Imagine sheep can be used to store information or mine Bitcoin. Then imagine what sheeple can do.

When Klaus Schwab cries about Dark Winters and cyber attacks, that’s the bait and biohacking is the switch.
Most essential and chilling documentary to enter the Great Reset era.
Unfortunately I can’t upload it on YouTube and embed it in this post because covidiots allowed a buncha psychopaths to rob us of our self-determination and free speech, installing this fucked up global fascist-techno-communist regime.
Fortunately we still can take advantage of the last remnants of Internet freedom and you can watch it on a few free-speech platforms:
Lbrary
Bitchute (lower resolution)
more to be added (hopefully)

This is the third and final part on the Biohacking trilogy I promised and delivered. Being final doesn’t mean it’s finished, looks like it’s going to be ever growing and updated, so if you come back to these posts in a few months, you might observe significant updates.

YES, THEY CAN VACCINATE US THROUGH NASAL TEST SWABS AND TARGET THE BRAIN (BIOHACKING P.1)

RNA MODIFICATION USED TO ALTER DNA, BRAIN FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOR (BIOHACKING P.2)


SOME OF THE VIDEO RESOURCES I USED:

You Should Be Worried About Your DNA Privacy

Spy Agencies Using DNA for Storage, Your Body Could Hold all Data Ever Created

Microsoft and University of Washington DNA Storage Research Project – Extended

China Wants Your DNA

The Spy in Your Phone

More links, resources and comments to be added here soon, right now I’m exhausted, but anxious to get this in front of you, I invested myself quite a lot in it, enjoy!

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Allow me to leak some of their more intimate shots

SOURCE

Pfizer Wuhan R&D Center was founded on October 8, 2010, becoming the first world’s top 500 enterprises settled in Wuhan Biolake.

The US Pfizer is transferring its medicine safety business from India to Wuhan, capital of central China’s Hubei, due to the advantages of talent resources and industry environment here.

Five years ago, Pfizer established an affiliate at Wuhan Biolake, a national biological industrial base, and greatly expanded its research and development scale and cooperative sectors in China. The Pfizer Wuhan R&D Center is an important base supporting Pfizer’s global data processing, quality control and medicine safety.

Pfizer has two world class R&D centers in China’s Wuhan and Shanghai, with business operations in over 300 cities. Pfizer’s China Research and Development Center has become one of the company’s seven major R&D centers worldwide.” – government website of the Hubei Province, China

SOURCE
SOURCE (PDF)
SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE

Reminder : BILL GATES HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL MEMBER OF CHINESE ACADEMIA FOR YEARS. AND THERE’S MORE…

UPDATE:
As per usual, life doesn’t take long to confirm us

Major leak ‘exposes’ members and ‘lifts the lid’ on the Chinese Communist Party

13/12/2020|

A major leak containing a register with the details of nearly two million CCP members has occurred – exposing members who are now working all over the world, while also lifting the lid on how the party operates under Xi Jinping, says Sharri Markson.

According to Sky News journalist Sherri Markson, “Some of its members – who swear a solemn oath to ‘guard CCP secrets, be loyal to the Party, work hard, fight for communism throughout my life…and never betray the Party’ – are understood to have secured jobs in British consulates.”

Alarmingly, Markson also says Pfizer and AsraZeneca – both currently producing large numbers of COVID-19 vaccine doses – have “employed a total of 123 party loyalists.”

To be continued and updated

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

The producer behind “Armageddon,” “The Purge” and “A Quiet Place” has released a trailer for his upcoming feature film “Songbird.” It predicts a dire, snowballing disease mutation — COVID-23 — that has created a horrific hellscape by 2024. But to me, first thing it reminded of is one of the first videos I edited for Silview.media. So I put them together in a new video.

For further details on the Gates productions, readt our earlier feature:
EXCLUSIVE: BILL GATES BEHIND MTV’S “HOLOCAUST HAPPENED TO PEOPLE LIKE US”. PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING?

Songbird is billed as a “terrifying thriller” and the “first feature film to be made during COVID-19 in Los Angeles, and about the pandemic itself”. The official press-release reads:

“The COVID-23 virus has mutated and the world is in its fourth year of lockdown. Infected Americans are ripped from their homes and forced into quarantine camps known as Q-Zones, from which there is no escape, as a few brave souls fight back against the forces of oppression.”

In July, the movie was hit with a “do not work” order from the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) because of concerns about coronavirus safety protocols.

And the first question it raised to me was: Predictive programming?

UPDATE

Looks like my instincts don’t lie, if I know how to listen

Source
Source

UPDATE 2:
It will never end with these guys:

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This historical photo document that sits as cover for this article has made a few rounds of the Internet so far and it isn’t stopping. Dupes and covidiots came up with the most hilarious dismissals, but the problem is “believers” couldn’t come up with any background info either, so it all appears as controversial. Let’s end this situation.

Top billionaires hold secret meeting

May 21, 2009, NBC News

In a quiet meeting closed to the news media and the public, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Sr., Oprah Winfrey and other leading philanthropists met in New York this month to discuss ways to promote efforts to solve growing social problems in America and abroad.

Together, the philanthropists in the room have committed a total of more than $72.5 billion to charitable causes since 1996, according to Chronicle of Philanthropy tallies.

The unusual event was held May 5 at Rockefeller University and was organized by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Among the high-profile participants were Ted Turner, Warren E. Buffett, George Soros and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. (All of those philanthropists have appeared at one time on The Chronicle’s ranking of America’s most-generous donors.)

Several of the people at the meeting confirmed their involvement, but declined to tell The Chronicle about what was discussed or why they gathered almost in secret.

According to a person familiar with the meeting, the wealthy philanthropists gathered to trade ideas about how to raise the level of philanthropy in the world.

According to IrishCentral.com, a Web site in New York that writes about Irish Americans and which first disclosed some of the details about the gathering, each philanthropist was given 15 minutes to talk about “how they saw the future global economic climate, the future priorities for philanthropy, and what they felt the elite group should do.”

Other people who attended included Eli Broad, a real-estate investor, Julian H. Robertson, Jr., a hedge-fund manager, and Patty Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Gates foundation.


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

According to Bill Gates, part of his success is due to his parents – in fact, his late mother, Mary Gates, was said to be instrumental in a deal that helped propel Microsoft into the big leagues.

How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates – a strange offshoot of the Bill Gates Personal Wealth Clock by Philip Greenspun:

Lesson 1: Choose Your Grandparents Carefully

William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle’s National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III.

In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.

Lesson 2: Choose Your Parents Carefully

William Henry Gates, Jr. and Mary Maxwell were among Seattle’s social and financial elite. Bill Gates, Jr. was a prominent corporate lawyer while Mary Maxwell was a board member of First Interstate Bank and Pacific Northwest Bell. She was also on the national board of United Way, along with John Opel, the chief executive officer of IBM who approved the inclusion of MS/DOS with the original IBM PC.

Remind your parents not to send you to public school. Bill Gates went to Lakeside, Seattle’s most exclusive prep school where tuition in 1967 was $5,000 (Harvard tuition that year was $1760). Typical classmates included the McCaw brothers, who sold the cellular phone licenses they obtained from the U.S. Government to AT&T for $11.5 billion in 1994. When the kids there wanted to use a computer, they got their moms to hold a rummage sale and raise $3,000 to buy time on a DEC PDP-10, the same machine used by computer science researchers at Stanford and MIT.

Read the rest of the course

Mary Gates was a respected businesswoman with many responsibilities, including her membership on the board of nonprofit organization United Way of King County. There, she met the late John Opel, then-chairman of IBM, who also was a member of the United Way board. In 1980, Microsoft was a small, five-year-old firm and Mary saw an opportunity to help her son’s fledgling company by speaking with Opel, according to The New York Times.

That’s because for the first time in IBM’s then 70-year history, the company was looking to outsource help for an endeavor the company called project “Chess.” IBM wanted to hire an outside software maker to develop an operating system for its personal computer.

Microsoft was already in the running for the project, but IBM was considering many software companies, including Digital Research, one of Microsoft’s competitors. With this knowledge, Mary used her connection and spoke with Opel about Microsoft, and afterward, Opel spoke to IBM executives about the company.

Luckily for Microsoft, IBM’s talks with Digital Research started to flounder, and when assessing options, Opel remembered Microsoft as the company “run by Bill Gates, Mary Gates’ son,” according to The Seattle Times.

A young Bill Gates
A young Bill GatesDoug Wilson | Getty Images

As a result, IBM “took a chance,” The New York Times reported, and hired Microsoft for the job. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to adapt operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)

When Microsoft won the job, it didn’t actually have an operating system of its own. So in 1981, the company bought QDOS, an operating system created by hardware company Seattle Computer Products, and with it developed MS-DOS, the Microsoft Disk Operating System. Microsoft licensed its MS-DOS to IBM to use as the operating system for its personal computer. (In addition to Microsoft, IBM also contracted Digital Research and SofTech Microsystems to use their operating systems for IBM’s personal computer.)

Because the MS-DOS was non-exclusive to IBM, it became one of Microsoft’s most profitable products ever. The operating system was not only used in all IBM computers at the time, but also became the go-to operating system for almost every personal computer on the market.

In 1986, Microsoft went public at $21 a share, and following, Gates immediately became a multi-millionaire. As the company’s success continued, Gates became a billionaire just a year later.

Gates was CEO at Microsoft until 2000, stepped down as chairman in 2008 and left the company’s board in March to dedicate more time to his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Microsoft currently has a market cap of $1.6 trillion.

It is interesting to note that Bill Gates, and his Microsoft colleagues, were not the pioneers of the first operating system for personal computers. Nearly ten years before Bill Gates signed the epochal deal with IBM, Gary Kildall, a computer science professor had developed his own system…the Control Program for Microcomputers.

Kildall and Gates had known each other from their years…freely sharing ideas in the Home Brew Computer Club, a group that Kildall had founded. Why IBM connected with Bill Gates, and not Kildall, is not widely known. However, one can speculate that Mary Gates’ connection to IBM‘s John Opel played an important, if not critical, role.” 

“… it was Opel who met with Bill Gates, CEO of the then-small software firm Microsoft, to discuss the possibility of using Microsoft PC-DOS OS for IBM‘s about-to-be-released PC. Opel set up the meeting at the request of Gates’ mother, Mary Maxwell Gates. The two had both served on the National United Way‘s executive committee.

As CEO, Opel was also able to resolve an ongoing antitrust lawsuit with the U.S. Justice Department, which allowed the company to grow more rapidly.” 

Here’s what Paul Graham has to say in How to Make Wealth: Millions, Not Billions:

“Certainly Bill is smart and dedicated, but Microsoft also happens to have been the beneficiary of one of the most spectacular blunders in the history of business: the licensing deal for DOS. No doubt Bill did everything he could to steer IBM into making that blunder, and he has done an excellent job of exploiting it, but if there had been one person with a brain on IBM’s side, Microsoft’s future would have been very different. Microsoft at that stage had little leverage over IBM. They were effectively a component supplier. If IBM had required an exclusive license, as they should have, Microsoft would still have signed the deal. It would still have meant a lot of money for them, and IBM could easily have gotten an operating system elsewhere.

Instead IBM ended up using all its power in the market to give Microsoft control of the PC standard. From that point, all Microsoft had to do was execute. They never had to bet the company on a bold decision. All they had to do was play hardball with licensees and copy more innovative products reasonably promptly.

If IBM hadn’t made this mistake, Microsoft would still have been a successful company, but it could not have grown so big so fast. Bill Gates would be rich, but he’d be somewhere near the bottom of the Forbes 400 with the other guys his age.

There are a lot of ways to get rich, and this essay is about only one of them. This essay is about how to make money by creating wealth and getting paid for it. There are plenty of other ways to get money, including chance, speculation, marriage, inheritance, theft, extortion, fraud, monopoly, graft, lobbying, counterfeiting, and prospecting. Most of the greatest fortunes have probably involved several of these.”

One thing caught my attention in all the counts I’ve read about this story: everyone ASSUMED that IBM made an almost fatal mistake in it’s dealings with Gates.

“In one of the most extraordinary business arrangements in modern history, Microsoft leveraged its knowledge of the Intel microprocessor environment to outmaneuver IBM and establish its operating system as the dominant operating system for the PC. In a strategy Microsoft executive Steve Ballmer called, “Riding the Bear,” Microsoft worked with IBM to the point where it was strong enough to go on its own, ultimately becoming one of the richest companies in the world by having their software on nearly every PC in the world. This would first include developing programming software for the fledgling Intel-based microcomputer industry and then in association with IBM, standardizing an operating system for the non-Apple microcomputer industry.” – Anthony J. Pennings, PhD, in”MICROSOFT AND THE IBM PC CASE STUDY: THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY“.

“The IBM PC offered a choice of three operating systems – the other two being UCSD P and CP/M 86 – and the future development of the personal computer industry might have been very different had Gary Kildall, boss of Digital Research (DR), then a much bigger company than Microsoft, had initially agreed the terms on which IBM originally wanted to contract him for DR’s CP/M.The apocryphal story that he was enjoying a day off flying his plane, is now seen to be an over simplified, or even falsified account, of the events. Even so IBM’s unexpected decision to contract an almost unheard of startup, certainly determined the fates and fortunes of his and Bill Gate’s companies.” – I-programmer

Why would eveyone assume IBM made a huge mistake when all their history, as well as Microsoft’s, proves they built their dominance on connections, intelligent strategic decisions and other people’s intellectual efforts?

SILVIEW.media

Furthermore, if Microsoft and IBM are two pockets of the same suit, and if by moving money from one pocket to another you make more money, that’s a money printer right there. What better way to make money?

An Interesting Comparison

“It’s hard to communicate to people just how large the Standard Oil trust was”, said Ron Chernow, author of “Titan, The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.”. “Standard Oil was 20 times bigger than its nearest competitor.”

It was also one of the two largest companies in America. When it was broken up, among the 34 companies spun off were what we know today as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, Arco, Conoco, BP America and Cheesebrough-Ponds.

“At least four of those companies still are dominant in the oil industry and still among the largest 100 companies in the world,” Chernow said. “Rockefeller really owned the whole industry lock, stock and barrel.

“I guess the situation would be equivalent (to the Rockefeller monopoly) if Microsoft was a personal computer manufacturer and not only controlled the operating system, but controlled all of the applications and the microprocessors and all of the collateral equipment and owned all of the retail outlets at the same time.”

Ron Cernow


What goes for Gates in the above quote, also goes for IBM, especially if they are “two pockets of the same suit”.

Coincindences are just causalities we haven’t found yet.
Another coincidence in the series is IBM and Microsoft’s long history of similar problems with the anti-trust regualtions around the world, it’s almost as if the same people with the same manners ran both and separating the mainframe business (IBM) from the software business (MS) was a matter of survival.

Antitrust Cases, U.S. v. IBM, are Tried and Eventually Withdrawn

“The 1969 Case” Alleged That IBM Illegally Acquired And Maintained Its Monopoly Of General Purpose Digital Computers Through Exclusionary And Predatory Conduct Going Beyond The 1956 Decree. 

                The 1969 action alleged that “IBM had undertaken exclusionary and predatory conduct with the aim and effect of eliminating competition so that IBM could maintain its monopoly position in general purpose digital computers. (See Plaintiff’s Statement of Triable Issues (dated September 23, 1974) at 8; U.S. 1969 tab 1.) Specifically, the Government contended that from 1961 to 1969 IBM engaged in anticompetitive practices “for the purpose or with the effect of restraining or attempting to restrain actual or potential competitors from entering” the relevant markets. (Id. at 8.)1 Such practices allegedly included anticompetitive price discrimination such as giving away software services for “the purpose or with the effect of .

On May 19, 1975 the Federal Government’s antitrust suit against IBM went to trial. The complaint for the case: U.S. v. IBM .

After thousands of hours of testimony (testimony of over 950 witnesses, 87 in court, the remainder by deposition), and the submission of tens of thousands of exhibits, on January 8, 1982 the anti-trust case U.S. v. IBM was withdrawn on the grounds that the case was “without merit.”

30,000,000 pages of documents were generated in the course of this anti-trust case, according to historyofinformation.com . Of course they wouldn’t risk another one any soon.

Read: The IBM Hall of Shame: A (Semi) Complete List of Bribes, Blunders and Fraud

For Bill Gates, antitrust fight was a personal crucible

“With the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft, Gates faced company’s gravest threat” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008

“In 1998, Bill Gates was the new John D. Rockefeller. And from the U.S. government’s perspective at the start of its antitrust trial against Microsoft in 1998, Gates was every bit as powerful as the legendary oil baron was — if not more so. The desktop operating system was seen as important to the new, tech-focused economy as oil had been to the industrial economy of the early 20th century.

…It is difficult to believe that in 1998 the U.S. government and more than 20 states were focused on Microsoft’s desktop operating system dominance. The case threatened Microsoft with a breakup and would ultimately bring Gates, then serving as Microsoft’s chairman and CEO, to the witness stand in defense of the company he is now about to leave. It was a brutal case with enormous stakes. It was a crucible, and it was personal.

The antitrust fight turned on many legal issues concerning Microsoft’s anticompetitive practices. Part of Microsoft’s defense was based on the idea that its behavior was constrained by emerging technologies. The company argued that it faced “unknown knowns,” as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld might have put it. Microsoft 10 years ago knew that game-changing threats were certain to arrive — it just didn’t know their exact shape. Linux, Java and browsers were often cited as threats at the trial, but those were known threats; what Microsoft argued was that the unknown threats to come were just as real.

It was not an argument that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil could have raised. It was not an argument the judge bought at the time. But history may still have more to say on whether the argument had merit.

Unlike the strain Windows faces today, Microsoft’s OS was on top of the desktop world. That fact led to the antitrust fight that would roil Microsoft for years, a fight that was personified on the company’s side by its leader.

… Microsoft officials thought the government was seeking a corporate breakup. Gates’ feistiness also underscored a different worldview: that the company saw itself competing in a market that could change overnight. Gates’ now famous 1995 Internet Tidal Wave memo (download PDF) illustrated his view: “Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats. After 10 hours of browsing, I had not seen a single Word DOC, AVI file….”

One of the things Microsoft hoped to accomplish in this case was to convince the government that the tech industry was unlike any other. Just like IBM beore him. The company hired Richard Schmalensee, dean of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, to help make its case. A big part of his argument was that the real threats hadn’t yet arrived. It was fear of these unknown threats that served to constraint Microsoft’s apparent power.

Boies countered Schmalensee with MIT professor Franklin Fisher, who dismissed that warning about future threats. The notion that “a wolf might come out of the forest” to challenge Microsoft wasn’t serious analysis, he said. The issue, the government argued, was about the monopoly power the company had at the time.

Gates tried to explain the threat in his deposition with Boies (download PDF).

Boise: When people used the word with you “commoditize” as in the statement that Netscape was threatening or endeavoring to commoditize the operating system, what did you understand “commoditize” to mean?

Gates: That they were creating a product that would either reduce the value or eliminate demand for the Windows operating system if they continued to improve it and we didn’t keep improving our product.

The argument did not hold — at least as far as the judge was concerned. In 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson order that Microsoft be broken up, Standard Oil-style (read the decision). A year later, in 2001, the U.S.government — in the interest of moving the case along — dropped that remedy and announced a settlement under which Microsoft would agree to change some of its business practices.

Before that agreement was finalized in court, Gates, after refusing to appear years earlier, took the stand. In 2002, one of the points he raised concerned the future.

In 2008, Windows — though still dominant — is facing new platform threats, and a renewed browser war is brewing, thanks to Firefox. Meanwhile, Google looms as an ever-larger threat, as Microsoft has sought — so far unsuccessfully — to scoop up an Internet search company to better fit in with a new age. And Gates, his company intact, is moving on to other endeavors, looking less like Rockefeller the oil baron and more like Rockefeller the philanthropist.” – Patrick Thibodeau, Senior Editor, Computerworld, JUN 26, 2008

Now replace “Rockefeller” with “IBM” in Thibodeau’s story and think that creating or buying a false opposition is the game of the mega-rich, fighting competition is for the poor.

So on July 1st, 2005, Microsoft Corp. and IBM announced that they have entered into an agreement to resolve antitrust issues between the two companies:

“Today’s settlement resolves claims arising from the United States v. Microsoft antitrust case in the mid-1990s, where IBM was identified in U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s findings of fact as having been impacted in its business by certain Microsoft practices.  Under the agreement, Microsoft will pay IBM $775 million and extend $75 million in credit towards deployment of Microsoft software at IBM.

In addition to addressing all discriminatory pricing and overcharge claims based on the findings in the U.S. antitrust case, the settlement resolves all antitrust claims, including claims related to the IBM OS/2 operating system and SmartSuite products, with the exception of claims for harm to IBM’s server hardware and server software businesses.  IBM has further agreed, subject to certain limitations, that it will not assert claims for server monetary
damages for two years and will not seek to recover damages on such claims incurred prior to June 30, 2002.  Microsoft also releases antitrust claims.

In November 2003, Microsoft and IBM entered into tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations on antitrust claims based on the U.S. antitrust case while exploring resolutions that would avoid protracted litigation.  Microsoft’s and IBM’s tolling agreement was set to expire in July and the parties engaged in settlement discussions during the last two months.

“With these antitrust issues behind us, both Microsoft and IBM can move ahead, at times cooperatively and at times competitively, to bring the best products and services to customers,” said Brad Smith, general counsel and senior vice president, Microsoft.  “Over the last few years we have been focused on resolving our disputes with other companies, and today’s announcement takes another significant step towards achieving that goal.”

“IBM is pleased that we have amicably resolved these long standing issues,” said Ed Lineen, senior vice president and general counsel, IBM.


The story that made everyone scratch their heads makes all the sense if you look at IBM not just as founder, but forever owner of Microsoft, even if not in official papers.

Gates, IBM and the Nazis connection

This chapter is, for the most part, a compilation of excerpts from “Is Bill Gates a closet liberal?” by the liberals at Salon.com, and Dean Arnold’s book exposing Gates and his population control efforts in Ethiopia and Africa

Bill Gates’ cold-cash concern for family planning could even be construed as asking for trouble. The groups that the Gates Foundation is giving money to have close ideological and organizational ties with pro-choice bastions like Planned Parenthood

Salon.com

Is it really a wonder though, that IBM made the deal with a eugenicist-supporting family? Let us not forget, that IBM is the very same company that (literally) made the punch cards for the Nazi death camp possible.

Founded in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (C-T-R), the company now known as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) can be traced back even farther, to the 1880s, when Dr. Alexander Dey invented the first dial recorder. Dey’s business later became part of the foundation of C-T-R, along with Harlow Bundy’s Bundy Manufacturing Company, which produced the world’s first employee time clock.More recently, IBM has become a global information technology company focused on software, cloud computing, and consulting services. 

Investopedia

Edwin Black, in his book, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, quoted Leon Krzemieniecki, the only man still living, who worked in the Hollerith Department (named after Herman Hollerith, the inventor the infamous ‘electromechanical tabulating machine‘ used by the Nazis, and founder the company that later became IBM), which could be found at Auschwitz (and all Nazi camps). This is what Krzemieniecki said… “I knew they were not German machines,” recalled Krzemieniecki. “The labels were in English. The person maintaining and repairing the machines spread the diagrams out sometimes. The language of the diagrams of those machines was only in English. I asked Krzemieniecki if the machine logo plates were in German, Polish or English. He answered “English. It said Business Machines.” I asked, “Do you mean, International Business Machines?” Krzemieniecki replied, “No, Watson Business Machines.”

When Adolf Hitler came to power, many saw a menace to humanity. But IBM treated Nazi Germany as a lucrative trading partner. Quickly, its president, Thomas J. Watson, engineered a strategic business alliance between IBM and the Third Reich, beginning in the first days of the Hitler regime and continuing right through World War II.

This alliance instantly catapulted Nazi Germany into being IBM’s most important customer outside the United States. As part of that strategic alliance, IBM and the Nazis jointly designed, and IBM exclusively produced, technologic solutions that enabled Hitler to accelerate and automate key aspects of his persecution of the Jews from the initial identification and social expulsion, to the confiscation and ghettoization, to the deportation and ultimate extermination.

Nazi documents contained in the U.S. National Archives and Polish eyewitness testimony make clear that IBM’s alliance with the Third Reich went far beyond its German subsidiary. During the rape of Poland and the Polish Holocaust, which killed millions and plundered a nation, IBM technology was a key factor. The company’s custom-tailored technology was provided directly through a new special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York.

And that’s how the trains to Auschwitz ran on time.

Once the United States entered the war after Dec. 10, 1941, the Reich appointed Hermann Fellinger, a Nazi devoted to IBM, as enemy property custodian. He maintained the original staff and managers, keeping Watson Business Machines productive for the Reich and profitable for IBM New York. The Polish subsidiary now reported to IBM’s Geneva office and from there to New York. After the war, IBM recovered all its Polish machines and profits, which amounted to millions of dollars.

Contacted about IBM’s Polish subsidiary’s involvement in the Polish Holocaust, IBM spokesman Carol Makovich said only, “IBM does not have much information about this period.”

But 21st century silence cannot alter the historical documentation. A tangle of subsidiaries throughout Europe helped IBM reap the benefits of its partnership with Nazi Germany. ” Edwin Black, San Francisco Gate

Bill Gates Sr. administers the approximately $300 million William H. Gates III Foundation

Salon.com

As explained earlier, the public story of Bill Gates is as follows: a middle-class computer geek becomes an overnight billionaire, and one day he wakes up out of nowhere in his forties and decides to take on overpopulation.
But his handlers have kept you from the rest of the story. Bill committed another gaffe in 2006 when he gave an interview to Bill Moyers. He said the following:

“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table, my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.”

No, Bill Gates didn’t just decide one day later in life to take on overpopulation. He was raised from childhood to believe overpopulation was the key problem for humanity. He was discipled by a disciple of Margaret Sanger.

 More excerpts from a Salon.com eulogy for The Gates:
<<Whatever you call it — “population control” or “family planning” — this isn’t just a billionaire fad for the Gates family.

Bill Gates: “Vaccine benefits range from health to population control” (CNN 2011)

“Bill Gates Sr. has been deeply involved in this issue for decades,” says Laurie S. Zabin, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Zabin, who served with Gates Sr. on the national board of Planned Parenthood, was instrumental in getting the Gates Foundation grant for Johns Hopkins.

But that doesn’t mean Gates Sr. is the only one who cares about overpopulation, said Zabin: Gates Jr. “has supported issues of real social concern and certainly this is one of them.”

Gates Sr. agreed: “It’s an interest he has had since he was a kid. And he has friends who are interested in supporting research into world population problems, people whom he admires — it’s just a matter of a fit between his proclivities and mine.”

A “proclivity fit” is one way to put it. Or one could surmise that Bill Gates is growing up to be the man his parents raised him to be.>>

“His parents were involved in charitable activity, and I’ve heard him talk about it quite a bit,” said Microsoft spokesman Shaw. “I think that set a strong tradition and ethic of giving back and I should say that we are only seeing the beginning of that now.”

Bill Gates, Sr. This is the only photo that can be legally reused of Bill Gates, Sr, although many exist online, as well as many reusable photos of Bill, Jr.
Bill Gates, Sr. This is the only photo that can be legally reused of Bill Gates, Sr, although many exist online, as well as many reusable photos of Bill, Jr.

We never hear about this again from Bill Gates. He provides a seven-page interview on his late father in 2015 and did not mention Planned Parenthood, although several other boards his father sat on were named. What did Bill mean exactly by “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood”? Did he mean the local chapter?

We learn from Salon that Bill Gates, Sr., was a member of the national board of directors of Planned Parenthood. Let that sink in. Such a nonprofit empire is controlled by its board of directors. They have more power than Planned Parenthood’s president, a position they appoint. This fact means that there was no person on earth with more power over the control, population control efforts, abortion operations, or Planned Parenthood assets ($2.2 billion today) than Bill Gates’s father. He shared that power with a handful of others.

What did Bill Jr. mean by “head of Planned Parenthood”? Perhaps his father was chairman of the board for a time. I could find no records to document that fact. 

But Gates Sr. did acknowledge that he and Mary Gates exerted pressure on their son to do more with all his billions.”His mother and I always pushed a little,” said Gates Sr. Like Mary Gates, Gates Sr. has long been involved in philanthropy — ever since “I first gave a nickel to the Salvation Army man,” he joked.

Salon.com

Bill Gates, Sr., as much as any person in the world, had the power and position to advance the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the woman who openly called for using birth control and sterilization to eliminate “human waste” and “create a race of thoroughbreds.” In her Birth Control Review she promoted Nazi eugenics and white supremacy. As one contributor to Sanger’s Birth Control Review wrote: “It is the lower elements of the population, the negroid aboriginal tribes and the pariahs or outcasts, who are gaining the fastest.” 

Download to read (PDF): “Margaret Sanger – Our Founder,” 100 Years Strong,” from Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

Sanger’s same magazine published a favorable review by her lover, Havelock Ellis, of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy by Lathrop Stoddard. Ellis notes that Stoddard chooses to “concern himself mainly with . . . the maintenance of White supremacy.” Ellis agrees that “by prejudice of color, we must mostly be on his side in this matter.” Ellis also shares his concern about African Americans: “the migrations of lower types, even within the white world, such as those which have worked havoc in the United States, must be rigorously curtailed.” Ellis also wrote the preface to Sanger’s 1920 book, Woman and the New Race.

“Reproductive health and family planning” is a buzz phrase that emerged out of the 1994 United Nations Cairo conference on population issues, said Dr. Gordon Perkin, president of PATH. In the past, the research topic used to be referred to as “population control” — though, said Dr. Perkin, “the words ‘population control’ are not used any more, except by people who don’t know the field.”

Salon.com

In a later Birth Control Review article, Sanger calls for giving “certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” She also published an article by close friend and advisor Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization for the Nazis. It was entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.”  Sanger famously said: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

How did Bill Gates’s father view Margaret Sanger? According to an official Planned Parenthood history: “Our founder, Margaret Sanger, was a woman of heroic accomplishments, and like all heroes, she was also complex and imperfect.”
And, of course, Microsoft continued the legacy by funding them.

Billionaires have always had a fond spot in their hearts for population control: Ted Turner is a big supporter, as is Warren Buffett, a Gates family friend.

Salon.com

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

 

People started to think the meme it’s just that, as no one seemed to get a hold of the paper in either physical or digital form. We have found the whole publication on archive.org, in PDF, Download right here !
Regardless of our opinions on the content, this is part of the popular culture .

Depopulation Through Forced Vaccination:

The Zero Carbon Solution

By Rachel Windeer. (First published June 2011 in Issue 4 of The Sovereign independent)

On April 26th, 2009 the Irish Independent published an article titled ‘Concern for Children’s Health as Parents ignoring vaccines’. Edel Kennedy, you should be ashamed of yourself! This is nothing less than an attempt by  government, through their puppets in the media, to remove the rights of parents to determine the life choices of their offspring and removes any doubt that we now live in a dictatorship.

This is an OUTRAGEOUS insult to every parent in the country who has the common sense to research the efficacy of vaccines themselves by simply looking at the historical record rather than trust politicians whose lies in the media, including those perpetrated by the Dept. of Health under Mary Harney regarding the farce of ‘ swine flu’ and the dangerous myth of HPV vaccination, have led the country into the abyss of utter poverty and sold the country into the communist grasp of European bureaucrats whose sole aim is the destruction of every member nation’s sovereignty leaving them clutching at the bailout begging bowl of the IMF.

Vaccines are a fraud; pure and simple!

The historical record PROVES this for anyone with a little patience and the courage to investigate the FACTS for themselves, and it does take courage, especially for those in the medical profession whose careers will be at risk if they dare expose this danger to our children. It also shatters their illusions that they’re part of an organization which is far from beneficial to those they believe they’ re protecting from illness. However, their Hypocratic Oath should compel them to investigate such wild claims put out by pharmaceutical giants and their drug dealer sales representatives instead of taking the word of an industry well known as being utterly corrupt and ruthless in its business practices.

The Irish haemophiliac scandal, where patients were knowingly infected with HIV through contaminated blood products should be enough to convince anyone of Big Pharma’s murderous intent. This brings us to the real reasons for vaccinations. I’m not even going to prove to readers that they don’t work. I’ll simply urge you to look up the historical record. One simple example is the demise of measles.

The measles death rate had declined by 98% from 1915-1958 prior to any vaccination being introduced.

In 1988 and 1989, 69% and 89% for measles cases in American school-aged children had been vaccinated.

In 1995, 56% of ALL measles cases in America were vaccinated.

These figures come from medical journals. Those 3 simple examples PROVE that unvaccinated children are less likely to contract measles and that the vaccine was useless. Look that up for yourself. All other vaccine claims that they’ve cured or eliminated disease follow a similar pattern. Better hygiene, clean water and good healthy food was the cause of the decline and any doctor worth his smelling salts should know that. If they don’t then they are misinformed on a grand scale or they’re in complete denial. Therein lies the problem. Why have doctors been ‘indoctrinated’ to believe that vaccines are the sacred cow of medicine when the historical record clearly shows that they are virtually useless?

Hold onto your sanity because I have some bad news for you.

The real reason for vaccinations, apart from the massive profits to the manufacturers, is to ensure that you get sick throughout your life, again not only to enrich these same corporations that made you sick, but to ensure that many, if not all of you, die before you ever receive your pension and when you are no longer any of use to society. That’s why they want you retiring later in life and are forcing you through economic terrorism to work longer regardless of your age or health. They literally want to work you to death. If you don’t work you will be classed as a burden to society, a financial cost which society has to bear, and therefore you will be stigmatised as a ‘useless eater’; a consumer of resources needed for the rest of society. When Big Pharma can no longer profit from the illness they gave you, you will be left to die.

This is the depopulation agenda promoted under the United Nations Division of Population under the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. We only need look at Africa, the nation which the United Nations has said themselves, could feed the world. Why then are millions in Africa starving to death on that continent? It’s meant to be that way folks.

All of us at one time or another have been led to believe in the efficacy of vaccines. I was one of them and had my child vaccinated nearly 35 years ago. I wouldn’t even dream of it now. I think it’s safe to say that we’re all aware of the real pandemic, as opposed to the fake pandemics of the past. It’s called ‘CANCER’. Autism is also at crisis (pandemic) levels all across the world where mass vaccination programs exist.

Prior to mass vaccination, cancers were extremely rare, as in almost nonexistent. Today in the western, so called developed world, we face a crisis of cancer to the extent that between one in five to one in two will suffer, many dying, from one form of cancer or another. What’s happened to cause this pandemic?

We only have to look back at the Jonas Salk polio vaccine that went around the world in the full knowledge that it contained the SV40 virus which had no other purpose than causing cancer; yet it was pushed as a vaccine for polio when, as with measles, polio was well in decline prior to any vaccine due to the same factors.

Enter stage right at the TED 201 0 conference, Mr. Bill Gates, head of Microsoft, the biggest computer firm on the planet. What has Bill Gates to do with vaccines you’ re wondering?

See the quote in the image above. Those are his EXACT words. Are you beginning to get the picture?

The globalist elite care nothing for humanity; ordinary men, women and children must be eliminated in their delusional minds to ensure that their superior types go into the future with the best of breeding being the only criteria worthy of saving. You and I are no longer required and that is why we are seeing the loss of our economy, our wealth, our health, our happiness and ultimately, OUR LIVES


We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

“Bill Gates and Congressman Bobby L. Rush are not involved in acts of corruption regarding the Trace Act because they say so”. This is USA Today’s lame attempt to wash and suppress the latest Bill Gates – Rockefeller – Covid-19 scandal. They are Facebook’s prime fact-checkers. They decide what pages and links get shadow-banned or deleted. And a trove of publicly available documents prove they lie through their teeth (again).

SOURCE

In Covidiocracy, fact-checking is as easy as “Our people are innocent because they so, if you argue we shut you down”. It totally doesn’t sound like the communist narrative-enforcement I’ve witnessed in communist Romania 30 years ago, sure…

Facts need to be checked from three independent sources before publishing.

Rule #0 in true Old Normal journalism

Here are more than four sources:

  1. US House of Representatives attest that Democrat Congressman Bobby L. Rush and his spouse visited Rwanda in 2019 with funding from Bill Gates and the Rockefellers, among others. (Download PDF)

Rush was a participant in the Aspen Institute Congressional Program for Africa’s Economic, Security, and Development Challenges and the U.S. Role, which took place August 12-19, 2019 in Kigali, Musanze, and Muhanga, Rwanda. There were seven other participants from the U.S. Congress, all of whom were Democrats from CA, IL, NY, and MO, except for Republican Fred Upton from Michigan, who was the former chairman of the committee on energy and commerce.

2. Aspen Institute‘s own event presentation (Download PDF) attest that there were a handful of speakers in attendance, including Madeleine Albright who served under President Bill Clinton and received a Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama, Peggy Clark who received a presidential award for excellence in microenterprise from Bill Clinton, and Mary Robinson the former President of Ireland from 1990-1997 who also received a Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama.

Who else was in attendance? Dr. Paul Farmer from Partners in Health who is running a massive scale contact tracing program in multiple states, two representatives from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and a dozen other scholars.

Another scholar at this event Bobby Rush attended, that was funded by Bill Gates and friends, was Dr. Jonathan Epstein who is the Vice President for Science and Outreach of EcoHealth Alliance, founded in 1971. He is a veterinarian and disease ecologist who studies emerging zoonotic viruses such as Nipah and Ebola, along with SARS, MERS, and coronavirus. His specialty is bats. “In 2004, Dr. Epstein was part of a team of Chinese, Australian, and American scientists that identified horseshoe bats as the natural wildlife reservoir for SARS coronavirus in China. He also worked on the first team to investigate animal reservoirs of MERS coronavirus in Saudi Arabia, following its discovery in 2012.”

The best independent media report I’ve found on this, by Corey Lynn, points out that EcoHealth Alliance is the non-profit that received the $3.7 million NIH grant back in 2014 to study the coronavirus and had been working with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. EcoHealth Alliance’s President Dr. Peter Daszak said that none of the funds were given to the Wuhan Institute, but after Trump raised concerns, NIH contacted EcoHealth and instructed them to halt spending the remaining grant and that they were pulling their five-year grant that was just reauthorized in 2019. Daszak also stated that EcoHealth was spending $100,000 a year to collaborate with the Wuhan Institute, which was always preapproved by NIH. They used a portion of the grant funds to run genetic sequences of two bat coronaviruses that they discovered, which have since been used as lab tools to test the antiviral drug Remdesivir.

EcoHealth works in nearly 30 countries studying emerging pandemic threats. They have over 20 science and policy advisors, including individuals from the National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, CDC, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

In addition to NIH funding, the EcoHealth Alliance has played a vital role in the ‘Emerging Pandemic Threats PREDICT-I’ and ‘PREDICT-II’ program with USAID, universities and other NGOs. This dates back to 2009. Between 2009-2018, $195 million has been disbursed and funds continue to be dispersed through 2020. In their Road to EPT-2 document, they state that EPT-1 was to support the World Health Organization, who is currently under investigation and the Trump administration has halted funding to them. They “targeted 25 laboratories in 20 EPT-2 focus countries for enhanced capacities in handling, diagnosing and characterization of known high consequence and novel viruses in wildlife (PREDICT and CDC).”

In 2018, while co-founder of Partners in Health Jim Yong Kim was the president of the World Bank, they released the ‘One Health Operational Framework for Strengthening Human, Animal, and Environmental Public Health Systems at Their Interface,’ with EcoHealth Alliance. This entire 152-page document is about ‘One Health,’ which originated out of a Wildlife Conservation Society conference at Rockefeller University in 2004, and its aim is to reduce risks of infectious diseases at the animal-human-ecosystems interface. It is a collaboration between the World Bank, WHO, UNICEF, CDC, FAO, OIE, other partners, NGOs.  

Corey Lynn sums it up nicely for us, so far: “Bobby Rush has a long history of pay to play and disregarding paying taxes of any kind. Just last August, he traveled to Africa for an Aspen Institute congressional conference of approximately 45 individuals and spent time with Obama and Clinton award winners, Dr. Paul Farmer from Partners in Health who is currently running the contact tracing program in Massachusetts while his partner Jim Yong Kim is rounding up other states, Dr. Jonathan Epstein from EcoHealth Alliance who just had their NIH funding cut due to connections with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and two representatives from the Gates Foundation, while the Gates, Rockefellers, Democracy Fund, and others paid toward the $19,000 dollar expense Rush incurred for this sponsored event. Nine months later, he introduced a bill to dispense $100 billion dollars to NGOs and other organizations to carry out home-to-home contact tracing throughout the country.”

3. Partners in Health put out a press release announcing their new ‘contact tracing accompaniment unit’ which would “coordinate and harmonize” approaches across the country by PIH providing small teams of experts, advisers, collaboration, and online toolkits and materials for free. This occurred less than two weeks after Congressman Bobby Rush introduced H.R.6666 for $100 billion to NGOs for contact tracing,

They will be seeking grants, or shall we say taxpayer dollars, while their initial funding came from The Audacious Project, which is a collaborative funding initiative housed at TED that launched in 2018. Their partners include the Gates Foundation, Virgin Unite, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, and about 20 others.

PIH is already supporting programs in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, as well as advising in California, Minnesota, and Maryland.

4. According to their own website, CDC Foundation partly funds CDC, the Trace Act coordinator, and is funded by Bill Gates and the Rockefellers, among many other corporate and private interests.

The CDC Foundation is the sole entity created by Congress to mobilize philanthropic resources to support CDC’s critical health protection mission.

CDCFoundation.org
Consult the full list of private CDC sponsors here. Gates and the Rockefellers appear under “Foundations”

Facts ruling:
Public documents provided by US Congress, Aspen Institute and CDC prove that Bill Gates, among others, invested money in Bobby L. Rush in 2019, had contacts with him, and obtained benefits from Rush’s infamous HR. 6666 aka the Trace Act. Thus the tracing operation funded by the US taxpayers has never left Gates’ sphere of influence or his agenda. This is the definition for “corruption”.
All of the above also prove that Facebook’s fact-checkers are a laughable bunch of braindead unprofessional clowns, manipulators-wanna-be, with no other qualities than the money, technology and monopolies propping them up.
And these clowns decide which media gets shadow-banned or pushed upfront on world’s biggest Internet social anti-network. They can’t even make up a decent lie to wash Gates’ dirty undies, but they have the power to repeatedly turn off the lights on us.
Unless you help us take that power from them by spreading the actual facts, and by confronting them everywhere you encounter them.
Third, and most important conclusion is, on our scale, the strong indication of pre-science regarding the 2020 pandemic and the course of action that will be taken by US authorities one year later.

And this is how you fact-check, Facebook bozos!
Ah, one more thing: “our research does not support this claim” does not equate “this claim is false”, dickheads. It only confesses your limits. You were supposed to prove it false, you just haven’t proved it true, because you’re not paid to by your sponsor, which happens to openly be Bill Gates’ long time supporter and collaborator. So you’re taking money for Gates’ proxies to smear Gates’ enemies, you filthy presstitutes!

Also read: FACEBOOK “FACT-CHECKERS”: BILL GATES AND WHO “REPEATED BOGUS CORONAVIRUS C0NSPIRACIES”. IN 2019.

Yes, Fauci and Gates Do Have Ties to COVID-19 Vaccine Maker

And then they want to be taken seriously…

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

According to the reputed truth-gods of Fb, Gates and WHO and the other Event 201 attendees spewed Rona conspiracies in a video they made in October last year, which implies pre-science and vindicates the people calling covid a “plandem1c”


Many revere and admire the elites for their grandiose plan to enslave the whole humanity, but in fact all their plan is dumb AF from its fundamentals down to its executives, and this is just one of the many evidences.
I mean you want to control the world but you can’t even automate censorship on Internet and you end up shooting yourself in the both knees relentlessly? Imagine a fanfare of clowns with megalomaniac delusions, applauded by a congregation of geese. Covidiocracy is destined to cannibalise itself, starting with its propaganda machine, see the SJW/cancel culture.

I made this post very visual and simple so fact-checkers can understand it:
They targeted us but it’s their people’s video and it’s made last year. We work mainly with their sources precisely because they’re dumb and predictable and we knew we’ll have to deflect back these BS attacks when they occur. And they fell right into it as soon as they could. They’re a buncha morons with too much money and too many toys.

Basically, Facebook and a host of its “fact-checkers” such as USA Today, Factcheck.org and more, have claimed that one of our latest video uploads “repeats information identified by independent fact-checkers [themselves] as false”.

Thing is we’re not the authors of the content, we just mirrored (reuploaded) a video from Johns Hopkins, untouched, we’re just platforming these people, Facebook told us they’re good credible people :D.

Original source, pls watch all their videos, preferably the mirrors on our channel so we can benefit, not these conspiracy theorists! 😉



So the authors of the missinformation in the video are, among others:
WHO
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
World Bank
World Economic Forum
Johns Hopkins
Lufthansa
and many more

Bonus: the video has actually NOTHING, ZERO, 0 to do with the BS fact-checkers are munching there, it’s not about the man-made origins of the virus or anything like that.
Remember:

It doesn’t matter what Facebook says

Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
I think Facebook’s combat style is called Fact-Fu


I don’t know it but I bet factcheck.org took money from Gates to label him as a conspiracy head.

Please watch and share our Facebook upload, if not to raise awareness, at least just to piss off these douchebags!

First hour of the simulation is already on our Bitchute, Youtube, we have a BrandNewTube channel too now. All full of “conspiracies”.

At least good thing Facebook and its “independent fact-checkers” are not mere narrative-enforcers and smear-machines 😀

And if you got to here, you also need to read:

DIY: HOW TO EASILY PROVE FACEBOOK STEALS MONEY BY FAKING REPORTS

JOIN THE PEOPLE FOR FAUCI FASHION NOW! [UPDATED]

[EXCLUSIVE] FINAL EVIDENCE COVID-19 IS A ‘SIMEX’ – PLANNED SIMULATION EXERCISE BY WHO AND WORLD BANK

Our current Facebook cover

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

SOURCE

Every day I woke up hoping to find out Covidiocracy was but a nightmare, and every day I discover Humanity is more degenerated than I previously thought.
What you are about to read… I couldn’t conceive presenting this to people even as a dark joke, but a reputed American ethics professor and a publication called “The Conversation” think this is feature-worthy.

Fifty years ago, Anthony Burgess wrote “A Clockwork Orange,” a futuristic novel about a vicious gang leader who undergoes a procedure that makes him incapable of violence. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 movie version sparked a discussion in which many argued that we could never be justified in depriving someone of his free will, no matter how gruesome the violence that would thereby be prevented. No doubt any proposal to develop a morality pill would encounter the same objection.

New York Times, 2011

This was published one day prior to this article and I’m not going to comment much on it because you can’t handle it if I start, probably even I can’t. Just read what these people put out and the functional literates will be able to pull enough lessons from this.
The author is Parker Crutchfield, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University.
I have just one detail to highlight: The Conversation cites Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “strategic partner”.
And now the original article as of August 10th, 2020:

‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

A psychoactive substance to make you act in everyone’s best interest?

“COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual. Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.

When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.

Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.

Protesters outside California state capital building
People in California protested stay-at-home orders in May. Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images

Public goods games show scale of the problem

Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.

The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

But don’t abandon all hope. In some of these experiments, the groups win and successfully prevent the losses associated with the collective risk. What makes winning more likely? Things like keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviorscommunication and coordination before and during play, and democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions.

For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.

Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.


Also read: “Who are the main vaccine refusers and how to tackle them – Former CDC chair”


Promoting cooperation with moral enhancement

It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

For example, oxytocin, the chemical that, among other things, can induce labor or increase the bond between mother and child, may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruisticmore giving and generousThe same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.” These substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.

Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines

There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.

Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.”


You may say to yourself this is an accident, an isolated voice, whatever… it’s not. The article was republished by a ton of mainstream media outlets, from Foreign Affairs to Yahoo!
The system is backing the concept.

You thought that was bad enough?

I found out that mr. Ethics not only reckons the state should drug people into submission, he argues that it should even be done covertly!

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

Parker Crutchfield, “Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should be Covert”

Read the full article here.


What The Hack are “Morality Pills” Anyway, You May Ask

Researchers say morality treatments could be used instead of prison and might even help humanity tackle global issues

The Guardian, April 2011

Yes, you read correctly, this is prison in a pill, prison for the mind, and the ethics professor finds it ethical to treat all mask-opposition as convicts.

<<Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said>>, according to The Guardian.

If you have my type of ethics and morals, you’re probably very sickened and angered and it takes time for judgement to cool off and ask the practical question:
If these are mainstream media reports of 2011, how long have Covidiocracy and the planetary Auschwitz been in the making though?

Long enough, answers New York Times in an 2011 issue:
“Why are some people prepared to risk their lives to help a stranger when others won’t even stop to dial an emergency number?
Scientists have been exploring questions like this for decades. In the 1960s and early ’70s, famous experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo suggested that most of us would, under specific circumstances, voluntarily do great harm to innocent people. During the same period, John Darley and C. Daniel Batson showed that even some seminary students on their way to give a lecture about the parable of the Good Samaritan would, if told that they were running late, walk past a stranger lying moaning beside the path. More recent research has told us a lot about what happens in the brain when people make moral decisions. But are we getting any closer to understanding what drives our moral behavior?”

But if our brain’s chemistry does affect our moral behavior, the question of whether that balance is set in a natural way or by medical intervention will make no difference in how freely we act. If there are already biochemical differences between us that can be used to predict how ethically we will act, then either such differences are compatible with free will, or they are evidence that at least as far as some of our ethical actions are concerned, none of us have ever had free will anyway. In any case, whether or not we have free will, we may soon face new choices about the ways in which we are willing to influence behavior for the better.

New York Times, 2011

‘Writing in the New York Times, Peter Singer and Agata Sagan ask “Are We Ready for a ‘Morality Pill’?” I dunno. Why?’, writes WILL WILKINSON on Big Think, in January, 2012. He follows:

“The infamous Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments showed that given the right circumstances, most of us act monstrously. Indeed, given pretty mundane circumstances, most of us will act pretty callously, hustling past people in urgent need in simply to avoid the hassle. But not all of us do this. Some folks do the right thing anyway, even when it’s not easy. Singer and Sagan speculate that something special must be going on in those peoples’ brains. So maybe we can figure out what that is and put it in a pill!

If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a “morality pill” — a drug that makes us more likely to help?

The answer is: no. And I think the question invites confusion. Morality is not exhausted by helping. Anyway, help do what?

Singer is perhaps the world’s most famous utilitarian, so maybe he’s got “help people feel more pleasure and less pain” in mind. Since utilitarianism is monomaniacally focused on how people feel, it can be tempting for utilitarians to see sympathy and the drive to ease suffering as the principal moral sentiments. But utilitarianism does not actually prescribe that we should be motivated to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. It tells us to do whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness. It’s possible that wanting to help and trying to help doesn’t much help in this sense.”

“Clearly, the science behind moral drugs has some credibility. It seems possible that one day we’ll live in a strange utopian or dystopian world that takes morality pills. But until that day comes, we’ll have to try being good on our own.”

Michael Cuthbertson,  THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN,  September 14, 2011

The only glimpse of reason from an ethics professional I found came as late as 2017, and THAT’s an accident, as opposed to the media onslaught that has just re-started on the topic.
“There’s nothing moral about a morality pill. We can’t even agree on what morality requires, so designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task”, writes Daniel Munro, who teaches ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

Professor Munro shows that two different “morality pills” induced opposite reactions in test subjects.
Then which one is the morality pill?

“We could have different pills—lorazepam for consequentialists, citalopram for Kantians, and something else for Aristotelians—but this would amplify, not resolve, moral disagreement. In short, if we can’t agree on what morality requires, then designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task.”

Munro’s impeccable demonstration won’t stop anything, though, because Covidiocracy has never been about the common or individual good, but about domination. And domination ends when submission ends.

We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them