Patrick Wood — an economist, financial analyst and American constitutionalist — has devoted a lifetime to uncovering the mystery of what is controlling most of the craziness we're currently seeing, and which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

He's written two books on this topic: "Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation" and "Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order." I was intrigued by his work as my own approach is to seek to understand the foundational cause of any given problem.

"I think that's a really important takeaway for listeners," Wood says. "Don't just confine your view to the microcosm, like what's in front of you. Always try and look for the big picture ... Once you have the big picture, it's hard to unsee it. Once you see it, it's hard to not see it. It guides everything else you do within your life at that point, and that's really important.

It's certainly important in medicine, because if a doctor or researcher doesn't really understand the whole picture, how can he understand a little part of the picture when you get right down into some nitty-gritty detail? It's very difficult."

The narrative on COVID-19 is about control. The conspiracy thinkers appear to be correct in this.

Let us demonstrate some insanity: What would you say if I told you that the CDC is uncertain that masks provide any protection at all from the coronavirus?

Does that sound crazy to you? We finally see President Trump wearing a mask here and there, and his opponents Joe Biden and Kamala Harris look like bad renditions of Old West bandits as they campaign for President (not Vice President, but President and handler).

Well, watch this presentation by Tucker Carlson. You will also see that the coronavirus is being connected to climate change of all things and that there is indeed an enormous power play making use of this very mild pandemic disease. Tucker notes the CDC doubt at timestamp 7:00. See for yourself.

"Economic globalization creates wealth, but only for the elite who benefit from the surge of consolidations, mergers, global scale technology, and financial activity."

Anita Roddick (2001). "Take It Personally: How to Make Conscious Choices to Change the World", Harper Thorsons

The most dynamic aspect of the economic paradigm of the United States over the past century has been the mass transfer of wealth to the few, and the new ruling society created due to this shift. It was not pure capitalism that caused this phenomenon; it was the lack of real capitalism and free markets, which could be characterized as a fascist, protectionist oligarchy created by blending the banking, corporate, and political classes on one side, and the rest of society on the other. This tremendous transfer of wealth brought with it excessive corruption and tyranny, and allowed for chaos due to the new and more pronounced class distinctions.

Current unemployment according to John Williams at Shadowstats is 30%, and this equates to well over 40 million people, and I believe it is actually much higher. There are approximately 158 million in the American workforce, so with nearly a third of the population now out of work, the future implications are deadly. The ruler's plan for this fall and winter is to vastly increase the fear and panic by claiming a huge second wave of this 'virus,' and this will be easily accomplished due to the fact that the entire population of this country has been weakened dramatically due to isolation, job loss, quarantine, mask wearing, and continued stress. Immune systems in this country are shot, and this flu season will be used to advance the propaganda that is already at ludicrous levels. When that happens, more isolation, enforceable mandates, lockdown, increased business closures, and more will cause increased additional harm; more than has occurred to date. The split in society will continue to widen, and the civil unrest will worsen throughout the fall and winter.

Three female entrepreneurs have slammed interstate border closures and the Victorian government's stage four lockdown as "reckless" and dependent on "fear mongering spin", urging political leaders to explain society will have to live with, rather than eradicate, the coronavirus.

At the half way mark of Victoria's six week lockdown, the toughest the nation has seen, entrepreneurs Tania de Jong, Naomi Simson and Julie Parker, whose businesses have operations in Victoria, told The Australian many of the restrictions had been an over-reaction that would see "deaths of despair" from economic and social damage outnumber lives saved.

"People die every day; part of life is death," said chief executive of experience company RedBalloon, Naomi Simson. "We have to learn to live with the virus; we don't stop work when influenza comes," she added.

Paying the piper?

When a researcher publishes a research paper he or she is obliged to state clearly any funding source. The reasons for this are entirely obvious. Most 'bad', 'faulty', or 'unreliable' research is tainted by the interests of those who have provided financial support.

There is nothing new in any of this, and scientific literature is replete with examples - from the use of Thalidimode for morning sickness to Andrew Wakefield linking the MMR vaccine to autism etc. - of bad or biased science. That is not to say necessarily that a scientist or expert offering scientific guidance has been influenced by the overt or covert desires of his sponsors; however, to preserve impartiality he must declare any sponsors before 'expert' or 'scientific' conclusions are tendered.

Unfortunately, the same rigorous insistence on transparency in respect of funding does not extend to appearances on TV or Radio. Thus, if an 'expert' appears to promote a particular therapy, vaccination, or social behaviour, he is not obliged to declare a vested interests or private sponsorship.

Whether you're a die-hard Trekkie or someone who would never be caught dead watching one of those silly sci-fi shows, if you were around in the '90s you will remember the Borg catchphrase:

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

For those not in the know, the phrase "resistance is futile" was introduced to popular culture via "Q Who," a 1989 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in which the crew of the Enterprise encounter the Borg, a collective of cyborgs connected to a hive mind via cybernetic implants. The Borg went on to become one of the most iconic antagonists of the Star Trek universe, but it wasn't their fiery passion or their over-the-top villainry that made them so chilling. Quite the contrary. It was their cold, calculating, machine-like intelligence and their singular aim of assimilating all new species into their collective that made the Borg so creepy.

The Borg weren't out to kill humanity, only to "add [humanity's] biological and technological distinctiveness to [the Borg's] own."

Now, you might not think this has much to do with our present predicament, and up until a week ago I would have agreed with you. But then I found myself reading a Trekker's earnest reddit post on why "Resistance is Futile was always a lie." In this surprisingly thoughtful post, reddit user "67thou" notes that the Borg's iconic boast that "resistance is futile" was really just a bluff:

"The Borg know full well that not only are their targets able to put up resistance, and in some cases even pose a threat to the Borg directly (Species 8472); the Borg know that resistance jeopardizes their true goal: Assimilation.

"The fact that the Borg track 'Resistance Quotients' suggests they have a scale at which they measure a species willingness and ability to resist assimilation. Not their ability to fight back per se, but rather their ability to change the cost/benefit for the Borg in the effort to assimilate.

"The Borg are clearly powerful and able to destroy entire worlds on a whim. But that is not what they want. When they target a species for assimilation their goal is just that, assimilation. If they are forced to destroy enemy ships/fleets and their 'individuals,' then the Borg are losing out on the very resources they wish to collect in the first place. Sure they 'could' just destroy every ship and planet they encounter, but then what would they gain? Their tactics are more strategic in getting intact technology and intact individuals."

I have never been quite sure why so many people thought that lockdown would be implemented for three weeks — a time apparently necessary to "flatten the curve". I knew at the time that this was never going to be the case, for reasons explained below, and furthermore I knew it was a gross deception waged on the British people, as I hope to show.

Let's just begin with looking at where the claim originally came from. It was made by the Prime Minister, in the speech he made to the nation on 23rd March, just hours before the country went into lockdown. Here is what he said:

"I can assure you that we will keep these restrictions under constant review. We will look again in three weeks, and relax them if the evidence shows we are able to."

It is well known that the decision by the Government to implement lockdown was based to a large degree on the model produced by Imperial College. This model, also known as the Neil Ferguson model, was published in their "Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand", which you can find here.

As the Government wrecks another few thousand holidays with sudden quarantine, you might assume that it takes this sort of thing seriously, and keeps close track of it.

After all, you don't force people to abandon holidays they have saved up for all year, and stampede them into dashing for the nearest port or airport, or expect them to spend money they haven't got on cruelly inflated ticket prices so they can meet a 4am deadline, just on a whim, do you?

You don't lightly demand that, if they miss that deadline, they remain under house arrest for 14 days, unable to go to work, do you?

Surely you do those things because you genuinely believe that there is a grave danger if people remain in the affected countries, which must be severely contained? I thought so too. But is it so?

The protest took place against oppressive government restrictions and mandates. A HFI press release stated that the protest was held by Health Freedom Ireland (HFI) and Yellow Vest Ireland, protesting against government mandates, demanding transparency, proportionality of decisions and accountability by government officials and advisors.

The event took place today, Saturday, August 22nd 2020 at 2pm in front of the Custom House, Dublin 1. There have been mixed reports on the numbers of attendees at the event, with RTE suggesting 'hundreds' attended whereas citizen journalists claim there were thousands of people at the event.


This peaceful protest took the form of speeches and a march. Purple T-shirts were worn by supporters of Health Freedom Ireland as others wore yellow vests, many with "United Patriots" written on the jackets in solidarity. HFI has no political affiliations.

Speakers at the event included:

• Ben Gilroy, anti-eviction and civil rights activist who spoke about constitutional rights
• Michael Leahy, Human Rights and mental health advocate
• Ken Duffy, motivational speaker and mental health advocate, speaking on human rights and homelessness in Ireland
• Maeve Murran, Health Freedom Ireland co-chair, speaking about the proportionality of restrictions
• Una McGurk, barrister and senior counsel, speaking about the impact of mandating masks without conclusive evidence
• Prof. Dolores Cahill on the topics of natural immunity, vaccine development and testing accuracy

Do you remember five months ago? Normally I wouldn't ask, but the world is moving incredibly fast these days.

Do you remember that it was predicted that covid19 would kill literally millions of people?

Do you remember that hospitals were going to be over-run with patients and our struggling medical infrastructure was going to collapse under their weight?

Do you remember that locking down global society was the only way to prevent this disaster? That we had to do it, regardless of how much damage it did to the livelihoods and security of countless millions of people?

Final question - do you know how many people in the United Kingdom officially died with (not of) the coronavirus yesterday?

It's 12.