Posts - Freedom First Society

Propaganda Machines

In the world today, we are bombarded with information of all types. Popular categories include sports, home improvement, health, business, politics and economics, self-help, quality products and services, etc. This information often is intended to influence our behavior. In many instances, false information or disinformation is disseminated for selfish or sinister purposes. We can agree that cigarette manufacturers and suppliers do not have the people’s best interests at heart, and though they advertise their product as appealing, the rate of lung cancer increases as a result. Clearly, these companies care more about money than people.

Unfortunately, cigarette companies do not compare with greater evils that are present. Only existing in the shadows, a threat not to public health, but to freedom itself, is on the move. This threat, or better yet, conspiracy, is a hidden, power-hungry elite whose purpose is to enslave humanity on an international scale. The important point to consider is that this elite cannot ultimately achieve its global government agenda without first indoctrinating the masses with socialist/communist disinformation.

Orwell’s Lesson
George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 depicts a dystopian society in which the inhabitants of the continent, Oceania, live under totalitarian rule. This condition of society did not happen by accident. Orwell makes clear in his novel that Totalitarianism begins with Socialism, as indicated by the ruling class’s political ideology called INGSOC (English Socialism).

Under constant surveillance of the Thought Police, the Working Class and the Outer Party are force fed propaganda through a machine called the “telescreen.” Much like a modern tv, the telescreen not only monitors the people for any rebellious intentions but also displays the superstate’s current “news.” Throughout the day, constituents of each party must take breaks to watch the news. This ongoing disinformation, with its tendency to confuse and distort the facts, is important in keeping the masses as subservient automatons to Big Brother.

Much like 1984, our world today is facing a brainwashing epidemic secretly manipulated by the ruling class. Public education, news outlets, books, magazines, social media, and other mediums of communication all contribute to the indoctrination of those who are not part of this conspiratorial elite. Unless Americans soon become aware that modern devices like tv monitors are being used as propaganda machines, they may never reach the point to where they can think for themselves and make decisions based on sound American principles.

Freedom First Society, unlike the mainstream media, offers information that is credible and true. By joining this organization, one can learn to sift through the Conspiracy’s propaganda and help save America from becoming subject to a totalitarian government like the one in the classic novel, 1984. We strongly encourage freedom-loving Americans to join now before it is too late.

Don’t Say “Don’t Say Gay”

“The recent statements by The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) leadership regarding the Florida legislature’s recent ‘Don’t Sat Gay or Trans bill’ have utterly failed to match the magnitude of the threat to LGBTQIA+ safety represented by this legislation…. While we certainly appreciate Bob Chapek’s apology note, there is still more work to be done.” — Open Letter & Petition — Disney Do Better Walkout (whereischapek.com), by activists claiming to represent (TWDC) LGBTQIA+ community and their allies

Many of you have read about the uproar over Florida’s newly (March 28, 2022) enacted legislation regarding parental rights and the teaching of sexuality in grades K-3. While we could present a decent case for eliminating government-funded schools as the true solution, we recognize that, with the way education is structured in America, this is not happening anytime soon. For now, we want to point out that the true danger of the topic of LGBT rights is that it serves to move our country toward a Marxist, 2-tier society.

The basis of Marxism is that society is made up of victims and oppressors. Many countries have fallen because of tumult among the lower, or “victimized,” class — only to be taken over by ruthless tyrants. Those seeking power in America desire the same result. But since America doesn’t have a rigid economic class system, the victims must come from somewhere else.

Thus, we hear the cry that those who have unnatural affections (can one truly call it otherwise?) are being oppressed and must be protected. We see the same idea applied to other groups such as women and minorities.

We certainly agree that no one should ever be bullied or harassed, regardless of their station, nature, or life choices. However, these groups aren’t really seeking equality but are actually demanding special status with “rights” that turn out to be entitlements that other citizens do not enjoy. For example, the open letter above, written by LGBT activists in the name of Disney employees, claims that Florida’s new law “challenges basic human rights,” threatens “safety and well-being,” and that TWDC merely “placate[s] the LGBTQIA+ community with subpar representation in the content produced.” But since when is indoctrinating children via public school and media a basic human right?!

If you watch mainstream media about this backlash, you’ll find accusations of Disney being “woke,” as well as pundits pointing out that the left misunderstood the legislation or did not study it enough. However, Americans need to understand that this is not a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion. The clash over Florida’s new law is one battle in the war for the nation’s culture. Indeed, “capture the culture” was the battle cry of followers of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, who studied and developed tactics for seizing government power.

Gramsci believed that undermining morality plays a critical role in the endeavor to topple Western democracies, replacing them with communistic governments. And again, while we maintain that all humans have God-given rights that no one can infringe upon regardless of their characteristics or choices, the question of sexuality boils down to morality. The increase of young people “coming out” as gay, trans, etc. can certainly be explained by the issue being brought to the forefront in movies and TV, in the news and in their local schools and even churches.

Since Biblical times, sexual deviation has been seen as an affront to God and a threat to the sacred natural order of families and procreation. Yet today we are supposed to see homosexuals as deserving extra protection. And if we don’t wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality and other perversions, we are accused of infringing upon rights. Yet such immorality has an intrinsic connection to rebellion against God.

We warn that these orchestrated trends will lead, not only to amoral future generations, but also to a defunct Constitution and to the rise of tyranny.

Truly, the problem isn’t with our friends and family who have been convinced in their kindheartedness that we should stand up for the “oppressed” gays, nor with those who unwillingly struggle with such issues. The true danger is Marxism that divides our society into oppressed and oppressors. We should strive to treat everyone with love and kindness but stay firm in the knowledge that morality is a necessary component to the survival of our Republic against the onslaught of would-be tyrants.

We align our stance with that of George Washington, whose words in his Farewell Address we would do well to remember:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

“The Two-World Order” – It’s the Same Old New World Order

Why would the United States give the Communist China most-favored-nation status in 2000? “The Two-World Anti-China Strategy,” an article in the March 7, 2022, edition of National Review, suggests an answer that could have been taken straight from Foreign Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations flagship publication. Foreign Affairs is even quoted as an authority by the article’s author Hal Brands, who is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University. Such outright deference is not surprising, since National Review’s claim to be a conservative publication has been clearly bogus for decades.

“The Two-World” article assumes that the reasonable world is united in the goal of global government but consoles the reader that a two-world order is an acceptable substitute. The reality is that they are one and the same!

George Orwell’s 1984 provides a useful analogy. In 1984, the world is divided into three regions, two of which are always combined to war against the third. Since there are always two sides in the conflict, the regions are essentially in a two-world order. However, because the regions are all ruled under varying labels of Marxist tyranny, the outcome of the war would be politically inconsequential. Why, then, do those in control find a constant state of warfare to be beneficial? Because being at war creates the exigency for citizens to fight to keep their regime in power. It also keeps the people preoccupied in such a way that they scarcely notice the economic bondage that they are being placed in as the nation’s wealth is squandered on a fruitless war effort. The warring, three-region structure isn’t an alternative to global government; it IS the global government. While we are not currently at war, the threat of Chinese aggression pressures the world to regionalize in order to effectively keep “peace.”

The National Review article excuses Washington’s showering of American investment, trade, technology, knowledge, and skills on China as an attempt to “tame” it. But Communist China is entirely a creation of the Insiders. Under their direction, American resources delivered China into the hands of Mao Tse-tung (see Masters of Deception by Vance Smith and Tom Gow) and have continuously propped up the failing Communist system that ensued. Now, the above measures to “tame” China have elevated it to a believable enemy creating a pretext to draw the US into tight consolidation with the rest of the world. As with every crisis created by the Insiders, the proposed solution is that “The United States needs to compete more effectively for influence in…(global) organizations…”

Entangling the US with the rest of the world in regional government, such as the EU or USMCA potential, on the road to world government, provides the opportunity for a Marxist majority to overrule our free-enterprise, Constitutional system of government. Referring to the Cold War, which was similarly created by the Insiders, the National Review article insists:

“Then as now, containing hostile regimes required working with some unsavory characters. But highlighting the clash between liberal values and China’s profoundly illiberal autocracy is critical to rallying the democratic world — not just those countries directly threatened by Beijing’s military power — against its expanding influence.” [Emphasis added.]

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to predict that we can expect plenty more “news” about the Chinese threat aimed at “rallying” the world. Additionally, we can expect to unite with and give aid, technology, and resources to “some unsavory characters” in the “concerted resistance” who can become the next “war for peace” enemy when China is subdued. The article even suggests that we “forg(e) tech coalitions through which groups of democracies cooperate — for example, by sharing data or pooling research-and-development money.” In politics, “unsavory characters” are totalitarian dictators, and what kind of data would we share with them? Data on our own people? So they can be more easily subjugated?

The main conclusion of the article is summed up in this quote,

‘“Globalization was not global,” Stephen Brooks and William Wohlforth wrote in the journal International Security over 20 years ago; “it took sides in the Cold War.” Likewise, a two-worlds strategy today recognizes that globalization must occur primarily within geopolitical dividing lines rather than across them.”’

George Orwell, International Security, National Review, and Cold War history all indicate that the Two-World Strategy is the path that the New World Order will take. As in 1984, the geopolitical dividing lines will be separating regions that are each Marxist tyrannies, their political systems different in name only. And the entire world will be controlled by those who create the next ostensible aggressor. It’s false conservative leadership like that offered in National Review that will neutralize any resistance to the plan for a New World Order and even guide those who should be fighting it to instead embrace it. Freedom First Society offers the truth and the real solutions to world problems: Get the US out of entangling alliances, stop our officials from propping up Communist dictatorships through unconstitutional spending and treason, strengthen industry at home, and expose the Conspiracy that is working to lead us into world tyranny.

Giving Up Our Rights, Right and Left

Under the guise of protecting lives, our government has undertaken the effort to dictate how we should react to certain infectious particles. This, of course, is a huge step away from the freedom Americans have enjoyed in the past. Whatever happened to, “If you have a cough, please wear a mask,” or, “If you’re sick, please stay home?” Instead, we are being bombarded with ridiculous safety measures.

Presumably, these measures are for our protection and for the safety of others. And out of love for our fellow man and respect for ostensibly well-meaning lawmakers, we comply.

But the notion has been cankering in many an internet forum and household discussion: What if the new rules are not for our protection, but to prime America for even greater directives? Already, cities like Chicago and New York have passed unprecedented vaccine mandates, even requiring proof of vaccination for children as young as 5 years old.

“If you wish to live life as normally as possible, with the ease to do the things that you love, you must be vaccinated in the city of Chicago starting January 3rd,” says Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot. She then adds that, “This health order may pose an inconvenience to the unvaccinated, and in fact it’s inconvenient by design.”

The True Goal
The true goal behind such mandates is not safety but control.

We only need to look behind the scenes at who is providing the supposed scientific knowledge for proof that, regardless of the naivete of some politicians, the orchestrators of covid mandates are not benevolent. And those orchestrators either come from or take their ideas from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). As stated in the CFR Annual Report from 2020: “Demand for CFR’s analysis of COVID-19 was particularly robust; CFR experts briefed staff from more than 220 congressional offices on the pandemic.”

And what does the CFR want? A receptive constituency where future dictatorial measures would be passed and accepted as routine and necessary as long as they fall under the umbrella of “protecting the public.” (To appreciate the incredible significance of the CFR and its driving agenda, please read our booklet, Dare to Call It CONSPIRACY.)

Of course, we worry most about Americans’ willingness to give up their Second Amendment protected right to bear arms. As we’ve seen in cases such as Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide, and most recently, Venezuela, all that is needed for complete civilian disarmament is a bit of convincing and constant propaganda, and the right to bear arms is lost.

And we definitely see a heightened media effort to insist that the public good outweighs individual liberty (disregarding the fact that individual liberty naturally cultivates the public good). We are told that in order to protect others we must give up the right to decide whether or not to take a vaccine, and in the same light, that gun ownership is just too dangerous and so should be abandoned.

Fortunately, many Americans see through the farce. And while we encourage commonsense personal efforts to stay healthy and safe, we must also speak up fervently in opposition to both government control of healthcare and to giving up our Second Amendment protected rights.

Please join us in writing to your local representatives and sharing this message with friends and family as we take a stand for freedom in America!

The UN’s IPCC Climate Fraud

“As the world battles historic droughts, landscape-altering wildfires and deadly floods, a landmark report from global scientists says the window is rapidly closing to cut our reliance on fossil fuels and avoid catastrophic changes that would transform life as we know it….

“Only by making deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, while also removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, can we halt the precipitous trend.” — “Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes,” CNN.com (8-9-21)

“The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the Working Group’s report was nothing less than ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible.’” — “Secretary-General’s statement on the IPCC Working Group 1 Report on the Physical Science Basis of the Sixth Assessment,” www.UN.org, August 9, 2021

Note: Guterres is a member of the Portuguese Socialist Party and former president of the Socialist International.

“We can’t solve the climate crisis without getting out of our cars and onto buses and trains.” — Opinion, MarketWatch.com (updated August 10, 2021).

It’s About Power
Seven years after its last report, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report in early August. As usual, it was alarmist and postured as reflecting scientific consensus. Naturally, the Establishment media quickly echoed the alarm.

However, the UN’s game plan is clear, once one understands the forces that created and control the UN and also control the environmental revolutionary movement. The objective of those forces is to control us by creating pretexts for unaccountable government power, and those forces use revolutionaries to create pressure from below to justify their power grabs.

The UN’s game plan is not new. It was clearly revealed at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. After attending the event and witnessing the political realities, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray wrote an authoritative expose, Environmental Overkill — Whatever Happened to Common Sense? Dr. Ray was the former governor of the state of Washington and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.

On page 10, Dr. Ray summarized: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED [UN Conference on Environment and Development — the Earth Summit], is to bring about a change in the present system of nations. The future is to be world government, with central planning by the UN. Fear of environmental crises, whether real or not, is expected to lead to compliance.”

Revolutionaries need crises to propel those power grabs. The climate change crisis hype serves the same purpose as the government’s use of a COVID pandemic — to expand the power of government. The climate change “crisis,” in particular, is designed to limit our access to energy by forcing reliance on expensive and inadequate alternative energy sources, leading to government managed rationing.

Cloaked as “Science”
To support its wild claims, the IPCC makes use of computer climate models, which are designed to be alarmist. The IPCC’s climate models are notoriously deficient in predicting reality.

Anticipating the Report’s release, Science Magazine (July 30, 2021) questioned the IPCC projections — see “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”

To achieve credibility for its forecast, the UN touts the fact that representatives of 195 member countries have signed off on the report. But this just shows the IPCC’s desperation, since the unanimous consensus of corrupted member governments does not reflect either overwhelming scientific agreement or truth.

Indeed, many competent, uncorrupted scientists dispute the thesis that manmade CO₂ is responsible for global warming. One such is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now retired. In June of last year, he wrote:

Climate science didn’t used to be alarmist prior to the late 1980s. That changed during the years 1988-1994, when climate research centered on CO2 and global warming received a 15-fold increase in funding in the US alone. Suddenly there was a great financial incentive to propel alarming global warming scenarios.¹ (See also his comments in our 2018 post “UN Climate-Change Hysteria.”)

Another noteworthy dissenter was the late great Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson. Dyson performed pioneering work in areas such as quantum field theory and astrophysics. In 2018, Dyson argued: “If they did not scare the public they wouldn’t get support from the government.”²

In response to the widespread hype that the science was settled, and efforts to demonize dissenters, the Global Warming Petition Project was created in 1998 (following the Kyoto treaty). The Project shows that many scientists rejected the UN enforced orthodoxy. The petition states in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The petition was introduced with a letter form Physicist Frederick Seitz, former President of the U.S. Academy of Sciences. In response, the petition was signed by over 30,000 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,000 with PhDs. Just one of many notable signers: the late Dr. Edward Teller, known colloquially as “the father of the hydrogen bomb.”

Of course, if the media mentions such dissent at all, it demonizes the dissent out of hand.

The climate change scare serves several totalitarian objectives. The scarcity and rationing objective was cited above. But another one that has emerged is the result of the government’s highly successful regimentation of society using the COVID scare. Climate activists are jealous of that success. For example, former Secretary of State John Kerry suggested: “You could just as easily replace the words climate change with COVID-19; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted, one with catastrophic consequences, the other with even greater risk if we don’t reverse course.”³ Kerry is now the 1st United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration.

Please share this post with the people you know who will likely be interested.

Notes:

Richard S. Lindzen, “An Oversimplified Picture of Climate Behavior Based on a Single Process Can Lead to Distorted Conclusions,” European Physical Journal Plus 135, no. 6 (June 2020): 462, https://doi.org/10.11.40/epip/s13360-020-471-z..]
Freeman Dyson in “The Uncertainty Has Settled (Full film),” Marijn Poels, November 7, 2018, YouTube video, 1:09:35–1:14:15, https://youtu.be/GuoxLggqI_g.
Rachel Koning Beals, “Covid-19 and Climate Change: ‘The Parallels Are Screaming at Us,’ Says John Kerry,” Market-Watch, April 22, 2020, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-19-and-climate-change-the-parallels-are-screaming-at-us-says-john-kerry-2020-04-22.

Guns, a “Public Health Crisis”? — Give Us a Break!

“A breakthrough federal study pegs the cost of firearm injuries at more than $1 billion annually, with public funding, particularly Medicaid, paying more than 60 percent of that.

“When big-city local television news broadcasts overflow with gun death stories, it’s easy to overlook the 30,000 hospital stays and 50,000 emergency room visits annually caused by gunshot injuries.” — “As Biden seeks gun-related victories, watchdog report shows high cost of gun-related injuries,” The Washington Post, August 12, 2021, via MSN.com

The False Premise of Guns as a Public Health Threat
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government, with heavy influence from the CFR, has attacked our right to bear arms from a new angle. “Gun violence” is now being termed a “Public Health Crisis.” And why shouldn’t it be? Most Americans have already become accustomed to and accepted the unconstitutional federal involvement in healthcare since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960’s and their continual expansion.

Now in the midst of a pandemic, many of our freedoms are being sidelined for the “benefit of everyone.” So, calling “gun violence” a public health crisis is the perfect excuse to execute the Insider disarmament objective. But we must realize that under the healthcare argument, the private automobile could be equally villainized along with private gun ownership as well as many other things that support a free society.

This “epidemic,” as Biden calls it, is actually fueled by a government-induced deteriorating economy, lenient punishments for violent criminals, and primarily, the demoralizing and disintegration of the family unit over the years by the Insiders and their liberal lackeys.

The Same Old “Solution”
For support, the Post quotes Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee: “[Maloney] said the report [from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)] ‘provides shocking new evidence of how gun violence strains our health care system.… Congress must do whatever it takes — including abolishing the filibuster if necessary — to address this public health crisis … and keep our constituents safe from gun violence.”

Some of these actions being pursued by the Biden Administration include budget measures and changing of the guard at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Biden has proposed two budget measures since April totaling $7.1 billion to curb violence, particularly “gun violence,” which includes incentives for states to tighten up background check laws and set up voluntary gun buyback programs.

And the President’s pick to head the ATF is David Chipman, who comes with all the right credentials to disarm Americans. Take, for example, his 25 years working as an agent for the ATF and his current position as a senior policy advisor at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. According to Wikipedia, Giffords “is a national public interest law center which provides legal assistance to elected officials, government attorneys, and activists in the United States to promote gun control and to oppose firearm ownership.”

So, not surprisingly, Chipman’s record includes advocating for tougher gun laws, including limits on high-capacity magazines and an assault-style weapons ban. We must insist that our representatives block all new anti-gun legislation and the appointment of people like Chipman.

The Ultimate Insult: “Gun Violence Affects Races Differently”
To further coax gun owners into shunning their right protected by the 2nd Amendment, The Washington Post throws in the divisive Critical Race Theory (CRT): “That plague [the gun violence public health crisis] leaves many gunshot survivors, particularly Black people, without the care they need because of inadequate health insurance. “

In a nutshell, CRT teaches that race determines one’s social standing. By singling out a particular race as shouldering the bulk of medical bills (and we know this burden really falls on the middle class, be they white or black), The Washington Post is loosely arguing that to not support stricter gun laws would be racist. It is repulsive that news commentators would esteem violence of any kind against one race as more significant than another.

All races do indeed deserve equal opportunity to succeed and to fail. And therefore, no class of persons should ever become dependent on the government for sustenance, housing, healthcare, or income. Unfortunately, CRT ignores the real causes of resistant inequality in America and will continue to stir up hatred and violence demanding “urgent action” toward a police state.

It’s Our Freedom to Save!
Because we have failed so far to restrain government from regulating our healthcare system and inflating prices, it may seem daunting to try to fight against complete civilian disarmament.

We have a lot to undo in Washington, but it can be done!

For a more in-depth analysis of the Insiders’ agenda to abolish our right to bear arms and what you can do about it, please obtain and read a copy of Disarming Americans! Aiming to Confiscate Our Guns.

The Federal Money Tree

“Congress simply isn’t doing enough yet. Conditional assistance tied to work or a single stimulus check are not — and frankly never have been — enough to protect Americans from economic insecurity.

“What we need in this moment to meet the need and help families who are struggling is a Covid-19 guaranteed income, with direct, recurring cash payments for all Americans — including immigrants — that last at least until the economic hardship of this public health crisis ends. A form of Universal Basic Income, this guaranteed income is unconditional, won’t interfere with other social safety net benefits and would help give Americans an income floor during a time of great economic instability.” — Michael Tubbs and Melvin Carter, “One more stimulus check from Congress won’t be enough. This is what will really help,” CNN Business Perspectives, 8-21-20

Most Americans undoubtedly recognize that states don’t have money trees. But many take it for granted that the Federal government has a wealth tree and can dispense wealth at will. And if it doesn’t, it’s just being stingy.

The truth is that the federal money tree is a very real threat to our freedom and prosperity. And government created economic devastation, ostensibly in response to pandemic crisis, is being used as the pretext for a drastic inflation of our currency.

The above cited article was written by two city mayors – Michael Tubbs, mayor of Stockton, California and Melvin Carter, mayor of Saint-Paul, Minnesota. As an opinion piece, it was disclaimed by CNN Business as not representing the views of CNN.

However, in a related CNN Politics article, “‘A growing sense of panic’ with no fresh federal relief in sight,” 8-19-20, CNN seems also to support more federal spending as the right thing to do:

There’s support from both sides of the aisle to send a second round of checks, extend at least some unemployment benefits and allow small businesses to apply for another loan so that they can pay their workers. But Republicans … and Democrats … remain far apart on the details even after weeks of talks in July.

Millions of people are still unemployed
The package of financial aid that Congress passed in March got money to people fairly quickly at a time when lawmakers didn’t expect the pandemic to last as long as it has…. But the economy is far from recovered.

By the end of June 2020, our national debt stood at $26.5 trillion — an increase of almost $3 trillion in the previous six months — the fastest rise in history!

Intended Destruction
The remedy for one destructive act — government shutdown of the economy — is not another destructive act — wild inflation of our nation’s currency. Some history is needed to understand how and why the federal government got a money tree. But first we recall what should have been an early warning re inflation’s destructive consequences.

In his 1920 The Economic Consequences of Peace, Internationalist conspirator and British Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes wrote:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens….

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

The Federal Reserve Act
In 1910, international bankers from Wall Street convened a highly secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia and came up with a scheme to gain control of our nation’s money. It was originally introduced in Congress as the Aldrich Plan, but Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island was too clearly connected to the international bankers, and for that and other reasons his bill went down to defeat.

However, after the 1912 elections, the essence of that plan was reintroduced as the Federal Reserve Act. Congress passed the Act on December 22, 1913 during its rush to adjourn for Christmas. Insider-controlled President Woodrow Wilson signed it into law the next day.

During the Act’s consideration in the House of Representatives, the great American statesman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (father of the famous aviator) addressed his colleagues as follows:

This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth …. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the Money Power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized ….
This is the Aldrich Bill in disguise ….
The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation….

After more than a century, Lindbergh’s prediction has come home to roost — big time. In recent years, the only thing preventing monetary inflation (to finance federal deficits) from becoming price inflation has been the willingness of other nations’ central banks, most notably Communist China’s, to hold our debt. But this makes the U.S. susceptible to the actions of a hostile nation. And according to an April 1 Bloomberg report, foreign holders have begun dumping the dollar as a result of the new explosion in U.S. debt.

A moment’s reflection should convince anyone that consumption requires production. And no amount of currency inflation can substitute. Money won’t put food on our tables, if food is not produced.

Solution
The destruction of America will continue as long as a misinformed public is vulnerable to the deceptions of those seeking tyrannical power.

The solution starts by creating understanding among grassroots patriots regarding the deceptions of the Insider-controlled media in support of a cabal of power seekers. Much of what needs to be understood is recorded in Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception — The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations.

But to bypass the media and create sufficient public pressure on Congress to roll back decades of entrenched subversion, it will take the tough leadership of an informed grassroots organization. Of course, we recommend Freedom First Society.

Toward a Police State

The escalating nationwide demonstrations and riots during the past several days have a very sinister purpose, which few Americans understand and about which the voices they look to for leadership are silent.

We are talking about the decades-long campaign to discredit, demoralize, and cripple local independent police in order to pave the way for a national police force or even foreign UN troops to restore order. That is not to say that local police forces don’t sometimes have bad apples. Indeed, the presence of bad apples serves the campaign. But a national, unaccountable police force is no cure. It is a gross betrayal of a free nation.

The first thing to realize is that riots and demonstrations in more than 75 cities nationwide are not spontaneous reactions. They are organized by revolutionaries to advance a subversive agenda, using the pretext of opposing police brutality. The ghastly torture-killing of George Floyd has been used for that purpose.

As did much of the controlled-media, The New York Times (5-31-20) attributed the escalating demonstrations to “an outpouring of national anger sparked by the death of a black man in police custody.” But angry individuals don’t just congregate at the same place and time with prepared banners, painted signs, slogans to chant, constant clenched-fist salutes for the cameras, and marching orders.

The foreword to our January 2015 Action Report, below, documented the deceptions and subversive purpose of the demonstrations that followed a 2014 police-killing in Ferguson, Missouri. The demonstrations supply “pressure from below” for government power grabs, but the pressure wouldn’t have much effect if the Conspiracy that supports the revolutionaries and controls the major media didn’t seize the opportunity to apply “pressure from above.”

Understandably, the controlled-media support the revolutionary ruse as to what’s driving the demonstrations by refusing to go beyond the police-killing pretext. In doing so, the media are actually cooperating with the organizers in keeping national attention where the organizers want it. The driving revolutionary organization depends on that cooperation to create the illusion of widespread support.

A useful tactic of revolutionary communist organization has been to create appropriately targeted front groups to attract additional support for the demonstrations and give credibility to their advertised complaints about “police brutality.”

Intermediate successes in the past have included forcing big-city police departments to submit to oversight by revolutionary-controlled “civilian review boards.” And further militarizing our police in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which bars military involvement in domestic law enforcement, unless “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress” would be a major revolutionary success. The Act constitutes an important safeguard against the creation of a police state.

Yet, as reported by The Hill (5-29-20), President Trump was willing to violate that act in response to the violence in Minneapolis: “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control….”

Of course, attributing the violence to “THUGS” is itself a refusal to alert Americans to the revolutionary game plan. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, also refused to acknowledge the root of the violence. According to The Washington Times (5-30-20): “An overwhelmed Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Saturday that he had reached out to the Pentagon for help in controlling the growing mobs of out-of-state agitators seeking to “break the back of civil society” in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

The “pressure-from-below, pressure-from-above” game plan is not new. We conclude here with the promised foreword to our January 2015 Action Report, written following protests in the wake of the 2014 police-shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.

January (2015) Action Report

“The Rest of the Story”

When protesters burned down a convenience store near where a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown [on August 9], many condemned it. But experts say the ensuing images on national television could become as much of a catalyst for social change as peaceful protests. [Emphasis added.] — “Ferguson violence could be a catalyst for change,” USA Today, August 30

What has transpired in the wake of the police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri provides important lessons in media misdirection and concealed subversive organization and agendas.

Media Misdirection
Typically, the major media cooperate with revolutionaries by helping them develop pressure from below for “change” in the form of federal power grabs. The media portray their protests as representative of widespread concerns and driven solely by the advertised complaints. Nowhere do you find a suggestion that the protests might be designed to serve a far different purpose, and often there is no hint they are even organized. Consider this example:

People protesting the Ferguson, Missouri, grand jury decision took to the streets in cities across the U.S. for a second day Tuesday, showing that the racially charged case has inflamed tensions thousands of miles from the predominantly black St. Louis suburb. [Emphasis added.] — “Protests against Ferguson decision grow across US,” AP, 11-25-14

Did the decision ignite the protests and the riot? Or were revolutionaries already looking for a pretext to protest?

Our answer: Organized revolutionaries saw an opportunity and were eager to distort the facts to support their agenda. Reviewing the grand jury decision not to prosecute Darren Wilson, even a reporter for the Establishment’s Time concluded:

Indeed, the preponderance of forensic and eyewitness testimony suggests that Wilson was acting in self-defense against a violent perpetrator…. But there can no longer be a question that the initial accounts of the case were fraudulent. — “Michael Brown was not a gentle giant,” Time.com, “Facts and Ferguson,” 11-26-14

Evidence of Planning
Buried within media reports we can nevertheless find evidence of planning and orchestration. For example, coordinated “signs,” “chants” and “mock trials” require organizational leadership:

Those who made it inside City Hall [in St. Louis] were part of a group of about 300 protesters who marched and held a mock trial of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown during an Aug. 9 confrontation in the St. Louis suburb. [Emphasis added.] — “Protesters force lockdown of St. Louis City Hall,” AP, 11-26-14

And consider this USA Today report pointing to outside involvement:

On Friday night in Ferguson, 16 people were arrested outside the police station who had come from Boycott Black Friday protests at stores in the area, and 15 of them were not from Missouri. [Emphasis added.] — “Ferguson could spark a new civil rights movement”

Investigate the Rioters
Encouraged by the national attention, revolutionaries quickly staged protests in other cities over several “police killings.” And, still the national media focused on charges of “police brutality” and “racism” while ignoring any nationwide organization to the protests. A few AP examples:

Protesters around the country rallied for a third day Friday over a New York grand jury’s decision to not indict a white police officer in the chokehold death of an unarmed black man….

In Colorado, students walked out of class Friday to protest the decisions not to prosecute police in New York and Ferguson. — “Protesters of chokehold death rally for 3rd day,” AP, 12-5-14

About 150 took part in the march through the streets of downtown Phoenix to police headquarters, while also calling for an end to what they say is a nationwide epidemic of police brutality.” [Emphasis added.] — “Phoenix police shooting is latest to ignite outcry,” AP, 12-5-14

The War on Local Police

January 2015 cover photo
Revolutionary influence ignored by major media

Ignored by the major media, Establishment Insiders and their revolutionary kin have labored for decades to undermine a bastion of freedom — independent, local police, who live in the communities they serve — and to gradually replace them with a national police accountable to a central government and eventually to international regulation.

In 1961, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate published “A Communist Plot Against the Free World Police,” describing a highly organized campaign “directed primarily toward discrediting the police in the eyes of the people.”

The 32-page Senate report noted: “A campaign against the police of one free country is not planned and directed by the Communist Party of that country; it is planned and directed by the strategists of international communism.”

The report included pages from a Communist document used to train revolutionaries worldwide on how to organize a riot. Illustrations showed how to outflank and attack the police.

At a press conference following the 1965 Watts riot, Michael Laski, a member of the Central Committee of the U.S. Communist Party, boasted that he and his organization had worked for two years to agitate the riot, which he called a “class uprising.”

One of the early initiatives in this campaign was the push for “civilian” review boards as a cure for alleged rampant “police brutality.” The leftist controlled boards were actually established in some cities, before grassroots action forced their demise. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described their effect: “Where there is an outside civilian review board the restraint of the police was so great that effective action against the rioters appeared to be impossible.”

And, of course, if the local police were no longer able to maintain law and order, Big Brother would be eager to step in. Indeed, widespread riots in this country provided the Insiders with the pretext to create the federal “Law Enforcement Assistance Administration” [LEAA] in 1968. The LEAA sought to gain control of state and local law enforcement agencies through federal grants. But LEAA Administrator Charles H. Rogovin hinted at another route. On October 1, 1969 he told a meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police that a federal police force may need to take over “because local law enforcement has failed to do its job.”

The LEAA was abolished in 1982 following concerted grassroots pressure. But the Conspiracy never gives up. Later came the federal civil-rights lawsuits against major city police departments, resulting in consent decrees, amounting to a virtual federal takeover. And still later, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 provided the emotional cover for the consolidation of police powers in the Department of Homeland Security.

New Federal Intervention
The Obama administration is already taking support from the revolutionary pressure from below as an excuse to “investigate law enforcement” rather than the rioters:

President Obama opened a speech in Chicago by talking about Ferguson, saying that he had ordered Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to undertake a major review of policing practices in the United States, including a community-by-community process of identifying and highlighting specific steps to “make sure that law enforcement is fair and is being applied equally to every person in this country.” — “Security in Ferguson Is Tightened After Night of Unrest,” NY Times, 11-25-14

But apparently Holder was on board well before the Ferguson eruptions:

On Thursday [12-4-14], Attorney General Eric Holder said a Justice Department probe had concluded the Cleveland Division of Police has a pattern of using excessive force, both in firing weapons and in using non-deadly techniques. Cleveland officials agreed to an outside monitor to improve training and practices, officials said. [Emphasis added.] — “Police Move to Revamp Tactics,” Wall Street Journal, 12-5-14

The Journal article suggests what is coming: “Police departments around the country are racing to develop new training rules on the use of force, a response that has gained urgency amid scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department and an emerging consensus that law-enforcement practices need to be reviewed and revamped….” [Emphasis added.]

The orchestrators of pressure from below do not go to so much effort unless they have some serious plans to make a major step in their long-term agenda. We will keep our members advised as to where the new focus lies.

The W.H.O. Cover-up

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday [4-15] he is halting funding to the World Health Organization while a review is conducted.

Trump said the review would cover the WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus.” [Emphasis added.] — CNN.com (4-15-20)

President Trump’s announcement unleashed a firestorm of media and partisan controversy. As so often, the controversy mimicked the entertaining hype for a professional wrestling match, an exaggerated conflict between two sides, while covering up the reality that freedom is the loser regardless of the outcome. (A month later, on May 29 (left), he announced a decision to terminate funding unconditionally.)

On the one side, the President’s supporters piled on with the complaints about W.H.O. and how it needed to be reformed. Fox News analyst Gordon C. Chiang argued:

The president’s action is the first step needed to spark meaningful reform of the United Nations organization and the global health architecture. — “Trump right to stop funding World Health Organization over its botched coronavirus response,” foxnews.com, 4-14-20

On the other side, the President’s opponents claimed that the timing in the middle of a pandemic was irresponsible, as the world depended so much on the great work of W.H.O. This criticism by Nicholas Kristof, a member of the world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations, is hardly surprising:

Trump’s announcement that he is halting American funding for the W.H.O. just as the world is facing a raging pandemic is a dangerous attempt to find a scapegoat for his own failings. It is like taking away a fire department’s trucks in the middle of a blaze. — “Trump’s Deadly Search for a Scapegoat,” New York Times, 4-15-20

But both the pro- and anti-W.H.O. positions serve to keep Americans unaware of the real looming Internationalist threat of which W.H.O. is just one part. Indeed, W.H.O.’s overriding mission, as one of the UN’s system of agencies, is to convince the world that the solution to global problems lies in giving more power to Insider-controlled institutions.

The President’s criticism, however, is the most damaging because he enjoys an undeserved conservative image. His criticism reinforces the deadly deception regarding the positive purpose of these institutions, while ignoring their subversive designs by those with a grip on Washington. It is, therefore, horribly misleading.

Moreover, calls for reform of the World Health Organization serve to cover up its subversive origins and purpose. Indeed, the demand for reforms has long been a useful Internationalist Establishment tactic for deflecting serious opposition. In particular, conservative demands for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN have repeatedly been deflected by Establishment calls for reform — which go nowhere, of course.

W.H.O.’s Subversive Origins and Purpose
So what is being covered up about the origins and purpose of the UN and its agencies?

Let’s start by recalling that the leading figure at the UN’s founding conference was secret Soviet agent Alger Hiss, later convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison. We recorded the media-suppressed background to these organizations in Masters of Deception – The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]:

Alger Hiss (1950)

In April of 1945, the founding conference for the UN began in San Francisco, lasting into June (Japan did not surrender until August). Alger Hiss served as the acting secretary-general of the conference, helping to finalize the UN Charter. Time magazine commented in advance of the conference: “As secretary-general, managing the agenda, [Hiss] will have a lot to say behind the scenes about who gets the breaks.”…

Alger Hiss became a member of the CFR in 1945….

We do not mean to suggest that the CFR leaders were in any way snookered, or even surprised, by the Soviet agents in their midst. The San Francisco conference was almost entirely a CFR show. More than 40 of the American delegates to the San Francisco conference were or would later become CFR members, only a portion of whom would subsequently be identified as Communists. Among the Establishment CFR members present were Isaiah Bowman (founding CFR member); Nelson Rockefeller; future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (founding CFR member); and John J. McCloy (future chairman of the CFR).

The UN purchased land for its headquarters in New York with a $8.5 million gift from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. — pp. 56, 57.

A few years later, in 1952, Senator James O. Eastland, the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, would charge: “[T]here is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this Committee has ever encountered.” And, of course the employees from the Communist bloc nations were Communist. So, it shouldn’t have been surprising to find the UN and its agencies working an anti-freedom agenda.

And now, Republican voices, such as Nikki Haley, President Trump’s former ambassador to the UN, are conveniently directing attention away from the continuing role of US Insiders, claiming that we need to curtail Communist China’s influence. And many GOP congressmen have adopted the focus on China as a useful reelection strategy.

However, US Insiders played a key role in betraying our former ally the Republic of China (Taiwan) and bringing Mao Tse Tung to power in China. In consolidating his tyranny, Mao would liquidate millions of Chinese. Trilateralist and David Rockefeller protégé President Jimmy Carter would abrogate our treaty with Taiwan and recognize and support instead Communist China. And US Insiders, such as President Trump’s friend Henry Kissinger, would work to build Red China into a World Power.

So it’s really no surprise that Communist China has had great influence in the W.H.O. Indeed, China’s influence is by design and addressing the resulting problems is a distraction. The real focus should be on the designers — the global tyranny-promoting Internationalists who created the UN and have solidified their grip on our government.

And that is also the focus of this post. But for those readers who would like more of the story of the perfidy surrounding this incredible deception, please read on.

W.H.O.’s Communist-Socialist Beginnings

W.H.O. got underway in 1948. On its 10th anniversary, J.B. Matthews, a former research director for congressional committees investigating communism in America, surveyed W.H.O.’s beginnings in an article for the May 1958 issue of American Opinion magazine:

WHO’s Constitution opens with a statement that nine “principles are basic to the happiness, harmonious relations and security of all peoples.” They are listed as follows:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

“The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

“The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States.

“The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.

“Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of disease, especially communicable disease, is a common danger.

“Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.

“The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.

“Informed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.

“Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.”

Before commenting on the extraordinary nature of this set of basic principles, it will be pertinent to call attention to a booklet of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which praised the World Health Organization. Published on the eve of the formal launching of WHO, this booklet’s preface, written by none other than Mr. Alger Hiss, contained the following statement: “The new specialized agency carries on one of the most successful parts of the work of the League of Nations. The Constitution of the World Health Organization, however, has a far wider basis than that established for the League organization, and embodies in its provisions the broadest principles in public health service to day. Defining health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’, it includes not only the more conventional fields of activity but also mental health, housing, nutrition, economic or working conditions, and administrative and social techniques affecting public health.”

It would be difficult to imagine any area of human thought or activity— private or public, individual or collective—not covered by the definition of health set forth in WHO’s Constitution….

Brock Chisholm (R) — 1st Director-General of W.H.O

Brock Chisholm [the first Director-General of the World Health Organization (1948–1953) and later awarded “Humanist of the Year,” (1959) by the American Humanist Association] … wrote as follows: “History is studded with critical dates —wars, invasions, revolutions, discoveries, peace treaties—that are firmly implanted in our minds…. This document [WHO’s Constitution] may well go down in history as one of the most far-reaching of all international agreements…. The World Health Organization is a positive creative force with broad objectives, reaching forward to embrace nearly all levels of human activity.”

The powers of the World Health Assembly, as set forth in Chapter IV of WHO’s Constitution, were shrewdly defined. In Article 19, we read: “The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization.” As we have seen, there is no matter which is not within the competence of WHO.

In Article 20, we read: “Each Member [State] undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance.” The power of enforcement of the Health Assembly’s decisions lies in the stigma of non-compliance on the part of a Member State.

Dr. Brock Chisholm, who had more than anyone else to do with the writing of WHO’s Constitution, has explained that the aforementioned provisions of Chapter IV incorporated a “new principle of international law” by circumventing the usual procedures for the ratification of international conventions or agreements. The Member States, in ratifying WHO’s Constitution at the beginning of their membership in the organization, signed a blank check to be bound by such regulations as should be adopted by the World Health Assembly in the future unless they formally notified the Director-General of non-compliance. “The long, slow, and usually never completed process of ratification by each government of an international convention is thus avoided,” says Dr. Chisholm.

Gro Harlem Brundtland

To conclude review of the development of W.H.O., we take a look at one of W.H.O.’s later director-generals, Gro Harlem Brundtland. Brundtlandt, the former socialist prime minister of Norway, was elected 1st Vice President of the Socialist International in 1992. In 1998, W.H.O.’s governing body elected her as the director-general of W.H.O. for a five-year term. But let’s back up.

In 1983, UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar appointed Brundtland to chair the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), the UN’s agency pushing the economically advanced nations to adopt “sustainable development.” WCED subsequently became known as the Brundtland Commission.

Gro Harlem Brundtland has championed expanded UN authority in virtually all areas. At the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, she argued that “the nation state is too small an arena for addressing regional and global challenges related to the environment and development.”

UN socialists, such as Brundtland, work comfortably with CFR leaders (e.g., Brundtland with Jeffrey Sachs (CFR)). CFR leaders, the real architects of the UN, comfortably control their creation, while on the surface the UN pretends to be a democracy of nations. But that is another story.

Liberty vs. Tyranny: A Tale of Two “Surveillance” Approaches

“The key to getting to [something we might call] normal will be to establish systems for discriminating — legally and fairly — between those who can be allowed to move around freely and those who must stay at home.

“Assorted proposals now coming out of bodies such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for American Progress, and Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, describe how this might be done. The basic outlines are all similar….

“Regardless of the methods chosen, the goal is the same: after a couple of months of shutdown, to begin selectively easing restrictions on movement for people who can show they’re not a disease risk.” — Gideon Lichfield, “This is what it will take to get us back outside,” MIT Technology Review, April 12, 2020 [Bold emphasis ours.]

The Insiders pushing our current “pandemic” scare are using many stratagems — involving deceptive use of language — to try to hide that it’s meant to abrogate our fundamental rights. Only thus can they hope to sell us their snake-oil, “new normal,” in which those rights are at best a dim memory.

One obvious example of such stratagems is how the mainstream media will speak of the terrific economic damage “the coronavirus is causing” — glossing over the fact that our state governors are, by arbitrary edict, themselves inflicting all the damage. In this way, the media hope to evade otherwise easy-to-reach conclusions that none of the damage was inevitable — or even to any good purpose.

Not all examples are so obvious, however. Yet, the deceptive use of language (along with correspondingly twisted “logic”) is possibly our enemies’ most destructive weapon. Let us therefore examine one of the less obvious current subterfuges.

Intentional Obscuring of the Fundamental, Radical Social Difference between “Surveillance” Approaches

In just about any discussions of the allegedly technocratic, “big-data” approaches of surveillance that Taiwan, Singapore and other countries have deployed in the fight against the coronavirus, China’s approach is mixed right into the discussion — as if they are all birds of a feather. In this way, the media try to make us think there is no fundamental difference between the latter’s approach and that of freedom-upholding countries such as Taiwan and Singapore.

If they can get us to accept that China’s response to the coronavirus is not essentially different from Taiwan’s, this defuses the danger which Taiwan’s example presents, otherwise, to their whitewashing of China’s government’s response — indeed it enhances the whitewashing, through associating China with Taiwan’s success. And Westerners had better have a big wake-up about this difference — and do it right away: because America, the U.K., and most of Europe are all hurtling towards, not Taiwan’s approach to “surveillance,” but that of Big-Brother, authoritarian China.

This quote from Clair Yang, an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington, conveys a glib obscuring of that difference:

[T]he successful experience of some of the countries that had already flattened their curves suggests that digital contact tracing and big data analysis could also prove a useful tool in combating the spread of the virus. Research shows that many countries in the East Asian region, including South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and China, have implemented strict rules on digital contact tracing and used digital travel history of patients to predict risks for the general population. This approach would be highly controversial in the Western world. Contact tracing can be a serious infringement of individual privacy, but one’s travel data if used in the right way could also have positive external value for the general public. At the end of the day, it is a trade-off between public goods and individual rights. — Clair Yang, expert-opinion response, “States with the Fewest Coronavirus Restrictions,” WalletHub, May 5, 2020

The message comes through powerfully — even if subliminally: “You Westerners want to have the success that Taiwan and Singapore have had against the virus? Well, the fundamental difference between your approach and our Asian approach (of which — don’t you see — mainland-China is just another example) is simply that the Asians are not hung up on your Western fetish of ‘individual rights’! After all, which is more important: ‘rights,’ or the public good? Isn’t it time, then, that you came to see, and to do, things in mainland-China’s way?”

Admittedly, there is a single truthful representation in that message: Mainland China is quite disregardful of (“Western”) individual rights. Beyond that, however, it is only a shameful misrepresentation of Taiwan’s approach — which has been infinitely more regardful of individual rights than have statements (and decrees) coming from executive bureaucratic offices in the U.S. or China.

The Real Basic Difference

So, which characteristic makes China’s and Taiwan’s responses to the coronavirus as different as “chalk and cheese”? Basically — to use an ancient Western legal principle, if somewhat outside its usual context — it’s the maintaining, vs. the suspension, of habeas corpus. And the only reason we say this application of the principle is outside of its normal context here is that never in the history of American jurisprudence have the citizenries of whole states been put under virtual house arrest — much less, for an objective reason.

Because this is so unheard of, we don’t naturally and immediately apply to it a principle that’s been normally applied to non-house detention:

Nowadays in Western countries, the thought of government agents whisking off a citizen to a secret prison seems unlikely. So why do we still have habeas corpus? Is it simply an antiquated law we no longer need?

The short answer is unequivocally no. It’s the right of habeas corpus that makes the thought of being illegally imprisoned in a democratic society such a far-off idea. Habeas corpus is a prisoner’s one way to question the legality of his or her imprisonment. — Josh Clark, “Why is habeas corpus important?”

Under this principle, an official who has someone under detention for no publicly-disclosed, legitimate reason is required — when presented a habeas corpus writ — to bring the prisoner to court and “present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond their authority, then the prisoner must be released.” (Wikipedia)

In contrast with this legal practice — so obviously entailed by “the rule of law” — we have the general practice which, in our initial quotation above, Gideon Lichfield (editor-in-chief of MIT Technology Review) recommends “for discriminating — legally and fairly — between those who can be allowed to move around freely and those who must stay at home.” Just to make sure you don’t forget what he said, we’ll quote that part again:

Regardless of the methods chosen, the goal is the same: after a couple of months of shutdown, to begin selectively easing restrictions on movement for people who can show they’re not a disease risk. — Gideon Lichfield, “This is what it will take to get us back outside,” MIT Technology Review, April 12, 2020 [Bold emphasis ours.]

Please note that there is no difference at all between what Mr. Lichfield’s preferred experts (whom he’s citing) recommend for governmental handling of you and me, and what China is doing to all its slaves — er, citizens: They are all free to go wherever they like, engage in what discourse they wish, and so on — just as soon as they have proven to the government that they have complied with all its dictates and whims.

Here, habeas corpus is turned on its head: It’s not the government that must prove, before a court, that its detention of the citizen is a legitimate one; on the contrary, it’s the “citizen” who must prove — to the government that imprisoned him — that he has complied with all its dictates.

In Western countries, traditionally this is known by such terms as “tyranny” and “slavery.” Let’s make sure that we still see it that way — and that we warn our fellow citizens, loudly, of this tyranny — intended as our “new normal”!