MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
When Joe Biden was announced to be President-elect by the mainstream media, he gave a victory speech. But before he spoke, Kamala Harris came on stage and while everyone was focused on her and commenting on her white outfit and how it some statement about suffrage – I happened to notice the big screens that flanked the stage.
The screens flashed the words “The People Have Chosen EMPATHY,” and then the screens flashed, “The People have Chosen UNITY” and then it said, “The people have chosen “SCIENCE.”
The big screens reminded me of the film, 1984, where the telescreens flashed the words in a pyramid “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”
These slogans were created by an entity known only as “The Party,” which consist of those in charge of the country. The words are written in enormous letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, which considering that they are obvious contradictions, seems to be an odd place to put them.
The fact that this motto is written on a government building for a department called the Ministry of Truth suggests that the author is trying to convey that these statements are somehow true for the society he has constructed. These are just the first in a series of contradiction written throughout the book and they serve to represent the nature of the society and how it is held together through the way in which these opposites function.
Orwell opened his book in this way on purpose in order to introduce the reader to the concept of Doublethink, which is what allows the people of Oceania to live with constant contradictions in their lives. Doublethink is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind simultaneously.
The Party develops this ability in its citizens by undermining their individuality, independence and autonomy and by creating an environment of constant fear through propaganda. In this way, the Party breaks down their ability to think rationally and makes citizens accept and believe anything they tell them, even if it is entirely illogical.
We are living in times of division, with corrupt experts who tell us that we need to give up our human dignity for safety all in the name of science.
So the slogans “The People Have Chosen EMPATHY,” “The People have Chosen UNITY” and “The people have chosen SCIENCE” are nothing more than slogans that create doublethink.
How can there be any EMPATHY in the “party” when we now are hearing that extreme leftists are compiling lists of what they call Trump enablers? How can we show Unity when there are discrepancies in what the media is calling a “fair election.” Unity is supposed to be a fuzzy warm word that hopeful signals that all things will return to normal – that a divided country will somehow unify and not have sour grapes over the four years of abuse we have endured.
How in the world will it be possible for America to have a bright future when about half the country is going to feel like the election has been stolen from them no matter what the final outcome is? There simply isn’t going to be any going back to the way that things were for the last four years. At this moment, tens of millions of Trump supporters believe that the Democrats stole the election. But if the courts agree with Trump’s legal team and Trump ends up getting a second term, tens of millions of Biden supporters will be convinced that Republicans stole the election. Either way, we are going to be a nation that is full of deeply angry people.
For a moment, let’s assume that Trump’s legal team is successful.
Do you think that the left is just going to back down and accept four more years of Trump peacefully?
Just put yourself in their shoes. The mainstream media has been telling them over and over that they won the election legitimately and that there is “absolutely no evidence” of election fraud. When the big news networks called the election for Biden, they laughed, they cried and they danced in the streets. For many on the left, it was as if Christmas, their birthdays, and the 4th of July had arrived all at once.
Can you imagine how much fury they are going to feel if Trump’s legal team is able to flip state after state and swing the final outcome back in the other direction?
It would definitely be enough to convince many of them that a peaceful solution is no longer possible. I believe that we would see violence in our streets on a permanent basis from this point forward, and it would be far worse than any of the civil unrest that we have witnessed so far.
So much for that unity stuff.
I have an Orwellian sounding slogan “Unity is Ignorance.”
Right now, the mainstream media is assuming that Biden is going to be president. But the reality of the matter is that we are going to end up with either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris in the White House. Even if Biden is inaugurated, his rapidly deteriorating physical condition will not allow him to serve for very long. Whether it is a matter of years, months or days, everyone knows that a Biden administration will simply just be a bridge to a Harris administration.
Harris of course has been the bulwark of pushing what is called “Green Science.” While we are told that the people have allegedly voted for “Science” they have in reality voted for the same pseudo-science that has been expedient for all authoritarian regimes in history.
This is not conspiracy theory – this is part of a detailed agenda that has been outlined in the scarcity economy proposed by the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.
The science they are talking about revolves around Covid-19, Global Warming, Resource depletion, food and shelter demand and population control.
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) The Great Reset includes a plan to transform the global food and agricultural industries and the human diet. The architects of the plan claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change.
But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.
The Great Reset is about multinational corporate stakeholders at the World Economic Forum controlling as many elements of planetary life as they possibly can. From the digital data humans produce to each morsel of food we eat.
According to WEF’s founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, the forum is guided by the goal of positioning “private corporations as the trustees of society” to “address social and environmental challenges.”
In July, Schwab published a 195-page book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” in which he challenged industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste.”
TIME magazine (whose owner Marc Benioff is a WEF board member) recently partnered with the WEF to cover The Great Reset and to provide a “look at how the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to transform the way we live.”
The Great Reset is meant to be all-encompassing. Its partner organizations include the biggest players in data collection, telecommunications, weapons manufacturing, finance, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and the food industry.
The WEF’s plans for the “reset” of food and agriculture include projects and strategic partnerships that favor genetically modified organisms, lab-made proteins and pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals as sustainable solutions to food and health issues.
For example, WEF has promoted and partnered with an organization called EAT Forum. EAT Forum describes itself as a “Davos for food” that plans to “add value to business and industry” and “set the political agenda.”
EAT was co-founded by Wellcome Trust, an organization established with funds from GlaxoSmithKline and which still has strategic partnerships with the drugmaker. EAT collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia. The organization also assists the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in the “creation of new dietary guidelines” and sustainable development initiatives.
According to Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, EAT network interacts closely with some of the biggest imitation meat companies, including Impossible Foods and other biotech companies, which aim to replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified lab creations.
During the Democratic National Committee debates there were people planted in the audience asking questions about how new guidelines for the green economy would affect meat eating and what the candidates would do to curtail meat consumption. Most everyone who were behind the campaign to vilify meat eating were greatly exaggerating the studies linking meat eating to poor health. The studies vilifying the health effects of meat were based on observational epidemiology, which can’t show actual cause, only associations.
Remember this was all being brought up at the end of 2019 and the reason the meat was being vilified was because of what they were calling science –and that science was all about Climate Change and the coercing of the population into following the new green deals proposed by the United Nations at the 2030 Summit.
CNN decided to give it a marathon-length town hall: seven hours in which 10 top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination shared their plans for cutting carbon emissions, dealing with potentially catastrophic weather, and saving the planet for the generations to come.
The conversation turned to the discussion of whether or not a person has a right to consume a cheeseburger.
While discussing red meats, dietary requirements, and beef production, it seemed they were debating whether the Democrats would uphold the right to backyard barbecues or require draconian enforcement of meat rationing to save the planet from greenhouse gasses.
Asked about climate activism and her stand on the beef and cheese industries, Amy Klobuchar, went out big. “I am hopeful that we’re going to be able to [cut carbon emissions] in a way—especially when I am president—that we can continue to have hamburgers and cheese.”
Kamala Harris, lest Americans think otherwise, conceded she loves cheeseburgers. She didn’t seem too proud of it—feigning her meat guilt in front of some militant climate change vegan.
But she went even bigger stating if she were president she would definitely change the dietary guidelines “to reduce red meat specifically or to ban its consumption all together.”
She then later stated that meat production has a detrimental impact on the environment and that there should be plans in place to curtail the consumption of meat so that it will improve the environmental impact.
This is in line with the new Codex Alimnetarius plan that was proposed in 2015 during the 2030 summit where the United Nation’s stated that there should be dietary guidelines in place for the entire world which includes the regulations of animal based proteins.
Last year, there was a push by Climate Change adherents to limit or even ban the eating of dairy and beef products – there was a trend on social media of what is called steak and dairy shaming of people saying that it harms the environment.
Before Climate debate was replaced with the COVID-19 debate, there was a push for the 2030 ideal diet proposed by the technocrats which literally limits and then virtually eliminates animal proteins from the human diet.
This is why there has been a push for the impossible burger in most fast food chains. McDonalds announced that they are rolling out the McPlant soon at their franchise locations.
Impossible Foods was initially co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Recent lab results showed the company’s imitation meat contained glyphosate levels 11 times higher than its closest competitor.
EAT’s biggest initiative is called FReSH, which the organization describes as an effort to drive the transformation of the food system. The project’s partners include Bayer (formerly Monsanto), Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and even tech giant Google.
Companies like Unilever and Bayer and other pharmaceutical companies are already chemical processors — so many of these companies are very well positioned to profit off of this new food business which revolves around processing chemicals and extracts needed to produce these lab-made foods on a global scale.
In Klaus Schwab’s book, he discusses how biotechnology and genetically modified food should become a central pillar to repairing global food scarcity issues, issues which COVID has revealed and exacerbated.
He writes “global food security will only be achieved if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops.”
Eat it up America your future will be a future where the Science will be lab foods and vaccines that will be detrimental to your health.
So the reset future will include solutions to food demand, resource depletion and of course population control is the one thing they will introduce later. It is inevitable if you know your history.
Or – if you know this history of how totalitarian regimes control everything including how you eat and what you eat and consume.
In the Online Journal of Health Ethics paper Volume 9 Article 10, there is a detailed paper on preventive health measures that were implemented by the Green party Nazis.
It claims that the contributions made by Nazi public health activists and food philosophers were considered one of the most aggressive public health movements in the world. Nazi public health promotion and education were involved in activities that we might today view as socially responsible within the fields of preventive medicine. The dietetic sciences may be regarded as one of the least examined aspects of public health during the period of the Third Reich.
The Nazi ideology’s image of a master race free of hereditary diseases and ‘racial impurities’ was the impetus behind state sanctioned brutality and food controls.
Guenther Schwab, who we have not found any relation to Klaus Schwab, was an Austrian Nazi who had been a strong nature lover since boyhood and by the 1920’s, became very active in the emerging environmental movement in Austria. Many greens or environmentalists joined the Nazi party and pushed for the hereditary idea about the environment. Schwab was a firm supporter of Hitler’s Blut und Boden or “blood and soil.” Blood and soil ideologies consisted of a mixture of eugenics and environmental resource claims of Aryan stewardship.
By 1935, Nazi Germany had passed three landmark green laws at the federal level that were the most environmentally progressive of the era. They were all signed by the Fuhrer and considered to be his personal pet projects. The first was an animal rights protection law passed in 1933, followed by a very friendly environmental hunting law called the Reich Game Law in 1934. The capstone of Nazi ecology, however, was the Reich Nature Protection Law passed in 1935 called the RNG. This particular law was well ahead of its time as it promoted green social engineering schemes over private property along holistic, totalitarian lines. The Nazi slogan for the RNG was all encompassing, “it shall be the whole landscape!” Here is seen the birth of environmental effects reports and permits. Though seldom used, private property could also be expropriated without compensation for environmental reasons. That this was born in Nazi Germany is not an insignificant fact.
It was Nazi Germany’s wild romantic belief in an Aryan cultural superiority based on nature’s laws, all dressed up in political; pseudo-scientific biology and often encouraged with ecological apocalyptic ideas of global warming and cooling because certain people “Jews” were a burden on resources and the environment. Some will argue that many people believed in order to bring balance to nature that was out of control, Jews and Slavs needed to be murdered.
This was the “green” ideology that was embraced and with the apocalyptic rantings of “green” Germans, the pogroms were carried out. This according to them, would ensure a healthier planet and ease the resource depletion on the rest of the world.
Science often finds itself intertwined with politics. Sometimes that is because science has important consequences for society and thus generates strong partisan disagreement.
At other times, it happens because political movements seek support from scientific arguments and recruit experts to make them. These entanglements, although not always welcome, are an inevitable consequence of the fact that science matters.
Occasionally though, scientists drag politics into science by the heels, rather than the other way around. That’s what’s happening now with COVID-19 and Climate Change.
Prejudice and Identity politics has found a faithful servant in science. Scientific theories and arguments were used to support food controls and Eugenics in Nazi Germany. Their pogroms were used to eliminate those that they felt were a burden on resources.
The emergence of eugenics as an ‘applied science’ culminated in the horrendous atrocities committed by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Society was to be cleaned of all alien contamination, hence the German phrase ‘Rassenhygiene’ meaning ‘racial hygiene’. Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and people with hereditary diseases were deprived of their human rights, were put on hit lists and were herded on to trains and were sent to concentration camps, used for scientific experimentation and murdered.
The scientists who provided the scientific backing were respected university professors or researchers of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWS), the predecessor of the Max Planck Society. Many of them remained in renowned positions even after 1945, influential enough to delay an unbiased historical confrontation.
In Germany, eugenics gained many supporters long before Hitler came to power, and was not solely a monstrosity of Hitler as so often portrayed. German scientists contributed considerably to the rise of eugenics.
It is now come for the United States to decide if they wish to participate in the new ‘Rassenhygiene’ or better still, the Grüne Zurücksetzen or Green Reset.
It is time to understand just how important the transfer of power has become.
Yes, if we get to December 8th and Joe Biden is still leading in the vote count in the states that he is currently leading, it will appear that time will have run out for the Trump campaign.
But 234 pages of sworn affidavits is nothing to scoff at, and I am sure that Trump’s legal team is working night and day to uncover even more evidence of potential fraud.
It would take the biggest legal miracle in U.S. election history for Trump to pull this off, but it is definitely still possible.
Right now, we are still playing a waiting game. Most Trump supporters still think that Trump will end up winning, and most Biden supporters are absolutely convinced that they have this election in the bag.
But once the votes have been cast by the Electoral College, there will be no going back, and the sheer horror of what has happened will start to sink in for about half the country.
No matter what the outcome is, the years ahead are going to be incredibly painful as our society literally comes apart at the seams all around us.
After everything that has already taken place, nobody is going to be able to “bring us together”, and life in America will never be the same again.