(Off-Guardian)—Sometimes it feels like writing for OffG has fallen into a recognizable pattern the last two years, one that could be best summed up “as ignoring the (mostly) fake stuff on the front pages and collating the real stuff on the back”.

Regular reminders that no matter who you vote for, or which side wins what war, the overarching agenda is still out there, eating and growing. Like the Blob or the Thing.

• Censorship? We all know that’s on the elite’s shopping list.
• Digital currencies? They’re still going.
• Digital ID? Absolutely on the cards.

And we’ll be returning to talk about all of them no doubt until they eats any more or we’re finally shut down (whichever happens first). But today we’re talking about eating the bugs. Not just the bugs though – goo too.

Everything in fact that academics and journalists have decided to group under the umbrella term “alternative protein” in headlines like this one, from Sky News:

Are alternative proteins going mainstream? This multimillion pound new project hopes so

This story is in response to the launch of the UK’s new National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre (NAPIC), a £38million research project co-founded with Imperial College London (of Covid modelling fame).

Professor Karen Polizzi of Imperial’s brand new “Bezos Centre for Sustainable Protein” (yes, that Bezos) described the new initiative thus:

Transitioning to healthy, sustainable sources of protein is a pressing global challenge. The National Alternative Protein Innovation Centre will help facilitate this transition by supporting researchers and industry in all parts of the process from product design through to consumer acceptance. At Imperial, we will focus on developing economical, sustainable processes for producing newly discovered alternative proteins on a large scale.”

The “alternative proteins” that are the focus of this  research being…

edible proteins that are derived from sources other than animal agriculture: from plants such as cereals, legumes, tubers and nuts; fungi such as mushrooms; algae such as seaweed; insects; proteins derived via lab-grown microbial cells or fermentation; and lab-grown meat

Like I said:  bugs and goo – oh and some plants too.

What exactly is the appeal of the bugs and the goo  (and plants) as far as the overlords go? That’s a complex question, with a multi-faceted answer.

Part of me thinks they just like to see ordinary people humiliate themselves in the “I think we could get them to brush their tongues” model. But that’s just a theory, we can expound upon it another time.

Outside of sadism and other psycho-social motivations there are practical questions of profit and control. As we covered in our recent piece on genetically modified gene-edited food, intellectual property laws play a role.

An egg is an egg. Beef is beef. You can’t patent a cow or a chicken, and it’s quite difficult to prevent people keeping their own animals.

But when your product is a few thousand freeze-dried crickets ground into a powder (including their eyes, intestines and faeces), mixed with chemical preservatives, thickeners and artificial flavourings to mimic real meat… well, you can patent the hell out of that.

That’s part of the reason the edible insect market is expected to grow to ten times its current size in the next decade.

In one of those ever-so-timely coincidences, the announcement of the new research project has just so happened to accompany a full-court press on “alternative protein” propaganda.

Last week The Guardian ran a glossy advertisement interview with the CEO of Meatly, the lab grown meat company, where he claimed “Cultivated meat is safer, kinder, more sustainable”

The very next day The Guardian (again) reported on a “new study” that (shockingly) found “Plant-based meat alternatives are eco-friendlier and mostly healthier”.

Four days ago, another new study found proteins extracted from peanut shells could be used to supplement animal proteins.

Good Food Magazine thinks eating mealworms can cure diabetes. Medical journals are publishing pieces “investigating the health benefits of alternative proteins”

MSN is reposting articles from the Metro headlining: “Lab-grown meat is coming. Here’s why you might have no choice but to eat it”

Yahoo Finance tells us “Why Lab-grown meat is a win for the UK’s investment industry”

And it’s not just the UK. Obviously. It never is, just like prices don’t change at just one Walmart and the menu doesn’t change at just one MacDonald’s. Because globalism is already a reality, and your “national government” is just a  local branch of a multinational conglomerate.

In the US, the University of California is being pretty straightforward:

Good grub — why you should consider eating bugs

While Finland’s “Solein” company, which makes bacteria pancakes out of “air and sunlight”, has been “Generally Recognised as Safe” by the FDA (the next step, I suppose, would be being “generally recognised as food“).

Australia’s “next superfood” is Hoppa, a bag of powdered crickets. Next month, Melbourne will be playing host to AltProtein24, a conference for the promotion of “alternative proteins”.

Last week Singapore approved 16 different types of insects for human consumption. Singapore is also getting its own “Sustainable Protein Research Centre”, again funded by huge donations from Jeff Bezos.

The silver lining here is that, despite all these efforts, there’s a good possibility this will never work. Article after article highlights the problems of “consumer acceptance” or “public enthusiasm” or similar phrases meaning the same thing:

Most people don’t want to eat bugs.

Hence the propaganda, I suppose. I want to close by pointing out the truly hilarious modern irony of the story. The same outlets that are happily promoting the fact the elites want us to eat bugs and goo:

Are simultaneously calling it a crazy “conspiracy theory”:

We are quite literally in the age of doublethink.

But never mind, we’ll be OK as long as we keep refusing to eat ze bugs…or ze goo.

This is a very concerning development because once the panic boat launches it’s very difficult to bring it back to harbor. We saw this with Covid Pandemic Panic Theater and we’re very likely going to see far worse gaslighting and fearmongering with Bird Flu if it’s allowed. This is why it’s so important to quash their narrative while it’s forming by alerting as many as possible to the machinations of the Globalist Elite Cabal. We might not be able to bring the panic boat back to harbor but we can sink it before it makes it all the way out to sea. Here’s Kit Knightly…

(Off-Guardian)—The bird flu narrative is constantly developing, so I figured it was time for an update. You know…to keep you all abreast of the chicken situation. Ba dum tss!

Back in April the scare stories were about Bird Flu jumping from birds to cattle and from cattle to people, and how – as a result – we should stop eating red meat.

Things have moved on since then. May has been a busy month for bird flu watchers. Back on May 9th it was reported that 70 people in Colorado were being “monitored” for the disease following “potential exposure”, but no details on the exact nature or method of exposure were ever released.

Another poultry worker, this time in Michigan, became the second official US case on May 21st. There are now fears that Bird Flu may have spread to the food supply, after it was found in a “condemned dairy cow”.

Four days ago, Forbes reported a “new study” claiming “Drinking Infected Milk Could Spread Disease”. While NPR is warning that “limited testing leaves safety questions unanswered” regarding raw, unpasteurized milk.

But it’s not just cows we have to worry about now. The Atlantic is worried about pigs, with Katherine Wu calling them “The Bird-Flu Host We Should Worry About”

Just today the Telegraph reported that a “slight evolution” in the H5N1 influenza strain has allowed it to “adapt to mammalian hosts”.

One ecologist told phys.org that infections in dairy cows are just “the tip of the iceberg”, and that mammals all over the globe are infected.

It’s spreading outside America too. The world’s third human case was supposedly an Australian child recently returned from travelling in India, alongside that two Victorian farms have reported cases of a different strain.

Naturally, China is going along with it, reporting their own fatality due to a third strain of bird flu earlier today. So that’s the problem chuntering along at a decent pace. How’s the solution coming along? An article in MedicalXPress discusses the “ethical considerations” for various bird flu interventions.

New vaccines – both for chickens and humans – are being developed with Covid-like efficiency. The human shot is of course mRNA based.

Reuters reports that the US, UK, EU and Canada are all “taking steps to acquire or manufacture H5N1 bird flu vaccines”. Some nations are already considering mandating all poultry farm workers take the shot when it becomes available.

As you can see, things are moving pretty fast – almost all of these stories are from just the last three or four days. I predicted in my recent article that bird flu was the main contender for “the next pandemic”, and it looks like that’s where we’re headed.

The good news is that the human cases caused a surge in the value of Moderna and BioTech’s stock. Isn’t that nice?

Of course, that will be nothing compared to the riches that will start pouring in when the new Bird Flu vaccines get emergency approval.

Sound off and join the fight by subscribing to the End Medical Tyranny Substack.

They are far from alone in covering this. Back in March, Sky News was asking: “Next pandemic is around the corner,’ expert warns – but would lockdown ever happen again?”

On April 3rd, the Financial Times asked something similar: “The next pandemic is coming. Will we be ready?”

Less than an hour ago, the Daily Mail invited us inside “the world’s deadliest cave that could cause the next pandemic”.

Just two days ago a professional panic spreader wrote for CNN:

The next pandemic threat demands action now!!!

OK, I added the exclamation points, but they are very much implied in the original text. So, while Iran and Israel rattle their sabres on the front pages, I thought we should take a look at the quieter back pages to see what we can learn, and help us predict how “the next pandemic” will unfold.

WHAT IS “THE NEXT PANDEMIC”?

I mean…I feel like that’s fairly self-explanatory. Seriously though, it’s the one they’ve been predicting from pretty much the moment Covid started. First it was going to be monkey pox – sorry MPox – but that fizzled.

Of course by “pandemic”, we really mean “psy-op”, because nothing about the next pandemic will be any more real than the last pandemic. Hell, given the leaps forward in AI technology, it could be considerably less real next time. We don’t know any of the details yet, but there’s enough vague coverage to tease out some guesstimates.

WHAT DISEASE WILL THEY USE?

Probably the most important question. We already mentioned monkey pox, but that doesn’t look likely anymore. Right now they are mostly talking about “disease X” – a term which caused a little panic in certain sections when it first appeared on the scene – but that isn’t some top secret gain of function super disease, it’s literally a place holder name.

And it’s a placeholder name which does its job, for the time being.

After all, they don’t really need an actual name yet, any more than they need an actual disease, they just need the idea of a disease to hold over people’s heads while they construct the legislative rules of their health-based tyranny. Indeed, the vagueness “Disease X” provides is helpful, as it keeps the legislation vague too.

“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government

That said, they will likely want and/or need to produce an actual disease at some point. When that time comes around, it will almost certainly be another respiratory disease, because they are easy to “fake” using pre-existing endemic diseases and their uniform symptoms.

The prime candidate is bird flu, which has been slow-boiling in the news for two years now and has recently got a big uptick in coverage due to it allegedly passing to people from cows.

The UN reports “pandemic experts” are “concerned over avian influenza spread to humans”. Just yesterday, Jeremy Farrar of the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that “[the] threat Of Bird Flu spreading to Humans is a great concern”

Prompting gleefully sensationalist headlines like this from the Daily Star:

New pandemic ‘expected’ as human-to-human bird flu of ‘great concern’ to WHO

Bird flu is a convenient pick because it enables them to push their health tyranny and their food transition at the same time. They can claim that dairy, beef, chicken and eggs have become “dangerous” as an excuse to ration them or at least force scarcity while they drive the prices up.

They will then push the idea that veganism and/or lab grown meat “prevents pandemics”. Something they’ve been claiming since at least 2021. The Daily Mail reported just a few hours ago:

H5N1 strain of bird flu is found in MILK for first time in ‘very high concentrations,’ World Health Organization warns

The downside to bird flu is that it’s hard to work the climate change angle into the narrative, so maybe they’ll go with something else.

WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN?

Probably not until the winter, I would guess January 2025 at the earliest, for two reasons:

1. They need it to be flu season so they can co-opt normal seasonal deaths into their “pandemic” narrative.
2. I think they’ll want to wait until after the “big election year” is over so there are fresh governments in place.

That second point is not just a hunch, but based on the article from Sky I mentioned above. It asks “would lockdown ever happen again?”, and an “expert” answers [emphasis added]:

…if another lockdown was needed, the current Tory government would either have to minimise scandals over their own rule-breaking – or change hands completely to keep the public on board. If we had a new government, people would be far more likely to have faith in them because they would be less likely to say, ‘it’s the same bunch as before – why should we do it again?’

Which I think is correct.

That would also explain the raft of sudden political resignations – including Covid stars Angela Merkel and Jacinda Ardern – which swept the world in Covid’s wake. They were aware then, and are still aware now, their players were spent and they needed a fresh roster before coming back for the second leg.

So, elections first – with all the nonsense that entails – then maybe the “next pandemic”.

HOW WILL IT BE DIFFERENT FROM “COVID”?

Any future pandemic psy-op will be unlikely to follow the covid pattern beat-for-beat, for one thing the Covid narrative spent itself before achieving everything it was meant to achieve.

You can bet the farm that, in the four years since, there have been working groups and researchers poring over the pandemic data to figure out what went wrong and how they can fix it next time.

There seem to be three recurring themes.

1. Vaccines not lockdowns There will be a focus on securing vaccines rather than lockdowns. Indeed, part of the whole “aw shucks lockdowns were damaging who’d have thunk it” rigmarole is about setting up the dynamic that “next time” we need to do anything we can to avoid lockdowns.

The media are (finally) admitting lockdown is worse than “Covid”…but why?

Lockdowns will become a threat rather than a fact.

“We HAVE to mandate vaccines, because the economy can’t afford another lockdown.”

“Take the vaccine, you don’t want to have another lockdown do you?”

So there will be more testing, more masks and more vaccine mandates…and/or quarantine camps for the unvaccinated. And if they DO have lockdowns, they will be entirely blamed on the “anti-vaxxers”, of course.

2. Speed speed speed The main failing of the Covid narrative was that it ran out of steam. By the time the vaccines rolled out in early 2021 the pandemic fatigue was already setting in. And by the time the third boosters and fourth waves were in the headlines nobody really cared.

The propaganda blitzkrieg of early 2020 was arguably the greatest and most wide-reaching misinformation campaign of all time – and it was almost overwhelmingly effective. But it slowed, stalled, stopped and staled.

Next time, they know now, they need to be faster. Bill Gates said as much at the 2022 Munich Security Conference. They need to get the disease out the deaths up and vaccines in before people even realise what happened.

Hence the “100 day vaccines” plan. As the ever-reliably-hysterical Devi Shridar writes for the Guardian:

most governments are working towards the 100-day challenge: that is, how to contain a virus spreading while a scientific response, such as a vaccine, diagnostic or treatment, can be approved, manufactured and delivered to the public.

The “100 Day Mission” is the brainchild of CEPI, the Gates and WHO-backed NGO. Its main aim is to make it possible to produce new vaccines for previously unknown pathogens in 100 days.

In the US, the target is 130 days from pathogen discovery to nation-wide vaccine coverage.

It should go without saying that real, reliable, “safe and effective” vaccines cannot be produced in 100 days. Whatever they make, sell and force you to inject in that time…it won’t be a vaccine

Reality Check: “100 day vaccines” are NOT possible.

3. Free Speech is Dangerous. The slow development of the narrative post-2020 may have hindered the health tyranny agenda, but it was the independent media that really hurt it. The impromptu network of dissident experts, independent researchers and social media movements spread “misinformation” faster than the powers-that-be could fact-check it.

We have seen perpetual messaging about the dangers of “misinformaion and disinformation” since then, including prominently at the most recent DAVOS summit earlier this year, where it was labelled one of the “three greatest dangers” facing the planet.

Last week, a UK Parliamentary Committee published “recommendations” headlined:

Government should learn lessons from pandemic to improve communications and counter misinformation

Only a few days ago, Gordon Brown was quoted in the news “warning” that:

“fake news’ risks preparations for next pandemic”

Which heavily implies they will move to counter this “fake news” before the “next pandemic” begins.

WILDCARD PREDICTION: The multipolar angle. Whatever form the “next pandemic” takes, they will likely avoid the monolithic messaging of 2020, where total global conformity to “the message” was one of the real telltale signs of deception. Next time prepare for countries like India, China and Russia to forge their own pandemic strategy – focusing on some new treatment or technology that the West refuses to endorse.

There are no sources to back this one, yet. It’s just a gut feeling.

So what am I officially predicting for the “next pandemic”?

1. It will won’t be launched until after the major elections this year, because they want new politic faces untarnished by Covid
2. It will likely be bird flu or some other respiratory disease, launched in the winter to hijack the real flu season again
3. The chosen disease will fit into one or more pre-existing agenda – either impacting food or originating from some forced “climate change” connection or both
4. They will move faster, producing “vaccines” in 100 days to stop people getting wise to the deception as they did with Covid
5. They will try and avoid lockdowns, but use them as a threat to enforce vaccine mandates more rigorously
6. They will clamp down harder on “mis- and dis-information” before launching the new narrative.
7. The next pandemic will have a multipolarity angle to establish a fake binary

That’s how I see it. Feel free to bookmark this post for future reference.

Even if I’ve guessed the details wrong here, there’s no question they are planning to roll out another pandemic at some point in near future. A covid sequel that learns from past mistakes.

While, in some ways, it will likely be worse than Covid was – the good news is that this time we can be ready for it.

At a hearing in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights found the government of Switzerland had violated the women’s human rights by “failing to do enough” to combat the alleged effect of ‘man-made climate change’.

Calling it a “decision that will set a precedent for future climate lawsuits“, Reuters reports:

The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling, in favour of the more than 2,000 Swiss women who brought the case, is expected to resonate in court decisions across Europe and beyond […] The Swiss women, known as KlimaSeniorinnen and aged over 64, said their government’s climate inaction put them at risk of dying during heatwaves. They argued their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to such climate change impacts.

The report goes on to add [emphasis mine]:

The verdict in the Swiss case, which cannot be appealed, will have international ripple effects, most directly by establishing a binding legal precedent for all 46 countries that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights

This case is far from an isolated example. It’s part of an ongoing and widespread legal campaign to associate human rights with the spurious climate change agenda.

Famously, a group of Portuguese teens have been attempting to sue 32 countries for years (it used to be 33, but they dropped Ukraine from the list of defendants when it became expedient to do so).

EHRC “Youth Climate Case” could see courts forcing policy on nation-states

It seems likely neither the Portuguese teens nor the Swiss seniors represent genuine grassroots activism. They are heavily backed by corporate-supported NGOs like Avaaz, the Climate Litigation Network and others. And this tells its own story.

In Strasbourg, the ECHR is already hearing six further “climate change vs human rights” cases (not including the Portuguese teens case which was recently rejected on a technicality).

Other countries from Brazil to South Korea to Australia have similar cases in front of their national courts.

Just last week the Indian Supreme Court found that Indian citizens have a ‘right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change’, a truly bizarre finding that seems dangerously vague.

Those are just the current cases, with this decision in Strasbourg we can likely expect an avalanche of new ones, as Reuters observes, it will “embolden more communities to bring climate cases against governments.”

It’s not hard to see the purpose of this legal campaign.

Generally, supra-national courts handing down legal decisions impacting multiple countries is a way of creating quasi-global legislation in all but name.

For example, as Reuters notes, this single court case representing just 2000 people from one small country effectively forced the creation of a “binding legal precedent” in all 46 signatories of the ECHR, with a combined population of over 700 million people.

More specifically, by tying climate change to human rights governments can justify enforcing increasingly strict climate change policies, while simultaneously making it appear that the judiciary are forcing their hand.

Now they can effectively claim “You’ve got to switch to an electric car, or you’re infringing other people’s human rights”, but also, “don’t blame us our hands are tied by judges”.

It also enables a propaganda campaign of escalating divisive language, mirroring the vaccinated vs unvaccinated messaging during the “pandemic”.

Remember how we were told, “the unvaccinated are filling ICUs and making another lockdown more likely”? Well, in the future, that will become “climate change deniers are violating your human rights by refusing to use a smart meter”.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this case is this phrase, repeated everywhere [emphasis added]:

Human rights violated by Swiss inaction on climate

Previously, rights violations have been generally considered active rather than passive. The idea you can violate someone’s rights through “inaction” sets the precedent that courts can – and should – compel action to “protect” the rights of others.

A very slippery slope. After all, if states and governments can be compelled to act, so can individuals.

Birmingham Children’s Hospital has been inundated with the highest number in decades of youngsters with measles

The West Midlands has reportedly seen as many as 167 measles cases in total, the BBC claiming “low vaccination rate has been attributed to the rise.” (pretty sure they mean “the rise has been attributed to the low vaccination rate” but you never go to the BBC for accuracy.)

167 cases may not seem like a lot, but it towers over Philadelphia’s “outbreak”, where 8 WHOLE ENTIRE PEOPLE have tested positive for measles, according to NBC:

At least eight people have been diagnosed with measles in an outbreak that started last month in the Philadelphia area. The most recent two cases were confirmed on Monday.

Just like the BBC, NBC is quick off the mark when it comes to assigning blame:

“None of the people in Philadelphia who’ve been diagnosed [ever] got a measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine”.

The NB and BBC reports were published just hours apart, about two different “outbreaks” in two different countries, yet both hit the exact same talking points.

To ram the message home, here’s a headline from Sky News:

Measles cases surge in England and Wales fuelled by vaccine hesitancy over MMR jab

…and another one from the Daily Mail:

Measles outbreak in Philly may have spread to Delaware as vaccine hesitancy creates breeding ground for outbreak

…and one from Forbes:

Measles Outbreak In Philadelphia Suggests Growing Problem Of Vaccine Hesitancy

…and the Evening Standard:

London’s vaccination rates are terrible and measles is on the rise — it’s time to act

It’s not hard to see where it’s going, is it?

But the Blame Game isn’t just being played one way. A healthy subset of people are turning fire on illegal immigrants, who have brought measles into the country.

Both the BBC and NBC reports gently add fuel to that fire.

Anything to make sure people don’t ask the important questions, such as “Why should we be scared of a mostly harmless disease?”, “what’s the propaganda angle here?” or even “Is there really a measles outbreak at all?”

The UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) actually sent out letters warning of a measles “resurgence” back in October. The letter predicted as many as 160,000 thousand cases in London alone.

That would be five times as many as recorded across the whole of Europe last year. And that was already a 30-fold increase on the year before.

Headline stories for minuscule “outbreaks”? Massively overstated predictions? The WHO calling for “urgent action”?

Seems the signs are there that the “measles outbreak” story might be destined to hang around for a while yet. So where’s the story going? What’s the point of the narrative?

Well, there’s always compulsory vaccination. It’s not been officially mooted yet, but there is chatter on social media about it. Chatter it would be rather naïve to think totally organic.

Compulsory measles vaccination is not a new idea, it was briefly pushed in the UK as recently as 2019, when “experts” called for it, but it never went anywhere.

In 2020 Germany passed a new law requiring all children to be fully vaccinated against measles before attending school.

Since then, of course, Covid has changed the conversation on vaccination, normalising words like “compulsory” and “mandate”. So, it could happen. But there’s also something else.

In October 2023 the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a new paper from a team at the medical school of Ohio State University, titled:

A next-generation intranasal trivalent MMS vaccine induces durable and broad protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern

The paper concerns a new trivalent vaccine combining vaccines against measles, mumps AND Covid variants into a single nasal spray.

Will we see a new Covid/Measles joint vaccine rolled out soon? Perhaps due to some emergency?

Watch this space I guess.

Sound off about this article on the End Medical Tyranny Substack.

That’s been apparent to anyone paying attention for years, if not decades, and any tiny portion of remaining doubt was removed when Covid was rolled-out and members of the establishment started outright saying it.

Covid marked an acceleration of the globalist agenda, a mad dash to the finish line that seems to have lost momentum short of victory, but the race is still going. The goal has not changed, even if the years since may have seen the agenda retreat slightly back into the shadows.

We know what they want conceptually, but what does that mean practically? What does a potential “global government” actually look like? First off, let’s talk about what we’re NOT going to see.

1 – They are not going to declare themselves. No, there will almost certainly never be an official “world government”, at least not for a long time yet. That’s a lesson they learned from Covid — putting a name and a face on globalism only foments collective resistance to it.

2 – They’re not going to abolish nationhood. You can be sure Klaus Schwab (or whoever) isn’t ever going to appear simulcast on every television in the world announcing that we’re all citizens of ze vurld now and that nation states no longer exist.

In part because that is likely to focus resistance (see point 1), but mainly because tribalism and nationalism are just too useful to all would-be manipulators of public opinion. And, of course the continuing existence of nation states in no way precludes the existence of a supra-national control system, any more than the existence of Rhode Island, Florida or Texas precludes the existence of the Federal government.

3 – There will never be an overt declaration of a change of system. We will not be told we are united under a new model, instead the illusion of regionality & superficial variance will camouflage a lack of real choice across the political landscape. A thin polysystemic skin stretched tight over a monosystemic skeleton.

Capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy, tyranny, monarchy…these words will steadily dilute in meaning, even more than they have already, but they will never be abandoned.

What globalism will bring us – I suggest – is a collection of nation-states largely in name only, operating superficially different systems of government all built on the same underpinning assumptions and all answering to an unelected and undeclared higher authority.

…and if that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s essentially what we have already.

The only major aspects missing are the mechanisms by which this rough model can be transformed into a flowing network, where all corners are eroded and all genuine sovereign powers become entirely vestigial.

That’s where the three main pillars of global rule come in:

1. Digital Money
2. Digital ID
3. “Climate Action”

Let’s take a look at each one in turn.

1. DIGITAL MONEY

Over 90% of the nations of the world are currently in the process of introducing a new digital currency issued by their central bank. OffG – and others – have been covering the push for a Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for years now, to the point where we don’t need to rehash old talking points here.

Simply put, entirely digital money enables total surveillance of every transaction. If the currency is programmable, it would also allow control of every transaction. You can read our extensive back-catalogue on CBDCs for more detail.

Clearly CBDCs are a potentially dystopian nightmare which will infringe the rights of anyone forced to use them….but how are they a building block of global government? The answer to that is “interoperability”.

While the world’s national CBDCs will notionally be separate from one another, the majority are being coded to recognize and interact with each other. They are almost all being developed along guidelines produced by the Bank of International Settlements and other globalist financial institutions, and they are all being programed by the same handful of tech giants.

A June 2023 report for the World Economic Forum noted the importance of “Central Bank Digital Currency Global Interoperability Principles” and concluded:

It is crucial for central banks to prioritize interoperability considerations early in the design process by adhering to a set of guiding principles. To facilitate global coordination and ensure harmonious implementation of CBDCs, the development of a comprehensive set of principles and standards becomes imperative. Drawing upon previous research and collaborative efforts, this set of principles can serve as a robust foundation, guiding central banks to proactively consider interoperability from the outset of their CBDC initiatives. By adopting these principles, central banks can work towards creating a cohesive and interconnected CBDC ecosystem.

Commenting on the report, the World Economic Forum website noted [emphasis added]:

To ensure successful implementation and promote interoperability, global coordination becomes paramount […] adhering to interoperability principles, CBDCs can advance harmoniously, leading to efficient and interconnected digital payment systems.

It doesn’t take a genius to decode “global coordination”, “cohesive ecosystem”, “harmonious advancement” and “interconnected payment systems”.

There is no practical difference between 195 “interoperable” and interconnected digital currencies, and one single global currency.

In fact “interoperability” is the watchword for all globalist power structures moving forward. Which leads us neatly onto…

2. DIGITAL IDENTITY

The global push for mandatory digital identities is even older than the digital currency agenda, dating back to the turn of the century and Tony Blair’s “national identity cards”.

For decades it has been a “solution” posited to every “problem”.

• Terrorism? Digital identity will keep you safe.
• Illegal immigration? Digital identity will secure the border.
• Pandemic? Digital identity will keep track of who is vaccinated and who is not.
• AI? Digital identity will prove who’s human.
• Poverty? Digital identity will “promote financial inclusion”

Clearly, just as with CBDCs, a far-reaching digital identity service is a threat to human rights. And, just as with CBDCs, if you interconnect national digital identity platforms you can build a global system.

Again, it’s all about “interoperability”. They use the exact same language. The World Bank’s Identity4Development program claims:

Interoperability is crucial for developing efficient, sustainable, and useful identity ecosystems.

The Nordic and Baltic Ministers for Digitalization publicly called for “cross-border” operational digital IDs.

NGOs like Open Identity Exchange(OIX) are publishing reports on “the need for data standards to enable interoperability of Digital IDs both in federations within an ID ecosystem, and across ID ecosystems.”.

The list of national governments introducing digital IDs, “partnering” with corporate giants to do so and/or promoting “cross border interoperability” is long, and growing longer all the time.

In October 2023 the United Nations Development Program published their “guidelines” for the design and use of digital identities.

There is no practical difference between 195 networked digital identity platforms and one single global identity program.

OK, so they have global currency and identity programs in place. Now they can control and monitor everyone’s movements, financial transactions, health and more. That’s surveillance and control mechanism, all handled in a distributed model designed to obfuscate the very existence of a global government.

But what about policy? How does this global government hand down policy and legislation without giving away its existence? Climate change, that’s how.

3. “CLIMATE ACTION”

Climate Change has been at the forefront of the globalist agenda for years. It is the Trojan horse of the antihuman technocrat.

As long ago as 2010, noted Climate Change “experts” were suggesting that “humans are not evolved enough” to combat climate change and that “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”

More recently, in 2019, Bloomberg was publishing articles with headlines like “Climate Change Will Kill National Sovereignty As We Know It”, and academics are telling us:

States will remain unable to solve global crises like climate change until they let go of their sovereignty

For years climate change has been sold as the reason we might be “forced” to abandon democracy or sovereignty.

Alongside this, there is a prolonged propaganda narrative dedicated to changing “climate change” from an environmental issue into an everything issue.

At this point all national governments agree “climate change” is an urgent problem requiring global cooperation to solve. They host massive summits at which they sign international agreements, binding nation states to certain policies, for the sake of the planet.

Having established that model, they are now widening the “climate change” purview. Changing “climate change” into the answer to every question:

Obviously, “climate change” was always going to impact energy and transport.

Following Covid, “climate change” has already been re-branded a “health crisis”. Now we’re being told “climate change” is generating a food crisis. We’re being told that international trade needs to be climate conscious. We’re being told by the World Bank that education reform will help the fight against climate change. We’re being told by the IMF that every country in the world should tax carbon and, in a recent cross-over episode, that CBDCs can be good for the environment.

See how it works?

Agriculture & food, public health, energy & transport, trade, fiscal & taxation policy, even education. Almost every area of government is now potentially covered by the “climate change” umbrella.

They no longer need a one-world government, they just need a single panel of “impartial international climate change experts” working to save the planet.

Through the lens of “climate change”, these experts would be empowered to dictate – sorry, recommend – government policy in almost every area of life to every nation on the planet.

Do you see it yet?

This is global government in the modern world, not centralised but distributed. Cloud computing. A supranational corporate-technocrat hivemind. With no official existence or authority, and therefore no accountability, and funneling all their policy decisions through one filter – climate change.

There won’t be a single global currency, there will be dozens and dozens of “interoperable” digital currencies creating an “harmonious payment ecosystem”.

There won’t be a single global digital identity service, there will be a series of “interconnected identity networks” engaging in the “free flow of data to promote security”.

There won’t be a global government, there will be international panels of “impartial experts”, appointed by the UN who make “policy recommendations”.

Most or all of the countries of the world will follow most or all of the recommendations, but anyone who calls these panels global governments will be forwarded fact-checks from Snopes or Politifact  highlighting that “UN expert panels do NOT constitute a global government because they have no legislative power”.

This, I suggest, is how  global government will take shape in 2024 and beyond. Compartmentalized, utterly deniable…but very, very real.

This should not comes as a shock to any regular OffG reader – or indeed anyone who tried to keep themselves informed during the “pandemic”. Mechanical ventilation is not a treatment for respiratory infection, and quite often makes the situation worse.

Deliberate, institutional misuse of mechanical ventilation probably killed huge numbers of patients during the so-called “first wave”. We cover this in great detail in our “40 Facts” covid cribsheet.

Predictably enough, though, mainstream talking heads are not ready to admit this, and the Northwestern paper has produced a wave of somewhat fevered revisionism among the dwindling covidiot class.

See, for example, this tweet from “Dr Craig Spencer”:

You know why we intubated people for Covid in March 2020?

Because otherwise they were going to die. Full. Stop.

I remember a patient rolling in with an oxygen saturation of 42%, breathing twice as fast as normal,struggling on a face mask with oxygen all the way up.

What to do?

— Craig Spencer MD MPH (@Craig_A_Spencer) May 19, 2023

Ironically, while he is accusing others of revisionism, he is the one rewriting history. Ventilators were never recommended for treating Covid, but rather for preventing transmission.

The WHO, CDC, NHS and ECDC all published guidelines instructing healthcare workers to put “Covid patients” on respirators as early as possible, and in every case it was classed as an “infection control measure”.

This is not new information, it was all known at the time.

Further, it was known, that this policy was potentially doing harm, having been reported in mainstream articles (such as this one from Time or this one from The Spectator) as early as April 2020.

But it’s not just the “ventilators saved lives” crowd who are rewriting history, even this new discussion recognizing the role ventilators played in Covid stops several steps short of the truth, characterizing it as a mistake or a panic reaction.

It was neither. It was deliberate policy.

This was recorded by whistle-blowers and becomes glaringly obvious when you consider that, in the US, the CARES Act paid out bonus money to hospitals for ventilating “covid patients”.

So no, it is not revisionism to blame ventilators for many of the deaths usually attributed to “Covid”, that was obviously true, and widely known, at the time.

Real revisionism is pretending there was no way anyone could have known the harm that was being done, or to close your eyes to the fact it was all done on purpose.

Article cross-posted from Off-Guardian.

Throughout the second half of 2022, transport strikes were routine. There’s one happening today that has effectively shut down all train journeys.

There’s a possibility of a teachers’ strike later this month, that would see kids sent home from school. Nurses went on strike in December, and will likely do so again this month

It’s not just the UK either. Strikes in several sectors took place all across Western Europe in December and into early January so far. New York’s nurses are ready to go on strike next week, and Minnesota nurses only narrowly avoided a strike last month. It was only Joe Biden’s presidential overreach that prevented a nation-wide rail workers’ strike just before Christmas.

A google trends search for the terms “strike” or “industrial action” have seen surging interest worldwide in the last few months. An admittedly crude measure, but certainly not meaningless.

Strikes are suddenly becoming a high profile global phenomenon. Given the economic hardships currently being imposed this is not surprising of course.

Corporations price fix and cut costs at every turn, and wages have stagnated for decades while profits soar. No wonder workers and their representatives are trying to redress this balance in any way they can. But in the New Normal world, what does that mean? And is it possible this perfectly just cause is being manipulated into furthering the great reset agenda?

After all the Union model has a clear disadvantage in the current situation: It is built on the underlying assumption that bosses want their workers to work. But post-scamdemic is this any longer reliably the case? For almost three years we have seen the vast majority of the corporate-political structure dedicated to stopping workers from working.

Covid and “lockdowns” have demonstrated that the establishment wants to:

• Stop people travelling
• Stop people working
• Breakdown healthcare and medical services
• Cripple supply chains
• Increase the cost of living
• Generally ruin the economy

Governments around the world have shown us they want stagnation, disruption and misery. However just the cause, it’s also true that strikes further almost all of these goals. And of course they can easily be created by leveraging workers through inflation & price hikes into taking industrial action just to preserve a living wage.

There’s also the handy bonus of shifting the blame at the same time. Just as the appalling state of the economy was blamed on the war in Ukraine in 2022, it will be blamed on striking unions in 2023.

Another reason for repeating the mantra: “the system is broken, we need a new way of doing things.”

…and then, of course, comes another step toward the Great Reset.

What that specifically means in this instance is not yet clear, although some kind of Universal Basic Income system seems likely (it’s in the zeitgeist right now, as we predicted in our This Year in the New Normal post).

Maybe more “public” ownership of utilities, or perhaps new legislation for a state-backed employment mandate where the unemployed are given digital busywork to do from home, like a cyber work camp.

In the UK at least we won’t know for sure until we have a Labour government installed to “save the day”. Other “resets” could include higher “benefits” that accompany some kind of agreement to not unionise and never go on strike. A proto-social credit system.

It might be sold as “the end of the need to strike”, and everyone will celebrate the new law that makes striking illegal, while anyone who points out the further reduction of our rights will be called old-fashioned and, of course, a “conspiracy theorist”.

“We don’t need strikes with the new way of doing things, and people that want to go on strike will ruin it for everyone else,” could so easily be the line touted by all the usual suspects.

That’s just speculation, of course. One possible future. Other knock-on effects could play a role in the GR as well. For example, if corporations are “forced” to increase their pay rates, they will naturally increase their prices to preserve profit margins – meaning strikes can be directly parlayed into exacerbating the cost of living crisis, even as they are called a “victory” for working people.

Or maybe nursing strikes will mean we “lose control of the Covid situation”, and have to endure a new wave of masks and lockdowns.

We can’t be sure what the exact next steps will be, but we can be aware of the high likelihood this current wave of “worker unrest” is being manipulated to further the aims of the globalist narrative-makers, that the government-corporate-union trifecta will guarantee strikes continue, and that it’s playing an important part in shaping our new normal future.

Article cross-posted from Off-Guardian.

These days, self-driving cars are in the news a lot. Give it a few years, and driving your own car will be seen as “selfish”, “dangerous” and “old-fashioned”.

But Covid has become a self-driving narrative.

It is a self-perpetuating machine, not out of the control of its creators, but currently set to auto-pilot. We’ve reached the propaganda singularity – that point at which too many people have too much riding on the supposed “reality” of Covid to ever let it die.

If the originators of the Pandemic lie were to speak out – to admit the planning of the scam, explain how it was done and claim Covid never existed – they would be ignored or shouted down. And all the fake “science” they paid to create would be used as “evidence” they were wrong.

This is not accidental. It is the ultimate aim of propaganda. The media is an industrial machine designed to turn a collection of lies into a story, a story into a belief, and finally – most importantly – a belief into an unquestioned part of the collective reality.

This is not a new process but it usually takes years and years, Climate Change being the obvious recent example. Covid has shown us the process massively accelerated, like a time-lapse of a seed becoming a flower.

The major part of this is engaging people’s profit motive. Money mostly, as always and forever, but aspects of ego and “virtue” and purpose play into it as well – all of that can be balled into a group we can roughly term “self-interest”.

Right now there are dozens – maybe hundreds – of universities and research labs around the world being paid millions of dollars in grants and subsidies to research “Covid” in one way or another.

New variants, new methods of testing, assessing the effectiveness of PPE, pandemic preparedness and prevention, updating testing assays, modifying vaccines…the list goes on and on.

You name some small area of the “pandemic” narrative, and I can guarantee that some guy in a lab coat is out there being paid to write papers about it.

An army of people – people who likely never had any role in creating the fake narrative, and may well believe it’s entirely real – are now in the position where their very livelihood depends on Covid existing. They will NEVER allow themselves to be convinced otherwise.

Everyone knows the Upton Sinclair quote “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” That certainly applies here.

But just as true, and just as relevant is this: It is very easy to find something when your salary depends on finding it. So the variants will keep on coming.

Covid has become a cottage industry. Sucking in money on one end, spitting out variants on the other.

And while, for the present, that is a quiet process running in the background, at any moment one of these “variants” can be plucked from relative obscurity and used to restart lockdowns and mask mandates and the whole pandemic spiel.

A little fear porn farm, with a ripening crop to be harvested as needed.

That’s the little lesson here – the ultimate propaganda victory is not to make everyone believe a lie is the truth, it is to make some people need it to be.

Article cross-posted from Off-Guardian.

Now, I’m turning to Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian to add more clarifications and updates. The Pandemic Treaty is still moving full-steam ahead, but the mammoth opposition that it hit in late spring and early summer has almost completely dissolved. Most who fought against it then are acting like we already won when in reality this is getting closer to becoming a reality. I suspect we’ll start seeing moves made in December. I see it implemented in 2023 or possibly 2024 (Knightly’s article below leans toward 2024 as well). It will be swift and there won’t be much opposition because they will likely roll it out when some crisis either prompts them to do so or is unrelated and acts as a distraction.

On today’s episode of The JD Rucker Show, I dove into Knightly’s article and offered perspectives on why this is such an existential threat. Here’s the video from the segment specifically about the Pandemic Treaty.

Here’s the article by Kit Knightly…

A few days ago the British Medical Journal published a report headlined:

Don’t let economic crisis distract from preparing for a future pandemic

The headline is quoting Sarah Gilbert – team leader behind the development AstraZeneca Covid “vaccine” – addressing the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) when it opened on September 29th. It was part of a keynote discussion on preparing for the next pandemic, and more specifically the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty.

Now, you might be thinking at this point, “wait, wasn’t the Pandemic Treaty voted down at the world health summit in May?”

And the answer to that is no. You’re probably remembering the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, and they weren’t outright defeated, they passed a watered-down version after some backroom compromises.

Back to the WISH Summit, where multiple high-level “experts”, vaccine manufacturers and health ministers expressed regret that countries are already neglecting pandemic preparedness. To quote Gilbert again:

We are already seeing investment moving away from pandemic preparedness, and I hope politicians don’t take their eye off the ball.”

Now, obviously, a vaccine manufacturer has clear motives for saying this. A mix of scaremongering and good old-fashioned profiteering (one company claims to be working on portable labs that can be shipped to the third world in the event of a pandemic – a surefire moneyspinner).

It may also be part of the prep work for bringing Covid back over the winter, there is a reason #Covidisnotover keeps trending on twitter after all.

The Cliff note version is the “Pandemic Treaty”, the one they all stopped talking about a few months ago, is not going away. While it isn’t supposed to be implemented until at least 2024, what it lacks in immediacy it will make up in reach.

WISH wasn’t the only international panel discussing the Pandemic Treaty the last few weeks, while Sarah Gilbert was addressing them in Doha, across the world in Geneva the WHO was conducting the public consultation stage of the process.

Reporting this on September 29th, Health Policy Watch headlined “From Equity to Conspiracies, People Say What They Want From a Pandemic Treaty”.

They quote Dame Barbara Stocking (who is apparently an actual person, and not comedy drag act), from the Panel for Global Public Health Convention:

“Countries need to be held to account. There is now strong evidence that treaties without compliance measures are ineffective. We believe the best way to do this is by having an independent assessment body within the treaty structure for at arm’s length of the WHO.”

The report adds:

The panel also wants to “incentivize countries to be accountable” where, for example, “non-delivery could have implications for a country’s financial stability” in terms of article four of the IMF.

Can you see the two-pronged nature of “pandemic preparedness”?

“Incentivising countries to be held accountable”, versus “compliance measures” that have “implications for a nation’s financial stability”.

Put more simply: Nations who do what the WHO tells them to do get money, and nations who don’t…well, they don’t. They lose money. It’s bribery and blackmail, dressed up in the language of “aid” and “sanctions”.

These are the exact same amendments they tried to add to the International Health Regulations back in May. Essentially, as we have reported before, it would empower the WHO to create a “pandemic” out of thin air whenever it wants to by incentivising poor countries reliant on aid to name any flu outbreak a new “pandemic”.

The good news is that our side has already scored some points, and the establishment is playing on the back foot, to mix some sporting metaphors.

It’s possible that the compromised IHR amendments were almost “scuppered” as a direct result of public pressure and awareness campaigns, and the same has already slowed the progress of the treaty.

You can tell by just how many fact-checks there are out there. The Washington Post, France24, Reuters, all have run articles pre-emptive defending the Pandemic Treaty’s honour.

That was a direct result of alt media, and their readers, spreading awareness. And we’re still making progress.

The very fact the Pandemic Treaty’s development has been pushed from the front pages to footnotes in relatively obscure or specific outlets is a sign that a) they didn’t expect the pushback they got already, but b) they are still determined to push ahead with the plan.

The Health Policy Watch article I quoted earlier has an entire paragraph devoted to mocking the “conspiracy theorists”:

Meanwhile, a flotilla of conspiracy theorists also submitted the comments, condemning COVID-19 vaccines (“gene genocide”, according to one), WHO “global domination”, masks and social distancing. People from Australia, Poland and Switzerland seemed particularly agitated about these issues, as well as any notion that there could be global decision-making about how to address pandemics.

It might not feel like it, but that’s what progress looks like. that they are acknowledging the position – even under scorn – means something.

To quote a saying frequently misattributed to Gandhi, first they ignore you then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.