S.N. Laboratories

---------------------THE COMING UNREST-- [2024] -- A PDF Medical Journal

"The transnational ruling class has no choice but to keep pushing for global technocracy, and the rest of humanity has no choice but to fight back."

Global power brokers made it very clear that they intend to see everyone (apart from their own class) injected with the novel technologies now known to contain all manner of undisclosed ingredients (Hughes, 2022c)."

colleagues used nanowires to create transistors so small that they can

“enter and probe cells without disrupting the intracellular machinery,”

enabling “two-way communication with individual cells” (Shaw, 2011)—

perhaps the ﬁrst example of the IT/Bio/Nano convergence in practice.

According to Pentagon neuroscientist James Giordano (2018), neuro-

science and neurotechnology became “viable for operational use in NSID

[National Security Investigations Division]” in 2010, were considered

for “military operational use” in 2013, and were “in operational NSID

use” by 2014. The timing ﬁts with Lieber’s breakthrough, as well as with

developments in graphene-based technology (see below).

In January 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Peking Union

Medical College held a summit in Beijing titled “Dreaming the Future

of Health for the Next 100 Years” (Rockefeller Foundation, 2013). That

imagined future, as summarised by Kyrie and Broudy (2022a), involves

the “re-engineering of humans through genetic engineering or mixed

human-robots,” nanobots and nanotechnology, synthetic biology and

“human-designed life,” optogenetics, or remote brain monitoring and

control using light signals, tissue-implantable sensors that interact with big

data, self-replicating A.I., deliver y of medical and health services through

telemedicine and A.I., and a future in which the “abundance of data, digi-

tally tracking and linking people may mean the ‘death of privacy’ and may

replace physical interaction with transient, virtual connection.”

Health here is just a guise for rolling out IT/Bio/Nanotechnology that will facilitate eugenics (redirecting the course of human evolution), mind control, and ultra-surveillance.

In April 2013, President Obama launched the BRAIN Initiative, whose

stated purpose is to “unlock the mysteries of the brain” by making

extraordinary scientiﬁc advances in a short time frame under the “Grand

Challenges” framework (White House, 2013). The Human Brain Project

in Europe, also launched in 2013, served a similar function. Research

funding for the BRAIN Initiative was disbursed through DARPA ($50

million), the NIH ($40 million), and the National Science Founda-

tion ($20 million), beginning in FY 2014. Four private sector partners

were named: the Allen Institute for Brain Science, the Howard Hughes

Medical Institute, the Rockefeller-afﬁliated Kavli Foundation, and the

Salk Institute for Biological Studies. The BRAIN initiative working group,

which outlined the scope of the project, was co-chaired by Rockefeller

University’s Cori Bargmann. One early project to be funded was a Rock-

efeller University (2014) initiative to ﬁnd a

“new way to remotely control brain cells” using radiogenetics, which

“combines the use of radio wavesor magnetic ﬁelds with nanoparticles to turn

neurons on or off.” This was successfully achieved in rats, enabling what

Rockefeller University (2016) calls “magnetic mind control.” A WEF article

from 2018 (since deleted)is titled

“Mind Control using Sound Waves?” (Jérusalem, 2018). The

in-house references to mind control give the game away.

Optogenetics (using pulses of light), sonogenetics (ultrasound waves), magnetoge-

netics (magnetic ﬁelds), and chemogenetics (engineered proteins, viz.

DREADDS, or “Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer

Drugs”) were all explored for purposes of remotely controlling brain

activity.

---------We should not lose sight of the hubristic nature of attempts to “unlock

the mysteries of the brain” (White House, 2013).-----------

"Giordano (2018) tells West Point recruits:

“The brain is, and will be,

the twenty-ﬁrst-century battlescape.” Clearly, by this point, neuroscience

and neurotechnology had entered military operational use.

----Weaponised neurotechnology, Giordano (2017) teaches, can be used to:

1) assess, predict, and control particular cognitions, emotions, and

behaviours;

2) mitigate aggression and foster cognitions, emotions, and/

or behaviours of afﬁliation or passivity;

3) incur burdens of morbidity,

disability, or suffering and in this way “neutralise” potential opponents, or

4) induce mortality.

In other words, it can be used to control subjective experience and

behaviours and to leave a target sick, disabled, or dead. The way it works

is to “put minimal sized electrodes in a network within a brain through

only minimal intervention to be able to read and write into the brain

function, in real time, remotely” (Giordano, 2018)."

---------“mRNA Vaccines” as Cover for Military Technologies?

If the aim of the deep state (Hughes, 2022b) is to use public health as

the disguise under which to introduce military technology into the bodies

of the population, then traditional forms of vaccine must be replaced.

This, it seems, is the purpose of so-called “mRNA vaccines.” In addition

to camouﬂaging the true nature of their contents, “mRNA vaccines” can
allegedly be produced at speed, anywhere, based on computer code rather

than a physical sample of a virus. With governments, regulators, and the

media all captured, the public has no reliable way of knowing what these

new products contain (Hughes, 2022c).

---------The Evil Potential of Weaponised Neurotechnology

The above considerations make the covert transnational military

campaign (see Chapter 6) to inject as many people as possible with

substances containing undisclosed ingredients, apparently including self-

assembling EMF-responsive nanotechnology (Hughes, 2022c, 2023,

50:25), extremely worrying, especially in the context of an undeclared

Omniwar in which the public is the enemy. Moreover, with the rapid

rollout of 5G technology capable of targeting individuals, plus projects

such as Elon Musk’s Starlink, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and OneWeb

all vying to provide internet coverage to every part of the world from

low earth orbit, there could, potentially, be no escape from a wireless

technocratic control grid.

Steele proposes that the metallic components found in the “Covid-

19 vaccines” (cf. Hughes, 2022c, pp. 461, 572) make their recipients

radio-traceable for directed energy weapons kill missions (“Mark Steele on

5G,” 2023); in the military context described above, we have to take such

possibilities seriously. The exotic technologies apparently contained within

the “Covid-19” injectables (Hughes, 2022c) have been linked to MAC

addresses (Sarlangue et al., 2021); if proven, this would make human

bodies identiﬁable components of the Internet of Things and thus directly

targetable on the information-liquidation model.

Nanotechnology within the body capable of communicating with an

external network is sold as a positive development in terms of health-

care (e.g. nanorobots can explore within the body and deliver precision

payloads of medicine without the need for invasive surgery). Those

funded to do this kind of research probably justify their activities in

such terms. However, it can also be dual-use technology, much like the

“‘dual use’ vaccine and weapon technologies” developed since the anthrax

attacks of 2001 (Kennedy Jr., 2021, p. 384). “The problem of dual-

use science research and technology,” Miller (2018) argues, is that “such

research and technology has the potential to be used for great evil as well

as for great good.”

Consider the potential for evil if the deep state’s aim is to connect

human bodies to a technocratic control grid. For one thing, there are

the health implications of injecting exotic technologies into the human

body, which could explain the very high level of serious adverse reactions

to the “Covid-19 vaccines” (OpenVAERS, n.d.;MHRA, n.d.;WHO,

n.d. [search “COVID-19 vaccine”]). Graphene oxide, for instance, a

non-degradable substance 100 times stronger than steel with a melting

temperature approximately 80% as hot as the sun’s surface, is suspected of

being present in the “Covid-19 vaccines” (Campra, 2021;UNIT, 2021),

yet is known to be toxic (Newman, 2020;Ouetal., 2016; Pumera,

2016).

Today, the possibility of “vaccination as neurological remote-control”

must be taken seriously, for “after achieving access by vaccination to the

biomass of the 7 to 8 billion individuals who have to be controlled,

remote-controlling them is no longer an absurd fantasy” (van der Pijl,

2022, pp. 249, 256). Just as the central bankers want to “go direct”

in their control of people’s money (BlackRock, 2020), so the military

and intelligence agencies seem to want to “go direct” in their control

of people’s bodies. According to Harari (2017, p. 289), human beings

can be manipulated like rats by stimulating relevant areas o f the brain,

and “the U.S. military has recently initiated experiments on implanting

computer chips in people’s brains.”

A reported 5.55 billion people (as of March 2023) have been injected

with dangerous experimental substances containing a devil’s brew of

undisclosed ingredients (Holder, 2023; Hughes, 2022c). Huge numbers

of people, including previously ﬁt and healthy people, have suffered

serious adverse reactions to those injections, including severe disability

and death, viz. Yellow Card (MHRA, n.d.) and VAERS data (Open-

VAERS, n.d.) (with most deaths accruing towards the time of injection),

which may only account for between 1% and 10% of the total (Ross

et al., 2010;MHRA, 2019). Strange, rubbery “clots,” often huge, are

being pulled out of dead “vaccinated” bodies by embalmers such as

Richard Hirschmann (Tice, 2022); they do not appear to be natural blood

clots, and are possibly caused by hydrogel polymers (Mihalcea, 2023).

What will be the social response to the mass atrocities and crimes against

humanity that have been committed since 2020 in a desperate effort

to keep the global population in check (Hughes et al., 2022; Hughes,

2022c)? Or, as van der Pijl (2022, p. 281) asks: “Given that governments,

acting for the oligarchy and the internationalized state, will not let go, the

question is: will there be a revolutionary response?”

If there is not, then we should recall Huxley’s (1958, p. 118) warning

that the “scientiﬁc dictatorship” could prove permanent, there being “no

good reason” why it “should ever be overthrown.” Such a dictatorship is

now being attempted at the global level and, if allowed to happen, even if

only by a narrow margin, like the NSDAP election victory in 1933 with

only 44% of the vote, it could prove irreversible.

There is no requirement, and certainly no desirability, that this process

be violent, despite Omniwar being waged in the opposition direction by

deep state actors too cowardly to show their faces. Mass non-compliance

renders technocratic agendas unenforceable. Non-compliance at the indi-

vidual level and civil disobedience at the social level can soon spread, as we

are already seeing in Britain and elsewhere in response to the attempted

rollout of 15-minute cities.

A simple but extremely powerful tactic—a mass disabling event from

the perspective of technocracy—would be for a new social norm to

cascade, whereby as many people as possible got rid of their “smart”

(slave) devices by which they voluntarily hook themselves up to the

control grid and feed it information on all areas of their lives. There is

a reason why those devices are designed to be highly addictive; notiﬁca-

tions, for instance, create “short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops,”

as Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook’s vice-president for user growth until

2011, admitted (cited in Wong, 2017). In that respect, society urgently

needs to kick its habit.

----------WEAPONISED DECEPTION-- [2024] A PDF Medical Journal

Totalitarianism is facilitated by what Hannah Arendt calls “gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods,” which the masses are organised to believe. This tradition has a long history, even in the West. The “Covid-19 pandemic” was a Big Lie: there is no credible epidemiological evidence to support its existence. Rather, the “pandemic” was a media-driven social phenomenon that served to deflect attention from far-reaching technocratic agendas being advanced across every area of life. “Pandemic preparedness” provides cover for building the institutional architecture of global dictatorship under the pretext of public health. It is unclear whether “SARS-CoV-2” is real: problems exist regarding its alleged “isolation” (involving cytopathic effects, genome sequencing, and electron microscopy images). There is, however, evidence to suggest that “SARS-CoV-2” may, in part, have been influenza rebranded. The “vaccines,” which instead of protecting people have caused catastrophic harm, are likely bioweapons aimed at controlling the population in multiple ways. Yet, despite the “Covid-19” narrative being saturated with deceit, most people cannot and will not see it, owing to cognitive dissonance.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a

conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists,” J. Edgar Hoover

(1956, p. 48) said of communism. A favoured modus operandi of the

intelligence agencies, however, is projective attack, i.e. accusing others of

the very tactics and strategies which they themselves adopt. It is the intelli-

gence agencies who sit at the heart of the monstrous lies and conspiracies

that have facilitated Western imperialism, causing so much harm to the

world (Hughes, 2022b;Valentine, 2017).

------Manufacturing Global Consciousness

1968 marked a seminal moment in the history of global class relations.

During the Prague Spring of that year, Dub ˇ cek’s call for “socialism with a

human face” was made in April, and Soviet tanks ﬁnally rolled in to crush

the resistance on August 21. On the other side of the “Iron Cur tain,”

“May ‘68” in Paris saw a month of civil unrest that ver y nearly spilled over

into revolution after President de Gaulle was forced to ﬂee the country.

The lesson of 1968, from a r uling-class perspective, was that it was

no longer enough for different political leaderships—including nominal

enemies—to come together on an ad hoc basis to put down working-

class revolts as and when they arose, as in East Germany in 1953 and

Hungary in 1956 (Glaber man & Faber, 2002, pp. 171–2; Wilford, 2008,

p. 49). Rather, the transnationalisation of resistance must be met with

the coordination of r uling-class interests in permanent counterrevolution

at the global level. Hence, organisations such as the World Economic

Forum and the Trilateral Commission were founded in the early 1970s to

improve coordination of capitalist interests transnationally .The ultimate

direction of travel, already mooted after the destruction of Hiroshima

and Nagasaki in the name of avoiding nuclear Ar mageddon, is a world

state, controlled by a global r uling class (in which sense the WEF’s logo,

“improving the state of the world,” has always been ambiguous).

In order to engineer a move from a world of nation-states to a world

state, it is essential to create what Brzezinski (1970, p. 29) calls “a new

global consciousness” (which, he r ecognises, does not have the support

of “the majority of humanity”) and a shared set of global problems that

demand globally coordinated responses and a sense of common purpose.

In this context, it is important to ask critical questions, not only about

the alleged moon landings (1969–1972) but also about the environ-

mental movement and the global population contr ol agenda, which all

came about soon after (and even during) the events of 1968.

As with the events of “9/11,” academia has failed to conduct due

diligence into the authenticity of the moon landings, despite a prolif-

eration of evidence outside academia that has caused more and more

people to conclude that the moon landings were faked. In rar e instances

where academics do touch on the subject, their typical point of depar ture,

unsupported by evidence, is that the moon landings were real, and the

move then tends to be to explain the supposed psychological “deﬁciency”

in those who think they wer e not (Hattersley et al., 2022; Lewandowsky

et al., 2013; Swami et al., 2013). In the absence of any serious investi-

gation into the s ubject, however, academia is in no place to comment.

Without getting into the details of the debate, it is sufﬁcient for our

purposes simply to note that, if the moon landings were faked, this would

be consistent with an attempt to foster the “new global consciousness”

called for by Brzezinski (1970, p. 29). As President Nixon claimed while

purportedly on the phone to the moon in July 1969, “For one price-

less moment in the whole histor y of man, all the people on this Earth

are tr uly one.” Fakery of the moon landings would also provide proof of

concept that it is possible to deceive the entire world about something

provided virtually ever y gover nment and major news outlet runs with the

same narrative.

The Club of Rome, founded by Aurelio Peccei, Alexander King, and

David Rockefeller in April 1968, launched the global environmental

movement. It was particularly inﬂuential with its Limits to Growth report

(Meadows et al., 1972). The Rockefeller Commission Report (Centre

for Research on Population & Security, 1972) and the Kissinger Report

(National Security Council, 1974) promote global “population contr ol.”

The misanthropic, antiquated Malthusian logic is always the same: human

beings are a scourge on the face of the Earth and must learn to change

their selﬁsh ways if they are to live “sustainably” in harmony with their

environment. Put differently, human beings must modify their behaviour

in accordance with the centralisation of power at the global level, and

wealth must never be equitably redistributed.

Would the transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022b) really have the

audacity/depravity to attempt to deceive the entire world population?

We know that the CIA was secretly steering the Congress for Cultural

Freedom, the National Student Association, the International Commis-

sion of Jurists, the AFL-CIO, and Radio Free Europe. When this all

became public knowledge in 1967/1968, it marked “the ﬁrst occasion in

the postwar period when Americans learned en masse that they were being

systematically deceived by federal ofﬁcials” (Wilford, 2008, p. 251). CIA

director William Casey is reputed to have claimed in 1981: “We’ll know

our disinformation program is complete when everything the American

public believes is false” (McLovincraft, 2020). Ex-CIA agent John Stock-

well claimed in the 1980s: “It goes beyond your wildest imagination, the

extent to which the CIA has gone to manipulate public opinion” (Lena,

2023).

We also know about the enormous inﬂuence of the Rockefeller family.

In the nineteenth century, before the family fortune was made, William

Avery Rockefeller, Sr. allegedly travelled from town to town selling “a

cancer cure consisting of oil and laxative” (snake oil) and is reported

to have bragged: “I cheat my boys every chance I get. I want to make

‘em sharp” (Wood, 2018, p. 55). He and his great grandson, David

Rockefeller, were both, in Wood’s estimation, “lying deceivers, con men

and hucksters. David only played his part with a lot more money at his

disposal.” Thus, with respect to Rockefeller inﬂuence through founda-

tions, multinational corporations, NGOs, politicians, lobbyists, and the

United Nations (not least the “sustainable development” agenda), it is

“no mystery why deception and fraud run amok: as the ancient proverb

states, ‘The ﬁsh stinks from the head’” (Wood, 2018, p. 168). By the

early 1970s, Rockefeller forces had built up a “repertoire of hoaxes,”

including the 1973 “oil hoax” (Minnicino, 1974, p. 53; cf. Engdahl,

2004, Chap. 9).

Meanwhile in the 1970s, NATO used deception to suppress leftist

opposition in Europe by deploying false ﬂag terrorism against popula-

tions and blaming it on “far left” organisations—Operation Gladio being

the best-known example (Ganser, 2005). “Phony strikes” and inﬁltrated

movements and trade unions also involved deception, leaving the working

class “faced with the situation in which world events are designed for

effect”; in such a world, “the criterion for insanity is to say that reality is

what it appears to be” (Minnicino, 1974,p.53).

-------The “Pandemic”

-------The “Covid-19 Pandemic” as a Big Lie

Under “Covid-19,” Agamben observes, humanity is once again “entering

a phase of its history where truth is being reduced to a moment within

the march of falsity” (2021, p. 48). According to Knightly (2021), in

keeping with the post-1968 context, “Covid has shown us [that] suppos-

edly enemy nations suddenly come to an accord and demonstrate almost

total unity of purpose to spread one big lie.” “Hitler’s notion of the

‘grossly impudent lie,’” remark Broudy and Hoop (2021, p. 379), “is

especially prescient today” given the power of organisations such as the

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to shape global health narratives

through direct inﬂuence on international organisations such as the WHO

and the UN, the media, and the policies of many governments.

Would it be possible to fake a global pandemic given such a conﬁg-

uration of powerful actors? Indeed, it would, as the fake “swine ﬂu

pandemic” of 2009 illustrates (Fumento, 2010; cf. Keil, 2010; Wodarg

et al., 2009). All that is needed is to fudge the meaning of the term “pan-

demic” (see Chap. 4) and to run a cynical PR campaign transnationally,

such as the one orchestrated by Marc van Ranst (see EvidenceNotFear,

2020).

2009 served as a dry run for 2020, when again a “pandemic” was

declared which, upon closer examination, turns out to be nothing of the

kind (Davis, 2021). The “Covid-19 pandemic” was, in the view of Kyrie

and Broudy (2022a), conjured out of “mass hysteria, malpractice, censor-

ship and juggled data.” In the view of distinguished pathologist Roger

Hodkinson in his testimony to Alberta state ofﬁcials in November 2020,

the “Covid-19 pandemic” represents “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated

on an unsuspecting public” (cited in Children’s Health Defence, 2020).

There is no credible epidemiological sense in which “Covid-19” can be

said to have been a viral “pandemic.” In the United States, for example,

New York City and certain North-East coastal states witnessed a large

spike in mortality between March and June, 2020, yet 34 of 48 conti-

nental U.S. states did not see any such spike, a feature that is “impossible

for a virulent and contagious respiratory disease virus acting in a society

free from local aggression or local environmental disaster” (Rancourt

et al., 2021, p. 138, Fig. 15). Meanwhile, all-cause mortality in Canada

in 2020 remained normal in relation to the previous decade, begging the

question of how an allegedly virulent and contagious pathogen failed to

cross the world’s longest international land border between two major

trading partners (Rancourt et al., 2021, pp. 125, 128–9). Such jurisdic-

tional heterogeneity runs “contrary to pandemic behaviour, and contrary

to any (1945–2021) season of viral respiratory disease burden in the

Northern hemisphere” (Rancourt et al., 2021,p.62).

The spread of the “virus” across EU member states in Q2 and Q3

of 2020 was inconsistent with a viral pandemic. Engelbrecht and Köhn-

lein (2020), for example, observe that neighbouring European countries

registered very different “Covid-19” excess mortality rates, e.g. no excess

mortality in Germany and Portugal, but noticeable excess mortality in

Belgium and Spain. Those differences were irrespective of the severity of

“lockdown” measures, with most of the excess deaths occurring within

a 2–3 week period around early April. Similarly, England has displayed

excess mortality since March 2020, according to EuroMOMO data,

whereas Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have not (Kendrick,

2022).

Matters (2020), writing in September 2020, notes that “Covid-19”

death rates are negligible for around three quarters of the world’s coun-

tries, yet accrue predominantly in the USA, UK, and EU member states.

New York City, for instance, had r ecor ded 229,000 “Covid-19” deaths,

compared to just 470 such deaths in Singapore. Why was the “virus”

so much more lethal in the West—home to some of the world’s best

healthcare systems—than in other regions of the world?

Similar was true of “case” rates. Hover the cursor over the dark blue

part of the scale bar along the bottom of the map for “cumulative

conﬁrmed Covid-19 cases per million people” (WHO, n.d.-c). Dark blue

refers to 300,000 + such cases, the highest categor y. Highlighted on the

map is essentially “the West,” i.e. the United States, nearly all of Western

Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, plus key allies including Israel and

South Korea, as well as US-controlled Puer to Rico and French Guiana.

Even though the USA, Europe, and Australia/New Zealand are oceans

apart (and r emember that air travel was heavily restricted), the “virus”

was allegedly most concentrated in those regions, giving it a peculiarly

Western-centric character, while the entire continent of Africa, where

“vaccines” were least available, was vir tually ignored.

It is hard to escape the impression that the “pandemic” was a social

construct manufactured predominantly in the West, based on high death

rates in particular cities coupled with the kinds of statistical manipulation

and military-grade propaganda discussed in Chap. 4. This is consistent

with a transnational deep state operation (Hughes, 2022b) aimed at

replacing Western liberal democracy with technocracy. In that respect, it

is telling that Secr etary of State and for mer CIA Director, Mike Pompeo,

at the start of the “pandemic,” referred to being in a “live exercise” (a

military term)—and that President T rump, standing right behind him,

muttered “you should have let us know” (“Mike Pompeo we’r e in a

live exercise here,” 2020). This evidences the redundancy of the visible

government when it comes to what Scott (2017, Chap. 9) calls “deep

events,” i.e. events which profoundly transform the trajectory of politics

and society, yet whose provenance is deliberately concealed.

-------Covid Theatre: Performing the “Pandemic”

If the “pandemic” were real in any meaningful sense—e.g. “Covid-19”

having a high infection fatality rate, as opposed to the 0.05% median

IFR for the under-70s identiﬁed by Ioannidis (2021), dropping to 0.03%

for the under-60s, 0.011% for the 30–39 age range, 0.002% for 20–29,

and 0.0003% for 0–19 (Pezullo et al., 2023)—why was the propaganda

so ﬁerce? “In a genuine pandemic,” Dymond (2020) observes, “this

constant mental battering would be superﬂuous,” for no one would need

to be persuaded of the danger of a high fatality disease outbreak. As

with the 2009 “swine ﬂu pandemic” (EvidenceNotFear, 2020;Fumento,

2010), the “Covid-19 pandemic” was a heavily mediated event.

Because human cognition is, to a signiﬁcant extent, unconsciously

emotion-driven (we tend to feel rather than reason our way to opinions),

“acting as if we are infectious agents by wearing masks fosters greater

belief in the ofﬁcial narrative” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022b). The British

public was, accordingly, encouraged through government/NHS propa-

ganda to “Act like you’ve got it.” Outwardly healthy people performed

the “pandemic” through “social distancing,” “self-isolation,” face masks,

etc., making it a social, if not epidemiological, reality. Without the perfor-

mance—“Covid theatre” in the words of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

(see Harsanyi, 2022)—there would have been no visible evidence that

anything was wrong. The PCR tests also served as “crucial ‘theatre props’

in convincing [the public] that the COVID-19 Story was a real pandemic”

(Kingston, 2022).

Much like ducking and covering in the context of nuclear war, or using

duct tape to protect against biological, chemical, or radiological terrorism

(Meserve, 2003), the idea that wearing a piece of cloth on one’s face,

or putting up plexiglass screens, or standing on stickers six feet apart

could of fer any meaningful protection to anyone against the “new Spanish

ﬂu” is preposter ous. The “measures” were not about keeping people safe

(even the UKHSA [2023, p. 5] retrospectively concedes “There is a lack

of strong evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs to reduce COVID-19

transmission”). Rather, they were designed to convince the public of a

new existential threat and to condition obedience and conformity (see

V olume 2 of this book). Like the addict who ﬁnds endless rationalisations

for their addictive behaviour, most people ﬁnd that behaviour change

compels a change in cognition rather than vice-versa (Festinger, 1957,

6). Enactment of the “measures” by the public, accordingly, makes the

“pandemic” seem real to those taking part in the per formance, no matter

how absurd it is.

Politicians and their advisers played starring roles in the Covid theatr e.

The daily performances of government “scientists” at Downing Street

press brieﬁngs, for example, intensiﬁed the drama of the “pandemic.”

Suspicions have been raised that Boris Johnson was merely playing a part

when claiming that doctors were preparing to announce his death after he

was allegedly hospitalised by “Covid-19” (McCrae, 2023). One month

later Johnson was hosting lockdown-breaking parties at 10 Downing

Street (Kottasová et al,. 2022), at which no one “followed the rules.”

Politicians and r oyalty put masks on just before going on stage, some-

times removing the mask almost straight away, having modelled to the

public the desir ed form of behaviour. At the G7 summit in June 2021,

world leaders bumped elbows, wore masks, and “socially distanced”—

but only for the cameras (Myers, 2021). At the COP 26 summit in

Glasgow in November 2021, arriving leaders put on a mask after getting

out of their car (in the fresh air), walked along the red carpet past a

mask-wearing ceremonial guard, then removed the mask once inside the

venue—all scientiﬁcally absur d, yet necessary for maintaining the charade

of the “pandemic.”

-------The “Pandemic” as Technocratic Smokescreen

Decoying, camouﬂage, strategic misdirection, magic tricks, etc., have

historically been key to militar y and intelligence operations (Melton &

Wallace, 2009, pp. 9–29; Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a). The “Covid-19

pandemic,” correspondingly , acts as a smokescreen to deﬂect attention

from far-reaching technocratic agendas being advanced across every area

of life. As van der Pijl (2022, p. 31) recognises, those agendas have

nothing to with health, and “ever ything to do with pr eserving the

power of [a] transnational ruling class threatened by a restless population

demanding rectiﬁcation of the absurd inequalities produced by [twenty-

ﬁrst century capitalism].” Fundamentally, we are in a global class war

(Hughes et al., 2023, § V), in which a proportionately tiny transnational

ruling class is attempting to use its vast resources to subjugate the rest

of humanity through technocratic contr ol mechanisms such as central

bank digital currency, social credit scoring (ESG scores for corporations),

total sur veillance, and the Internet of Bodies/Internet of Nano-Things

(Kyrie & Broudy, 2022c, p. 363).

Even though war is being waged against the population, the r uling

class decoys by claiming that we must “declare war on this vir us” (United

Nations, 2020). Bill Gates (2020) claims: “This is like a world war, except

in this case, we’re all on the same side.” In reality , the battlelines have

been drawn along global class lines, and the r uling class has taken advan-

tage of the element of surprise to attack ﬁrst. Just as the “War on Drugs”

was cover for CIA drug-trafﬁcking operations (Scott & Marshall, 1991),

and just as the “War on Terror” ser ved to spr ead terror and terrorism

(Chomsky, 2003, p. 211), so the “war on the vir us” provides cover for

profoundly harmful measures taken in the name of public health.

Further evidence that the “pandemic” provides cover for authoritarian

political agendas is provided by Schwab and Malleret (2020, p. 117) in

their blueprint for the “Gr eat Reset.” Most people, they claim, fearing for

their lives in a “pandemic,” will be willing to allow state power to override

individual rights, but then, “when the crisis is over, some may realize that

their countr y has suddenly been transformed into a place where they no

longer wish to live.” By the time the lie is exposed, it is too late, “for the

grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been

nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and

to all who conspire together in the art of lying” (Hitler, 1939, p. 183).

Schwab seems familiar with this principle: there will be no going back

to how things were, because “the cut which we have now is much too

strong in order not to leave traces” (cited in Roscoe, 2022). Or consider

Gates’ (2021) view on how the “pandemic” has advanced technocracy:

“Even after this pandemic ends, it’s clear that much of the digitization it

brought on is here to stay.”

It is futile to couch resistance to technocratic tyranny in the pseudo-

medical ter minology intended to distract and deceive the masses. As

Hopkins (2021c) puts it, “This isn’t an academic argument over the exis-

tence, severity , or the response to a virus. This is a ﬁght to determine

the future of our societies .” Squabbling over whether or not vir uses exist,

Fitts notes, “has zer o ef fect on stopping the control grid. At this time in

our history, if we don’t stop the control grid, we’re going to be slaves”

(Fitts & Betts, 2022).

No amount of reason, common sense, and scientiﬁc pleading makes

any dif ference to the pursuit of technocratic agendas: “Those in charge

have long since signalled that they have no intention of returning to a

liberal democracy founded on the recognition of inalienable individual

rights and freedoms” (Ruechel, 2021). Therefore, trying to confront

them with data is futile. Blaylock (2022) asks: “[Have] scientiﬁc evidence,

carefully done studies, clinical experience and medical logic had any

effect on stopping these ineffective and dangerous vaccines?” His answer:

“Absolutely not! The draconian efforts to vaccinate everyone on the

planet continues (except the elite […]).” Petitioning the government to

change course or calling for an inquiry is futile, because “appealing to

reason (e.g., we need our freedoms back because X, Y, Z) and logic (e.g.,

the facts show otherwise) will have no effect on the totalitarians pushing

the COVID-19 menticide” (Scott, 2021b).

-----The “V accines”

-----“Covid-19 Vaccines” as Military (not Phar maceutical) Products

In the United States, the “Covid-19” injectables are, legally speaking,

military products that evade normal commercial and clinical rules and

procedures under 10 U.S. Code § 4021 (Latypova, 2022a, 2022b;c f .

Watt, 2023). Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Prepared-

ness (PREP) Act, undisclosed militar y countermeasures can be deployed

at the sole discr etion of the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secre-

tary in the event of a public health emergency (for which declaration

no criteria exist). This is what happened in March 2020, when Emer-

gency Use Authorization for medical countermeasur es was granted under

21 USC 360bbb-3(k), such that those countermeasures “shall not be

considered to constitute a clinical investigation.” The Food and Drug

Administration (2020, p. 7, n.6) was aware of that law, citing it in

a document dated October 22, 2020, and thus of the legal status of

the “Covid-19 vaccines” as non-medicines. The so-called “clinical trials”

for the “vaccines” continued never theless, with the regulators pr oviding

“theatre” or “per formance ar t” to deceive the public into believing

that pharmaceutical products were being developed (Latypova, 2022a,

2022b).

Operation Warp Speed (OWS), the U.S. project to develop, produce,

and distribute 300 million doses of a “coronavirus vaccine” by Januar y

2021, was compared to the Manhattan Project by President Trump when

he unveiled it on May 16, 2020 (Smith, 2020), a clear allusion to top-

secret military technology. “Warp speed” is a science ﬁction concept

associated with Star Trek, and the possibility that the “Covid-19 vaccines”

contain black technology is discussed below.

OWS was led, not by scientists and healthcar e specialists, but by the

military. An organisational char t shows that 61 of the 90 leadership posi-

tions in OWS were occupied by DoD of ﬁcials, including four generals

(Florko, 2020). The militar y’s role was not merely to assist with logistics;

rather, the DoD was “in full control” of the “vaccination” programme

from its inception, including “development, manufacturing, clinical trials,

quality assurance, distribution and administration” (Altman et al., 2023).

The White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator was Deborah Birx,

whose colourful scar ves created a civilian appearance while media repor ts

touted her as the next head of the HHS, a civilian agency (Cancr yn et al.,

2020); Bir x, however, holds the rank of Colonel. The “Covid-19 vaccine”

rollout in the United States, as in Europe, was a camouﬂaged militar y

operation from start to ﬁnish (Ponton, 2023a, 2023b).

Under Operation Warp Speed, contracts were clandestinely awar ded

to “vaccine” companies via Advanced Technology International, which

has close ties to the CIA (Webb, 2020). The use of a non-governmental

intermediary meant that regulatory oversight and transparency conferred

by regular federal contracting mechanisms could be bypassed. HHS, for

example, which was supposed to be overseeing OWS, claimed to have “no

records” of a $1.6 billion contract awarded to Novavax (Lupkin, 2020).

This is how deep state operations work, with public bodies left clueless

about what is really going on.

How was it possible to manufacture billions of doses within such a

short time frame? In Latypova’s (2022a, 45:35) assessment, the pharma-

ceutical companies lacked the required capacity to achieve this, and it was

only possible because of the “established defence contracting infrastruc-

ture” put in place by BARDA years earlier. A slide on “OWS/BARDA

Vaccine Manufacturing” from a presentation by the HHS Administra-

tion for Strategic Preparedness and Response divides the manufacturing

“portfolio” into two: “vaccines” on the left and “vaccine supporting

efforts” on the right (Latypova, 2022a, 44:50). Under “vaccines” fall the

various manufacturers, while on the right are Marathon Medical, Emer-

gent Biosolutions, Smiths Medical, Cytiva, BD, Corning, Grand River,

Ology, Retractable Technologel Inc., SiO2, The Texas A&M Univer-

sity System, and Snapdragon. All the “vaccine” manufacturers except

for Moderna are marked as “Demo,” whereas nearly all of the “vaccine

supporting efforts” are marked as “manufacturing” and/or “capacity.”

Latypova (2022b) proposes that “Demo” refers to Other Transaction

Authority, a method of contracting favoured by the DoD, which allows

vaguely deﬁned “prototypes” or “demonstrations” to evade regulatory

scrutiny. The real manufacturing/capacity-building, she proposes, has

been done elsewhere, with Big Pharma content to make vast proﬁts, with

freedom from liability (Health & Human Services Department, 2020), in

exchange for maintaining the charade that a “public health” crisis is being

met with “pharmaceutical” products.

The “Covid-19 vaccines” in the United States do not meet any normal

pharmaceutical distribution rules for ﬂagging safety and quality issues in

the supply chain (Latypova, 2022b). Unit doses are not barcoded and

traceable, and alleged cold chain storage requirements mean that they

are handled through a “black box” DoD distribution system. Most suspi-

ciously, Latypova adds, “Independent testing of the vials for veriﬁcation

of the product conformity to label is prohibited”—unsurprisingly, given

what they have been shown to contain (Hughes, 2022c).

I have explained previously why “Covid-19 vaccines” do not qualify as

vaccines (Hughes, 2022a, p. 210). Kingston (2023) argues that they are,

legally speaking, bioweapons, not pharmaceutical products. They “do not

prevent infection or disease, were not conducted under bona ﬁde research,

and serve no peaceful purpose (meaning they cause harm),” thus meeting

the deﬁnition of a biological weapon under 18 USC 175. Therefore,

to call the “Covid-19 vaccines” “bioweapons” is not hyperbole; rather,

“bioweapon” is “the only accurate legal term” to describe them. The

plan to “disguise bioweapons intentionally deployed against the public,”

in Kingston’s (2022) view, represents “one of the most evil deceptions in

the history of humanity.”

In a biopolitical era where control is exercised directly over human

bodies (Agamben, 1998), the so-called “vaccines” in principle make

ideal bioweapons, because their contents are injected straight into the

blood, breaching the body’s natural immune defences (skin, the gut, the

nasopharyngeal cavity, etc.). If the people are the undeclared enemy in

the war for technocracy, then those injections can penetrate behind enemy

lines.

---------------Ulterior Motives

What exactly is the purpose of the militar y injectables masquerading as

“Covid-19 vaccines”? Evidently, it is not to safeguar d “public health,”

as evidenced by the record number and variety of r eported serious

adverse reactions (OpenVAERS, n.d.;M H R A , n.d.;W H O , n.d.-a [search

“COVID-19 vaccine”]). UK ONS data shows that the “vaccines” kill

more people than they save (Kirsch, 2022a). There is a tight statistical

correlation between the number of shots taken and the increased likeli-

hood of death (Oller & Santiago, 2022; Santiago & Oller, 2023; Chudov,

2022a). Gover nments’ failur e to halt the “vaccine” rollout long ago in the

face of such evidence is sinister, if not tr easonous.

A damning 180-page study by Rancourt et al. (2023), based on

analysis of all-cause mor tality data (ACM) fr om 17 equatorial and

Southern-Hemisphere countries, ﬁnds “no association in time between

COVID-19 vaccination and any propor tionate reduction in ACM” (p. 2),

i.e. the “vaccines” do not save lives. On the contrar y, nine of the 17

countries showed no excess mortality for ca. one year after the WHO

“pandemic declaration” on March 11, 2020, yet excess mortality began

to appear around the time of the “vaccine” rollout. In Chile and

Peru, where the most detailed data is available, booster shots corre-

lated with unpr ecedented peaks in ACM for the elderly in the summer.

The all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate, i.e. the ratio of infer red vaccine-

induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a population, comes out as

0.126 (± 0.004)%, for a “vir us” with a 0.05% IFR for the under-70s

(Ioannidis, 2021), implying ca. 17 million deaths worldwide from the

13.5 billion injections delivered by September 2023—1000 times higher

than has been repor ted in clinical trials, adverse effect monitoring, and

cause-of-death statistics from death certiﬁcates (Rancourt et al., 2023,

p. 3).

Consistent with a depopulation agenda (Chudov, 2022b), birth

rates since the “Covid-19 vaccine” rollout dropped precipitously in 19

European countries (an average 7% decline) (Pfeiffer, 2022), including

Germany and Sweden (by 14% and 10%, respectively) (Bujard & Ander-

sson, 2022), Switzerland (by 10–15%) (Swiss Policy Resear ch, 2022),

and the United Kingdom (11.2%) (Naked Emperor, 2023). In New

Zealand, birth rates between July 2022 and June 2023 were 28% lower

than during the corresponding period in 2018/19 (Hatchard, 2023).

Additional concer ns have been raised about the potential gene drive appli-

cation of the injections, “a highly controversial new genetic extinction

technology” funded by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA) and the Gates Foundation that renders offspring incapable of

reproduction (Latham, 2017)—an effect that would remain hidden for

a generation, but which would have radical ef fects in terms of global

population reduction.

mRNA injections allegedly work by deceiving the immune system: the

modiﬁcation “makes the RNA look more like something that the cell

would produce itself, because invaders such as bacteria cannot usually

make these modiﬁcations to their own mRNA” (Dolgin, 2015). In the

case of the “Covid-19” injections, “the modiﬁed nucleobase helps cloak

mRNA vaccines from the immune system” (Nance & Meier, 2021,

p. 753). On this basis, Santiago (2022b, p. 631) asks, “would it be

an impossible leap of logic to suppose that serious deception is taking

place on a worldwide scale?” He proposes that the “Covid-19” injec-

tions reverse transcribe XNA into the human genome to redirect human

evolution (Santiago, 2022a, p. 588). Although his argument is some-

what speculative, it underscores the fact that we s imply do not know

what exactly has been shot into billions of people worldwide, or what

the implications are for humanity.

There appears to be a concerted effort to use “vaccines” to “pro-

gramme” human bodies. According to Moder na CEO, Stéphane Bancel,

“mRNA is like software” (Garde, 2017). Moderna’s Chief Medical

Ofﬁcer, Tal Zaks (n.d.), claimed in a TEDx talk that “we are actually

hacking the software of life.” This resembles Harari’s (2017) claim that

“we are learning […] how to hack humans, how to engineer them, how

to manufacture them.” Moder na describes its “Covid-19 vaccine” as “an

operating system on a computer.” President Biden’s Executive Order of

September 12, 2022, calls for the development of “genetic engineering

technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and

predictably program biology in the same way in which we write soft-

ware and program computers […]” (White House, 2022). All of which

begs the question: is the transnational deep state (Hughes, 2022b) trying,

under cover of “vaccination,” to hack the human body for eugenics

purposes, much as the NSA, in conjunction with Big Tech, managed to

gain backdoor access to virtually all computers?

Or, is the goal to hook human bodies up to the technocratic contr ol

grid through convergent IT/Bio/Nano revolutions for purposes of

human enslavement, i.e. inﬁltration of human bodies with covert military

technologies? (see Chap. 8). The world was deceived about the contents

of the “Covid-19” injectables (Hughes, 2022c), which “enjoy a largely

positive public image as pharmaceutical, rather than technological, tools”

(Kyrie & Broudy, 2022a). It is often overlooked, in this context, that the

6 WEAPONISED DECEPTION 241

infamous “Lockstep” scenario by the Rockefeller Foundation and Global

Business Network (2010), which eerily foreshadows the response to

“Covid-19,” appeared in a document whose title (Scenarios for the Future

of T echnology and International Development ) foregrounds technology,

not public health.