you warn people to stay calm before the explosion?” Getting no response, he finally shouts “This is a false flag, gentlemen!” But the tale of death, with bloody bodies and limbs strewn all about has stuck — and been continually reinforced —  in the public mind.

To recognize the incident as a fake terrorist attack would make a thinking person wonder about possible motives behind a scenario replete with obvious fakery. Casey surmises: “It’s almost as if they are asking themselves: Just how stupid IS the public? Just how much horse shit WILL they swallow, so long as they hear it on their TV? And then they create an event such as this, which gives them a good read on what portion of the population is awake and thinking, and what portion is still under the trance of the nonstop propaganda known as the media.” And that — a “good read” on the public — makes perfect sense.

Beyond the capture of two supposed criminals, itself a specious tale, one sees the lockdown of a major city. Panic is created, people are ordered to stay home, and there is immediate obedience. The predisposition of modern Americans, attention fastened on their TVs, is revealed so clearly that an organized power structure might safely apply the same strategy on a national scale. This we are seeing now.

Journalists publishing in Off-Guardian have reported on many esteemed epidemiologists at odds with the global lockdown in response to what is not an atypical flu season (See here,  here and here). Within the first four minutes of his interview, Knut Wittkowski explains “containment” of the lockdown inhibits “herd immunity” which, allowed to run its course naturally, would end the pandemic in a matter of weeks. Only the elderly and “fragile” would be sequestered during such a period, as would be proper in any flu season. 

Epidemiologists representing this area of professional opinion are scrubbed entirely from mainstream news, much of which is scandalous, fear-mongering and seemingly a call for violence; e.g., this “officially at war…. bodies have been buried or burnt to charred cinders….”  from Daily Kos. On April 21, Frontline, a star in the lineup of PBS, that prime gatekeeper, aired “Coronavirus Pandemic“, predictably faithful to governmental orthodoxy and the diktat that unauthorized epidemiological expertise be given no mention. Still, some commentators are finding the steel to call the Covid19 Shutdown the “hoax” that it evidently is.

In broadening one’s sources of information, “official narrative” regarding the Covid19 lockdown appears ever more to be an odd 21st Century version of “wag the dog”, in which a flu du jour has been used to terrify and focus a TV-addicted public that earlier had demonstrated its willingness to be herded on command. Whatever is being accomplished beneath the cover of the lockdown most certainly, in the end, will not be in the interests of the broader public. Never has it been more important to remove one’s attention from the TV and to explore a variety of input and opinion. Beyond the highly paid talking shills on TV, there really are bona fide journalists and researchers dedicated to unearthing the truth of things.

What Does The Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation Want? 

There’s an interview of Bill Gates in which Gates reveals more than he might have intended. Rosemary Frei details many of the Orwellian aspects of Gates’ plans. In particular, consider these comments by Gates from disparate parts of the interview:

It’s [Covid19] quite infectious, way more infectious than MERS or SARS were. It’s not as fatal as they were ….. Nothing like this has ever happened to the economy in our lifetimes. But money — ya know — bringing the economy back and doing money — that’s more of a reversible thing than bringing people back to life. So we’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension — huge pain — in order to minimize the pain in the disease and death dimensions.

Gates is misleading. To admit that Covid19 is “not as fatal” as MERS or SARS is to state that it is less virulent — that the clinical symptoms are not as serious. “More infectious” only means more transmissible, which says nothing about the presence or absence of illness symptoms. So, what is arguably nothing more than a bad flu season is being used to justify the crashing of the economy. Who, exactly, is the “we” in Gates’ “We’re going to take the pain in the economic dimension”? Certainly not billionaire Gates. And wouldn’t “We’re going to…..” indicate that he was involved in the lockdown decision?

Out in the land, countless millions of Americans are seeing their lives put to a ruin beyond salvage. Thousands of small businesses — a life’s work for many — will not survive. In Spring of 2016, mainstream media was reporting that 40% of Americans were unable to come up with $400 to cover an emergency situation. Such a lack of financial cushion is to be barely above outright poverty. Imagine their terror now that their meager income has been further diminished by the lockdown. Gates, a tech genius, either does not comprehend the level of tragedy he advocates, or he does not care. It is no secret that extreme dread, when prolonged, is disastrous to one’s health.

Without detailed research one could not prove that many more Americans will die as a result of the lockdown than of Covid-19, but considering the countless ripple effects throughout the many interdependencies within a complex civilization, reason and experience lead one quickly to that conclusion. There will be mass anxiety, depression, seeking the respite from pain provided by alcohol, frayed nerves leading to violence, and sheer desperation driving many to consider crime in a last ditch effort to hold body and soul together.

Within the interview, Gates drops a bomb: “Eventually, what we’ll have to have is certificates of who’s a recovered person, who’s a vaccinated person, because you don’t want people moving around the world, where you have some countries that won’t have a control sadly.” What kind of “certificates”? What he actually has in mind may be revealed in a report of this past December that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding research at MIT in the development of a “Tattoo ID”, to be injected with vaccinations and available for anonymous detection. In time, the failure to have the appropriate identifying tattoo for any given year, and for any given virus officially declared dangerous, would most certainly be used to control individual freedom of movement. This should trigger every thinking person’s attention, particularly as it is reported that Gates refused to have his own children vaccinated.

Ernst Wolff is a German journalist focused on international finance and its ramifications. His March 20, 2020 interview (Here posted March 30 with English subtitles) is worth viewing. He reports that funding and control for the World Health Organization (WHO) began a shift in the 1970s from nation states to the pharmaceutical industry and private foundations. In time, major support was coming from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Now, Gates’ power within the WHO is unmatched, having given him the status akin to that of a head of state, not only at the WHO, but also at the G20, a collective of world leaders concerned with issues of global importance. At the same time, it is startling that Event201, a “pandemic exercise” hosted by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, took place a scant four months before the Covid19 outbreak and the lockdown decision.

The fact that Gates acknowledged that Covid19 is not as virulent as other viruses of recent history is by itself reason to view the extreme move of economic lockdown, and the isolation of individuals, with suspicion, as is the absence on mainstream media of the voices of dissenting epidemiologists of impeccable reputation. There is also the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, of which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an “investor and partner”. Its mission: “to stimulate and accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.”

Bill Gates, with a personal fortune nearly a tenth of a trillion dollars, has placed himself at the forefront of decision-making regarding viral epidemics. His stated interest is the production of vaccines. With a world induced to his way of thinking, the stage is set for acceptance of annual mass vaccinations, a situation that would insure profits for the pharmaceutical industry that are not only astronomical, but also certain to be perpetual. In any given year, a new viral “strain” could, as with Covid19, be given a catchy title, and its death statistics, whether genuine or forged, drilled by media to instill mass dread. In certain situations, vaccination might be made mandatory — in the interest of humanity, of course. In any event, when WHO speaks, it is Bill Gates’ voice, and the interests of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that are being heard.

WTC7 Was Expertly Prepared For Demolition Prior to 9/11

What seemed to allow this deadly night to descend was that the intellectual patterns that were supposed to be in charge of things, that should comprehend the threat and lead the fight against it, were paralyzed.

Robert M. Pirsig, Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals, pg 305

I become frustrated with people who remain ignorant because of laziness.

Bruce Coville, Thoughtful Thinker

Later in the day on 9/11/2001 a third building, WTC Building 7, descended at nearly free-fall speed with such perfect symmetry as to serve as a textbook example of excellence in prepared demolition. The official reason for the collapse of the 47 story, steel-framed skyscraper was given in 2008 by Shyam Sunder of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings.” It had taken seven years for NIST to fabricate a tortured videotaped explanation obviously out of sync with the actual collapse. The explanation reeked so visibly of scientific fraud that demonstrating that Building 7 was professionally wired for destruction became seen as the factor that could best be used to expose the larger web of lies surrounding the 9/11 events.

In years following 9/11, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth was formed, as were similar truth-seeking organizations for pilots, lawyers, scientists, firefighters, religious leaders, and many more (even cops). But mainstream journalism has been silent, dismissive or openly hostile to individuals and groups questioning the official account. The now jaded epithet of “conspiracy theorist”, a 1960s invention of the CIA, soon gave way to the insults of “truther”, and even “troofer”. But perhaps the best indicator of governmental/media defense of the preposterous but official account of 9/11 may be seen in a March 8, 2010 Washington Post editorial that threatened a prominent Japanese politician and his entire Party for suggesting controlled demolition as cause for the 9/11 collapses, and that Japan should have its own independent investigation. The Post, long linked to the CIA, used in its threat identical derogatory language seen widely in attacks on people and groups aware of the physical impossibilities inherent in the government’s explanation: “bizarre”, “half-baked”, “intellectually bogus”, “lunatic fringe”, “fact-averse”, as if the terminology had derived from a single source. Well, imagine that!

In 2015, researchers at the University of Alaska’s Institute of Northern Engineering, funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, began a four-year study of details of the WTC7 collapse. The Final Report, released on March 25, concluded that WTC7 was destroyed not by office fires but “by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.” Four years and a third of a million dollars, and that’s IT? What is so maddeningly frustrating – now after nearly two decades – is that all these engineers and architects refuse to take the next appropriate step and openly state, as a “working hypothesis”, that the building was prepared for demolition. All were trained in the physics of Isaac Newton’s universe, and all of their data point to that and nowhere else.

In the name of science and good sense, all of these engineering physicists have an obligation to speak much more clearly. I am a zoologist and therefore lack the professional standing to frame a hypothesis for an engineering issue, but there is a crying need for an openly-stated hypothesis from the professional community. What other than professional demolition could cause dozens of massive steel columns to “fail” simultaneously to such an extreme degree as to allow for free fall of a skyscraper, even for a moment? I’m serious. If there is another possible explanation that makes physical sense, all of these architects should just state it. Instead, what they suggest people do is send the Final Report to their members of Congress. Really! Such a level of naïveté is unacceptable and is merely a recipe for more years of failure to win a “new” investigation — as if the 9/11 Commission whitewash could qualify as a legitimate investigation.

One might argue that US journalism had some excuse to be blind to the demolition of WTC7 as long as the NIST report could be cited, but as of now, the reputation of NIST is a smoking ruin, and rightly so. Leaders of the NIST report lied before the eyes of the world, and if they have a shred of decency remaining they would be publicly begging for forgiveness. And the same would apply to the members of the 9/11 Commission who certified the deception, Max Cleland the sole exception, his having resigned in disgust early on. In particular, consider the 9/11 Commission’s Executive Director, Phillip Zelikow. Look over the array of governmental positions the man has enjoyed, and then reflect on what it must say about inner workings of the U.S. Government that he remains honored and in key positions rather than behind bars. Further, what does it say about political involvements of the University of Virginia that he heads its Graduate School of Arts and Sciences?

Becoming aware of the depth of rot and corruption throughout upper levels of government, media and academia is absolutely heartbreaking. Elements within and without the U.S. Government, in concert with a mercenary journalism, have executed a monstrous and convoluted deception on the American people and the world, and as Ben Bagdikian wrote in The New Media Monopoly, “Once a basic untruth is rooted, it blurs a society’s perception of reality and, consequently, the intelligence with which society reacts to events.” As psychologist Robert Griffin has put it: “9/11, and facing the truth about it, is important to the soul of America. Values that have come from the official story have corrupted us emotionally, mentally and spiritually.” Accordingly, the engineering community, rather than just dumping years of accumulated data onto a lay society, has a moral obligation to state, in clearest terms, a hypothesis as to what caused the steel of WTC7 to fail.

Regarding Ignoramuses in Academe

Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance” — widely attributed to Albert Einstein, but whoever the author was had it right. [William Paley — DV Ed]

A peer-reviewed journal, Alternatives, recently published an article, “9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline,” by David Hughes, a faculty member at the University of Lincoln in the UK. The article is very well written and may be the single best succinct summation of 9/11 history available. “IR” refers to the academic study of international relations, so the sad fact that scholars who pursue such a discipline have failed to be attentive to the multiple lies within the official narrative of 9/11 is brimming with irony because, as Hughes states, international relations is “… the one discipline that should be most conversant with false flag terrorism and the ‘War on Terror.’” The article cites the 9/11 Consensus Panel, the results of the 4-year independent study of the collapse of WTC7, and the developing Federal Grand Jury Investigation, all involving scientists, scholars and attorneys with impeccable credentials.

Some university faculty members of the “IR Community”, presumably in good standing with their peers, have reacted (via tweets) in a manner wildly inconsistent with academic standards. One Nicholas Kitchen of the University of Surrey, tweeted, with regard to the article, “I think it’s OK for me to reveal that I was asked — and declined — to review it. Had I done so, I would certainly have rejected it…. But editors are, I would suggest, the bigger issue here. This should never have gone out to peer review. Any serious academic — as journal editors must be — can see this is the worst kind of conspiracy theorizing in only minimal academic dress.”

Calling anything “conspiracy theorizing” shows Kitchen uninformed regarding the CIA origin of the epithet, intended to belittle and to shut down rational discussion. But attacking an editor for sending an article out for peer review is seriously witless. Consider not only the sterling credentials of those in the Consensus Panel and the engineering study cited within the article, but also that among the countless individuals who have disparaged the governmental narrative so as to qualify in Kitchen’s mind as “conspiracy theorists” include Dr. Robert Bowman, head of the “Star Wars” program under two presidents; Francesco Cossiga, former president of Italy; Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College; Andreas von Bulow, former Secretary of Germany’s Federal Defense Ministry; General Leonid Ivanshov, former Chief of Staff of Russian’s Armed Forces; Ronald D. Ray, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, and hundreds more of like credibility and authority.

Kitchen represents an embarrassing lack of critical thinking and a shameful negation of the academic, investigative spirit. And he’s not alone. Emmett MacFarlane, of the University of Waterloo, tweeted “[T]he 9/11 piece is the publication of disinformation. It is a complete failure of the peer review process …. I’m surprised I haven’t seen more of the journal’s editorial/advisory board repudiate it or resign. I can’t believe anyone would willingly continue to associate themselves with the journal so long as that piece goes unrestricted.” Jennifer Mustapha of California’s Western University of Health Sciences was less delicate: “It is a steaming pile of hot garbage and I’m pretty f*****g mad about it. Can reassure you that basically all of the critical IR peeps I know are as flabbergasted as me and you. It is a disgrace.” Nour Halabi of the University of Leeds wrote “Unless this so-called article peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories is recalled, I will never publish with Sage again. I call on other academics to join me, truthers and conspiracy theorists have no place in academia and in any of our publication [sic].”

Charges of “conspiracy theorizing”, “publication of disinformation”, “steaming pile of hot garbage”? A doctoral level professor wants to to “restrict” an article on a subject obviously suppressed by every aspect of governmental and mainstream media? Good lord, what understanding of freedom of inquiry exists within circles of “IR”? There have been so many attacks on members of the editorial board that the head editor, Lacin Idil Oztig, posted a request that the attacks cease, taking it upon herself to assume sole editorial responsibility for the article. But why should she, or anyone on the board, apologize for anything? Author Hughes has proper citations – well over 100 – for every aspect of his paper.

Hughes hits hard with his charge that silence from those who should be speaking up is “… uncritically lending intellectual legitimation to the official narrative and thus the ‘War on Terror’ and obediently serving Western state power.” Hughes also cites fellow scholar Kees Van der Pijl: “By selling out to the self-fulfilling fiction of Islamic terrorism, the discipline if IR today has itself largely degenerated into a mercenary, ‘embedded’ auxiliary force…. A discipline led by scholars of this moral calibre cannot be expected to restore its intellectual integrity.” Such a level of scorn aimed at a segment of the academic community is not seen often, but in the case of the IR scholars cited, it is certainly deserved.

It’s one thing for someone in the academy to avoid confronting a given issue, but it’s something radically different to attack those who do make the effort to study an issue studiously avoided by the mainstream, and to look into possible reasons for that avoidance. The article is excellent, well written, and the first part is a superbly compacted and up-to-date review of 9/11 (the remainder dealing with reasons for failure to confront the lies of 9/11). The condemnation of author and editor has yielded a posting by blogger Tim Hayward, Peer Review vs Trial by Twitter, in which he invites — and receives — comments from readers. Many are from university faculty, and much of the commentary is an indictment of the academic community for its long silence on a taboo subject.

But no truth-seeking scholar with integrity would be deterred by taboo. The disgraceful attack by the tweeting professors is a textbook example of condemnation before investigation. The four, and fellow academics who followed them with similar slurs, display a rigidity of mind and a noxious commitment to official group think. They are beyond merely out of line. They represent a plague on freedom of scholarly inquiry and should be outed as the intellectual pariahs that they are.

The World Bank, the IMF, and their Iron-clad Secrecy

The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it’s not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering.
Michael Hudson, 2019

In 1944, as WWII was coming to an end, representatives from 44 countries met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to form an international exchange system. In order to foster global stability, foreign currencies were pegged to the U.S. Dollar, itself based on gold. The Bretton Woods System ended in the early 1970s when President Nixon detached the dollar from the price of gold.

Also created at Bretton Woods were the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank was to make loans to assist in the growth and development of Third World countries and other countries in need. The IMF was to facilitate global financial stability and stimulate trade. And whereas the gold-backed Bretton Woods System itself ended in the 70s, both World Bank and IMF have sailed on ever since within their designed environment of such iron-clad secrecy that it takes one’s breath away.

Regardless of its lofty original goals, and despite its glowing description of itself, the World Bank has evolved into a mechanism as powerful as the U.S. military for expanding America’s global supremacy. No economist of note has studied the intricacies of the process more critically than Michael Hudson who describes the World Bank and IMF as having anything but humanitarian aims. His books and many interviews depict the World Bank as a major force of American imperialism, in which countries are manipulated into debt loads that cannot be repaid.

Both the World Bank and the IMF act as fronts for U.S. power, suppressing development in countries that could potentially compete with U.S. interests. Loans are made that include terms giving the Bank authority to require austerity measures, increased taxation, reduction of labor costs and privatization of infrastructure, typically at reduced costs that would naturally attract multinational corporate interest as blood attracts sharks. Terms are tailored to favor American industry and financial interests. The World Bank and IMF “free market” model is an attack on labor. Nevertheless, loans contrary to the interests of Third World countries and their people continue to be made through American control, both politically and militarily, of corrupt leaders.

Economists vary widely in their interpretations of the World Bank and the IMF in the overall neoliberal scheme, and the point here is not to belabor that aspect of the issue but to focus on the degree to which both the World Bank and the IMF have secured for themselves an amazing level of protection from scrutiny.

The World Bank consists of two separate parts: The International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association. Both, and the IMF as well, are defined and guided by “Articles of Agreement” that cover all aspects of the organizations. Typical for all of them is Article VII, “Status, Immunities and Privileges” of the IBRD. Consider the wording of the 5 sections of Article VII posted here:


Articles of Agreement of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development

Article VII: Status, Immunities and Privileges

Section 4. Immunity of Assets from Seizure: Property and assets of the Bank, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation or any other form of seizure by executive or legislative action.

Section 5. Immunity of Archives: The archives of the Bank shall be inviolable.

Section 6. Freedom of Assets from Restrictions: To the extent necessary to carry out the operations provided for in this Agreement and subject to the provisions of this Agreement, all property and assets of the Bank shall be free from restrictions, regulations, controls and moratoria of any nature.

Section 8. Immunities and Privileges of Officers and Employees: All governors, executive directors, alternates, officers and employees of the Bank (i) shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives this immunity.

Section 9. Immunities from Taxation: (a) The Bank, its assets, property, income and its operations and transactions authorized by this Agreement, shall be immune from all taxation and from all customs duties. The Bank shall also be immune from liability for the collection or payment of any tax or duty. (b) No tax shall be levied on or in respect of salaries and emoluments paid by the Bank to executive directors, alternates, officials or employees of the Bank who are not local citizens, local subjects, or other local nationals.


These sections clearly state that the IBRD may do anything within its imagination and nobody is allowed to peek. The bankers are immune from legal process “except when the Bank waives this immunity”, but why would they want to sink one of their own? Careful wording confers such absolute protection from scrutiny, that it would certainly allow for financial colonialism, or any other activity contrary to the well being of humanity, with no concerns about discovery or interference. The concept of “immunity from legal process” and freedom from regulations and controls “of any nature”, places the Bank and its members, whose actions are secret, beyond any law.

The other branch of the World Bank, the International Development Association, has within its Articles of Agreement similar protective language. Sections 4,5,6,8 and 9 of its Article VIII contain virtually the same stipulations as those of the IBRD. And this holds for the Articles of Agreement of the IMF as well (scroll down to sections 3,4,5,6,8 and 9 of Article IX).

Economists and international lawyers queried as to how such an absolute and dictatorial situation could arise and persist claim not to know any details, or they are disinclined to discuss the issue. But one lawyer with many years experience at the World Bank answered with a single terse sentence (personal communication): “This is a major field of legal writing and research in international law circles, dating back before their establishment in 1945 and certainly since.” And that seems to answer the question, as manipulation of the rule of law by the well-connected really is an old story.

Perhaps the single most Orwellian concept for the entrapment of humanity is that of electronic money in a world in which physical cash has been eliminated. In such a world, every exchange is part of the individual’s record, with the credit card therefore a de facto ‘chip’. But it is that toward which such as the IMF is moving us. There are powerful financial forces geared to maneuvering the world toward a central global government ruling over the free flow of capital. Toward this end, nationalism is being deprecated, and the integrity of national boundaries are being eroded to favor “open borders”. The breakdown of identities with unique cultures enhances the creation of a more rootless humanity that can be mobilized where needed. The World Bank and IMF quietly envelop the world with their immense power, and with their loaded deck of beautifully-crafted immunities are major players in this long game.