The Grand Unmasking is Shattering Manufactured Consensus
The most dangerous misinformation originates not from the fringes but from those in power, and it is your responsibility to expose and challenge it.
It feels like yesterday when the global elite nearly hoodwinked us into a dystopian narrative, all for the sake of a so-called health emergency that was more about power than pandemics. When these shadow architects of society decide to show their hand, it's not without the backdrop of a crisis they've meticulously staged.
Post-crisis, I've been relentless in pointing out how these architects of control are now in a frantic huddle, trying to stitch together a new tapestry of tyranny. The wake-up call they received was deafening; their illusion of omnipotence over information and dialogue shattered like glass underfoot.
They deployed every weapon in their arsenal: digital suppression tools, government-backed social media censorship, and economic blackmail for non-conformists. Yet, truth, like a stubborn dandelion, pushed through the concrete of their control. Their power, it seems, was nothing more than a house of cards, toppled by the breath of reality.
Their grand strategy for dominion was the vaccine passport scheme; yet, this was where the alternative media stepped in, stomping down on it like a plague-bearing bug. If such passports had taken root, you wouldn't dare read these words; your life would hinge on the whim of your digital health status. The populace would live under the shadow of having their economic lifeline severed for a misstep in speech, or worse, face internment in what they chillingly referred to as 'covid camps'. We'd either be in shackles or in the throes of a fierce uprising.
The year 2020 was their launchpad for a silent coup against mankind. The architects of this new world order were not shy about their intentions. Klaus Schwab and his cronies at the World Economic Forum openly celebrated the virus as their golden opportunity for a “Great Reset” and the dawn of a “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” They heralded the lockdowns as merely the opening act, with plans to tighten the noose further under the guise of environmental salvation.
They believed they had secured victory in a bloodless revolution, but reality is a harsh counterpuncher. A vast, unexpected army of the informed and vigilant stood in their way, many of whom in America are armed to the teeth.
The lockdowns have dissolved into memory, the boosters are largely shunned, the vaccination numbers are inflated, and the passport dream has been crushed. This triumph was not by chance but by the unyielding efforts of independent voices that broke through the silicon curtain of Big Tech's censorship, and the people who read and support the authors of articles just like this one. It's as straightforward as that.
Given this setback, one can only surmise that the next engineered crisis will be catastrophic by design, intended to eclipse the previous in both scale and impact.
The globalists, having learned from their underestimation of citizen journalism, are likely plotting a more draconian approach to silencing dissent. They've made no secret of this intention, with recent conferences and articles boldly discussing strategies to curb free speech. The mask of benevolence is slipping, hinting at an ominous event on the horizon.
In my 2022 piece, 'The Green Old Lie', I highlighted how the globalist elite use climate alarmism in transforming modern society into a centrally planned and managed dystopia. To get a real grasp on their current scheming, one must scrutinize the climate conferences with a hawk's eye.
Come late September, a series of climate summits unfolded, with the World Economic Forum, in a cozy partnership with the United Nations General Assembly, hosting the Sustainable Development Impact Meeting in New York. Here, the discourse subtly shifted from mere environmental concerns to the broader, more nebulous threats to democracy, and with an almost palpable frustration, they bemoaned the rampant 'disinformation' spreading like wildfire across the internet.
At this very summit, John Kerry, who has worn many hats including that of a failed presidential hopeful and Biden's erstwhile climate emissary, delivered a revelation that should chill the spine of any freedom-loving individual. He unabashedly labeled the First Amendment as a “roadblock” to governance, suggesting it was an obstacle in the path of the elite achieving their desired public consensus.
His remarks are nothing short of brazen.
Firstly, the notion of consensus being a virtue is a fallacy. It's a dangerous myth that strangles the vibrant process of inquiry and debate which defines true scientific endeavor. Science thrives on skepticism and the relentless questioning of accepted norms. Imposing a consensus is tantamount to decreeing dogma, forsaking the very essence of the scientific method.
This became starkly evident during the Covid debacle, where a 'consensus' was manufactured and peddled, only to be later debunked. The same authorities who endorsed this consensus were the ones advocating for bans on children playing outdoors, for heaven's sake, all in the name of 'flattening the curve.'
The absurdity of thinking that nature's playground would be a petri dish for viral spread speaks volumes about the disconnect from actual science. The same goes for the circus of mask mandates, social distancing, and lockdowns—none of which were rooted in genuine scientific inquiry but were rather born from a culture of fear and control.
If we delve into the contentious issue of man-made climate change, the idea of scientific consensus is nothing more than a smokescreen. The data, if examined critically, doesn't hold up. There's no conclusive evidence linking carbon emissions directly to global warming, nor is there proof that global warming triggers the doomsday scenarios of extreme weather. Furthermore, our current warming trend is not anomalous when placed against the backdrop of Earth's climatic history.
The Washington Post, in an attempt to visually represent Earth's temperature over 450 million years, inadvertently underscored a point I've long advocated: the planet has experienced far warmer conditions throughout its geological timeline than what we see today.
The crux of the matter is that dinosaurs were indifferent to Florida being submerged beneath a Cretaceous sea. If advocates for combating climate change were truly earnest in their efforts to mitigate a warmer climate (be it a real issue or not), they would consider practical solutions such as offshore barriers, rather than levying extra charges for so-called “emission-free” parcels or plane trips. Even the most devoted follower of the climate change cult should pause to consider that something isn't quite adding up here.
However, what's truly at stake is the underlying philosophy articulated by John Kerry - that governance necessitates the curation of information. Kerry's view reflects a dangerous elitist mindset, where he and his ilk believe they have the divine right to sculpt public opinion for what they deem as the 'greater good.' This is a role they've arrogated to themselves, without the consent of the governed.
Remember, John, in a republic, it's the people who hold the reins, not the other way around. Politicians like you are mere servants of the public, not its masters. Your musings on the sanctity of free speech are irrelevant in the face of constitutional rights.
The most insidious misinformation often comes not from the fringes but directly from those in power, cloaked in the guise of protecting 'democracy.' They disseminate falsehoods with impunity.
Kerry's frustration stems from his realization that the public now has the tools to hold a mirror up to these manipulations. If the survival of what they call 'democracy' demands the suppression of speech, then such a system is an affront to the very principles of freedom it claims to uphold.
John Kerry, in his sanctimonious wisdom, suggests that democracy is “too slow” for the grand societal transformations he deems essential. He casually tosses the First Amendment into the trash, labeling it a “roadblock” to more efficient governance and control.
This isn't just a slip of the tongue; it's a revelation of his true colors. What he's really saying is that tyranny would be more effective because it bypasses the pesky nuisance of public consent and the inconvenient reality of propaganda-resistant citizens.
His words are not just off-the-cuff remarks; they're a chilling echo of Klaus Schwab's own dystopian fantasies during the peak of the pandemic. Kerry isn't just flirting with authoritarianism; he's embracing it with open arms, and this should set off alarm bells louder than a five-alarm fire.
This rhetoric aligns disturbingly well with recent propaganda pieces from the establishment media. The New Yorker ponders, with mock innocence, 'Is It Time To Torch The Constitution?' while The New York Times muses over the 'danger' of the Constitution itself. They even dared to praise the authoritarian overreach in Brazil, where there's a threat to shut down access to X unless it bends the knee to censorship demands. These are not just questions; they are declarations of war on the very concept of free speech.
When the political elite and their sycophantic journalists begin this assault on free speech, it's not just a policy debate; it's preparation for an orchestrated crisis. Free speech isn't merely an important liberty; it's the cornerstone of any society that pretends to care about truth. It's what allows us to sift through the lies, to debate, to dissent, to resist being herded like cattle by those who think they know better.
The globalists believed they had cornered the market on information during COVID-19, and when that illusion shattered, they learned a harsh lesson.
Next time, they won't just try to control the narrative; they'll aim to obliterate it. They'll silence the dissenters, the thinkers, the alternative media, and any social platform that dares to foster free thought before they unleash whatever calamity they have planned next. Remember, when they tell you democracy is too slow, what they really mean is your freedom is too cumbersome for their grand designs.
The might of the pen, the power of the spoken word, and the sheer force of an awakened public are not easily subdued. In this grand unmasking of the globalist elite, we've seen their plans, once hidden in the murk of crises, now laid bare for all to scrutinize.
The attempt to weave a new world order from the threads of fear and compliance has not only failed but has ignited a fire of defiance across the globe. We've witnessed the truth's unyielding nature, sprouting through the cracks of censorship, a testament to humanity's innate desire for freedom.
The next crisis they engineer will be met with a populace not just questioning, but actively resisting. We are not mere subjects in their grand design but actors in our own destiny, equipped with the knowledge and the will to challenge any narrative that seeks to bind us.
In the end, the globalist elite might have the blueprint for control, but we, the vigilant and the free, possess the blueprint for liberation. Their power, once thought omnipotent, has shown its limits. It thrives in shadows, but under the relentless light of scrutiny, it withers.
We are not mere witnesses to this grand unmasking; we are the architects of our future, standing guard against those who would see us diminished. For in our hands lies the simple yet profound power of choice: to question, to resist, and to uphold the values that define our humanity.
Thus, as the curtain falls on the last chapter, remember, the story of freedom is not yet written in stone. It is ours to write, with every act of defiance, every spread of truth, and every defense of liberty. In this narrative, we are not just the audience; we are the authors, the editors, and the critics. And in this role, we shall not fail.
In case you want us to win the next war on free speech:
Restack, like and share this post via email, text, and social media
Thank you; your support keeps me writing and helps me pay the bills. 🧡
Another excellent article! Nice job! Unfortunately, the idea that a republic serves the people is an illusion we've been intentionally indoctrinated with since the Constitution was created. From the beginning, the Constitution was created to serve the elite and has done so. It was only after the fact that personal rights were added to appease the people over the objections of Hamilton and Madison. In a new look at the founding of America, Eric Nelson writes that the Constitution did not create a radical new form of democracy. Instead, it created a "very traditional mixed monarchy." Yoni Appelbaum described the "mixed monarchy" like this.
"At its head stood a king—an uncrowned one called a president—with sweeping powers, whose steadying hand would hopefully check the factionalism of the Congress. The two chambers of the legislature…would make laws, but the president—whom the Founders regarded as a third branch of the legislature—could veto them. He could also appoint his own Cabinet, command the Army, and make treaties." The president was given more power than the king of England had at the time. And since, executive orders have given the president the right to make law.
But a year after the first presidential election, Alexander Hamilton, Madison, and their banking cohorts created the first political party. It effectively controlled government for many years and the two parties have controlled the government since then.
It's the political parties that have caused the political divide in their effort to create a unique brand and vilify the other party. They compete for who gets the money for serving their elite puppetmasters. But behind both political parties is the same power elite group. It is all political theater after which giant omnibus bills give all the special interests of the elite what they want. It's really all about the money. And if you have totalitarian control, you get control over all the money.
In a republic like the United States, the government doesn't serve the people any more than communist governments serve the people because the people are supposed to own everything through the state. Obviously the people own nothing and the state and Communist party serve their elite. We think we're different but we're not. It's just a different illusion. But I realize that without reading books outside of those written by establishment professors and the textbooks written to indoctrinate all of us as children, few people understand what's really going on. I like the articles Lily writes about the global elite because they expose their objectives and their machinations. The tragedy is that people really don't want to understand. Their anger is directed at other citizens thanks to the political parties instead of at the elite and their political parties where it should be. They are victims of the elites' game and the indoctrinated illusion. Please keep exposing them.
Chilling. Excellent piece. Thank you.