Experts Claim Global Heart Failure Pandemic Caused by New COVID Strain
Scientists are warning that a new COVID variant will cause a global “heart failure pandemic.” Many are skeptical of the claim, believing it to be a COVID vaccine injury coverup.
The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!
Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.
Media Outlets Are Already Calling for Online 2024 Election Censorship
The page has only just been turned on 2023 and already the narrative that much policing of online speech will be vital for 2024, an election year, has already stirred.
The legacy media outlet The Guardian, in its piece about Kate Starbird, has already complained that there may be less censorship ahead of the 2024 elections, and claimed that Rep. Jim Jordan’s committee’s reports on Big Tech-government censorship collusion are based on “outlandish claims.” This is ignoring the fact that an injunction was successfully placed on the Biden administration for its censorship pressure on Big Tech, a case that will be ruled on by The Supreme Court this year.
In an era where the policing of online speech is increasingly contentious, Kate Starbird’s role in combating what she terms election misinformation has placed her squarely in the midst of a heated debate. As a leading figure at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, Starbird has actively engaged in documenting what she and her team perceive as misinformation during the 2020 elections, particularly focusing on claims of voter fraud.
However, Starbird’s approach and her team’s actions have not been without controversy. Critics argue that their efforts amount to a form of censorship, infringing upon free speech. This criticism extends beyond Starbird’s team to a broader national trend, where researchers engaged in similar work face accusations of partisanship and censorship, challenging the principles of free expression.
Jim Jordan, chair of the House judiciary committee, has emerged as a key figure in opposing what he views as the overreach of these researchers. He has focused on investigating groups and individuals involved in counteracting misinformation, especially in the context of elections and Covid-19. Central to the controversy is the practice of working with government entities and flagging content to social media platforms, which some argue leads to undue censorship and violates First Amendment rights.
The debate over the role of anti-misinformation efforts has escalated beyond Congress, evidenced by lawsuits from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and from the state of Texas, along with two rightwing media companies. These legal actions challenge the alleged collaboration between the Biden administration, the Global Engagement Center, and social media companies, showing it as a constitutional breach.
Critics of Starbird’s and similar researchers’ work argue that labeling right-wing entities as primary purveyors of election lies is a biased approach that neglects the complexity of online discourse. They contend that such claims of misinformation often serve to silence dissenting voices rather than foster a balanced and open dialogue.
According to The Guardian piece, Starbird’s shift in terminology from “misinformation” to “rumors” could be seen by some as a strategic move to distance her work from the increasingly politicized nature of the term but one that could be even more contentions. The idea that rumors should be policed isn’t likely to go over well with those that are already tired of online censorship.
In a similar vein to The Guardian piece, in a New Year’s Eve episode of “Face The Nation,” CBS’s Senior Business and Technology Correspondent Jo-Ling Kent took her time to criticize Elon Musk’s X for allowing free speech. Kent notably highlighted the limitations placed on censorship due to the “arguments and protections of free speech.”
Kent criticized X for enabling figures like Alex Jones to regain a platform. “Elon Musk and his team have basically allowed the return of conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, and they’ve also dramatically reduced the size of their Trust and Safety team,” Kent stated.
Kent also stated that, on platforms like Meta’s Facebook, “the reality here is that taking down all of this bad information has always been an impossible task on platforms of that size.” Despite describing it as impossible, Kent appears to suggest they should still try.
As has always been the case, false information during an election cycle is often rife. But in the online world, where most speech runs through a handful of Big Tech giants, the power and control over online discourse that these companies have is immense. A handful of companies have the power to affect elections and the play of democracy itself.
While even Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted that the companies’ online censorship has been heavy-handed, and has resulted in truthful speech being suppressed, tech giants and largely legacy media outlets that once had a monopoly on information, continue to push for online censorship.
2024: The Year Global Government Takes Shape
Global government is the endgame.
We know that.
Total control of every aspect of life for every single person on the planet, that’s the goal.
That’s been apparent to anyone paying attention for years, if not decades, and any tiny portion of remaining doubt was removed when Covid was rolled-out and members of the establishment started outright saying it.
Covid marked an acceleration of the globalist agenda, a mad dash to the finish line that seems to have lost momentum short of victory, but the race is still going. The goal has not changed, even if the years since may have seen the agenda retreat slightly back into the shadows.
We know what they want conceptually, but what does that mean practically?
What does a potential “global government” actually look like?
First off, let’s talk about what we’re NOT going to see.
1 – They are not going to declare themselves. No, there will almost certainly never be an official “world government”, at least not for a long time yet. That’s a lesson they learned from Covid — putting a name and a face on globalism only foments collective resistance to it.
2 – They’re not going to abolish nationhood. You can be sure Klaus Schwab (or whoever) isn’t ever going to appear simulcast on every television in the world announcing that we’re all citizens of ze vurld now and that nation states no longer exist.
In part because that is likely to focus resistance (see point 1), but mainly because tribalism and nationalism are just too useful to all would-be manipulators of public opinion. And, of course the continuing existence of nation states in no way precludes the existence of a supra-national control system, any more than the existence of Rhode Island, Florida or Texas precludes the existence of the Federal government.
3 – There will never be an overt declaration of a change of system. We will not be told we are united under a new model, instead the illusion of regionality & superficial variance will camouflage a lack of real choice across the political landscape. A thin polysystemic skin stretched tight over a monosystemic skeleton.
Capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy, tyranny, monarchy…these words will steadily dilute in meaning, even more than they have already, but they will never be abandoned.
What globalism will bring us – I suggest – is a collection of nation-states largely in name only, operating superficially different systems of government all built on the same underpinning assumptions and all answering to an unelected and undeclared higher authority.
…and if that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s essentially what we have already.
The only major aspects missing are the mechanisms by which this rough model can be transformed into a flowing network, where all corners are eroded and all genuine sovereign powers become entirely vestigial.
That’s where the three main pillars of global rule come in:
- Digital Money
- Digital ID
- “Climate Action”
Let’s take a look at each one in turn.
1. DIGITAL MONEY
Over 90% of the nations of the world are currently in the process of introducing a new digital currency issued by their central bank. OffG – and others – have been covering the push for a Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for years now, to the point where we don’t need to rehash old talking points here.
Simply put, entirely digital money enables total surveillance of every transaction. If the currency is programmable, it would also allow control of every transaction.
You can read our extensive back-catalogue on CBDCs for more detail.
Clearly CBDCs are a potentially dystopian nightmare which will infringe the rights of anyone forced to use them….but how are they a building block of global government?
The answer to that is “interoperability”.
While the world’s national CBDCs will notionally be separate from one another, the majority are being coded to recognize and interact with each other. They are almost all being developed along guidelines produced by the Bank of International Settlements and other globalist financial institutions, and they are all being programed by the same handful of tech giants.
A June 2023 report for the World Economic Forum noted the importance of “Central Bank Digital Currency Global Interoperability Principles” and concluded:
It is crucial for central banks to prioritize interoperability considerations early in the design process by adhering to a set of guiding principles. To facilitate global coordination and ensure harmonious implementation of CBDCs, the development of a comprehensive set of principles and standards becomes imperative. Drawing upon previous research and collaborative efforts, this set of principles can serve as a robust foundation, guiding central banks to proactively consider interoperability from the outset of their CBDC initiatives. By adopting these principles, central banks can work towards creating a cohesive and interconnected CBDC ecosystem.
Commenting on the report, the World Economic Forum website noted [emphasis added]:
To ensure successful implementation and promote interoperability, global coordination becomes paramount […] adhering to interoperability principles, CBDCs can advance harmoniously, leading to efficient and interconnected digital payment systems.
It doesn’t take a genius to decode “global coordination”, “cohesive ecosystem”, “harmonious advancement” and “interconnected payment systems”.
There is no practical difference between 195 “interoperable” and interconnected digital currencies, and one single global currency.
In fact “interoperability” is the watchword for all globalist power structures moving forward. Which leads us neatly onto…
2. DIGITAL IDENTITY
The global push for mandatory digital identities is even older than the digital currency agenda, dating back to the turn of the century and Tony Blair’s “national identity cards”.
For decades it has been a “solution” posited to every “problem”.
Terrorism? Digital identity will keep you safe.
Illegal immigration? Digital identity will secure the border.
Pandemic? Digital identity will keep track of who is vaccinated and who is not.
AI? Digital identity will prove who’s human.
Poverty? Digital identity will “promote financial inclusion”
Clearly, just as with CBDCs, a far-reaching digital identity service is a threat to human rights. And, just as with CBDCs, if you interconnect national digital identity platforms you can build a global system.
Again, it’s all about “interoperability”. They use the exact same language.
The World Bank’s Identity4Development program claims:
Interoperability is crucial for developing efficient, sustainable, and useful identity ecosystems.
The Nordic and Baltic Ministers for Digitalization publicly called for “cross-border” operational digital IDs.
NGOs like Open Identity Exchange(OIX) are publishing reports on “the need for data standards to enable interoperability of Digital IDs both in federations within an ID ecosystem, and across ID ecosystems.”.
The list of national governments introducing digital IDs, “partnering” with corporate giants to do so and/or promoting “cross border interoperability” is long, and growing longer all the time.
In October 2023 the United Nations Development Program published their “guidelines” for the design and use of digital identities.
There is no practical difference between 195 networked digital identity platforms and one single global identity program.
OK, so they have global currency and identity programs in place. Now they can control and monitor everyone’s movements, financial transactions, health and more. That’s surveillance and control mechanism, all handled in a distributed model designed to obfuscate the very existence of a global government.
But what about policy?
How does this global government hand down policy and legislation without giving away its existence?
Climate change, that’s how.
3. “CLIMATE ACTION”
Climate Change has been at the forefront of the globalist agenda for years. It is the Trojan horse of the antihuman technocrat.
As long ago as 2010, noted Climate Change “experts” were suggesting that “humans are not evolved enough” to combat climate change and that “It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
More recently, in 2019, Bloomberg was publishing articles with headlines like “Climate Change Will Kill National Sovereignty As We Know It”, and academics are telling us:
States will remain unable to solve global crises like climate change until they let go of their sovereignty
For years climate change has been sold as the reason we might be “forced” to abandon democracy or sovereignty.
Alongside this, there is a prolonged propaganda narrative dedicated to changing “climate change” from an environmental issue into an everything issue.
At this point all national governments agree “climate change” is an urgent problem requiring global cooperation to solve. They host massive summits at which they sign international agreements, binding nation states to certain policies, for the sake of the planet.
Having established that model, they are now widening the “climate change” purview. Changing “climate change” into the answer to every question:
Obviously, “climate change” was always going to impact energy and transport.
Following Covid, “climate change” has already been re-branded a “health crisis”.
Now we’re being told “climate change” is generating a food crisis.
We’re being told that international trade needs to be climate conscious.
We’re being told by the World Bank that education reform will help the fight against climate change.
We’re being told by the IMF that every country in the world should tax carbon and, in a recent cross-over episode, that CBDCs can be good for the environment.
See how it works?
Agriculture & food, public health, energy & transport, trade, fiscal & taxation policy, even education. Almost every area of government is now potentially covered by the “climate change” umbrella.
They no longer need a one-world government, they just need a single panel of “impartial international climate change experts” working to save the planet.
Through the lens of “climate change”, these experts would be empowered to dictate – sorry, recommend – government policy in almost every area of life to every nation on the planet.
Do you see it yet?
This is global government in the modern world, not centralised but distributed. Cloud computing. A supranational corporate-technocrat hivemind. With no official existence or authority, and therefore no accountability, and funneling all their policy decisions through one filter – climate change.
There won’t be a single global currency, there will be dozens and dozens of “interoperable” digital currencies creating an “harmonious payment ecosystem”.
There won’t be a single global digital identity service, there will be a series of “interconnected identity networks” engaging in the “free flow of data to promote security”.
There won’t be a global government, there will be international panels of “impartial experts”, appointed by the UN who make “policy recommendations”.
Most or all of the countries of the world will follow most or all of the recommendations, but anyone who calls these panels global governments will be forwarded fact-checks from Snopes or Politifact highlighting that “UN expert panels do NOT constitute a global government because they have no legislative power”.
This, I suggest, is how global government will take shape in 2024 and beyond.
Compartmentalized, utterly deniable…but very, very real.
Smashing The A.I. Threat Matrix: How Humanity Defeats Skynet
Pro Hamas Supporters Attempt to Bring Down Airplanes in NY, MSM Spins it as ‘Only Being Balloons’
Alex Jones breaks down the leftist pro-Hamas terrorist tactics in NY that could have brought down airplanes with ‘balloons.’
Don’t forget, Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT! To continue funding this independent operation, we urge you to visit the Infowars Store where you can fund the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements, air and water filters, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more.
Flashback: Sandra Bullock Discusses Injecting Baby Foreskin Into Face to Stay Young
Video of actress Sandra Bullock admitting her skin care routine involves injecting tissue from the foreskins of babies is going viral on social media as 2024 brings renewed interest in the bizarre rituals of the global elite.
The strange admission came during a 2018 interview on The Ellen Show, where the Hollywood A-lister described she maintains her youthful appearance by getting “penis facials,” in which a dermatologist micro-needles one’s face with the cells of foreskins evidently harvested from Korean babies.
“It’s like a little roller with these, some of you, I don’t think many of you know it. It pushes through the skin and ruptures the collagen and then boosts it,” Bullock explained to Degeneres, adding, “You look like a burn victim for a day, but then it’s, but then it pushes…”
I found it… here’s the interview with Sandra Bullock re: using baby’s blood and fetal tissue aka: Adrenochrome to keep looking young.
— D-Bark (@DBark012) January 2, 2024
Ellen DeGeneres is acting stupid like she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
Notice the Epstein island looking backdrop and castle stripes? pic.twitter.com/n48upKZj7s
Ellen then cuts of Bullock asking, “What are you pushing into the skin?”
“Well, you push in whatever the facialist would like to insert into your pores,” Bullock coyly replies.
“But what is it?” Degeneres asks.
“It is an extraction from a, um, a piece of skin that came from a young person far, far away, and they somehow figured out how to extract,” Bullock says, carefully choosing her words.
“IT’S FORESKIN FROM A KOREAN BABY,” chimes in Ellen.
Bullock went on to promote the ghastly cosmetic procedure, saying, “I think when you see how good it is to your face, you too will run to your facialist and say, ‘Give me the penis.’”
I should’ve never asked Sandra Bullock about her skincare routine.
— Ellen DeGeneres (@EllenDeGeneres) May 17, 2018
Watch the full clip here: https://t.co/G9OAbKwMyo pic.twitter.com/SQJH2guB9J
A Guardian writer attempted the procedure later that year describing,
The procedure, popular in Hollywood celebrity circles, injects cells from a baby’s foreskin – specifically a South Korean baby’s foreskin – into the face. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett are big fans. Just last month Kate Beckinsale had one, and said it was “amazing”. I was curious.
Asking why Korean babies are selected, one facialist told the writer “South Korea tends to be ahead of the curve with beauty treatments, and this treatment had been inspired by work there.”
Metro.co.uk at the time also gave more details on the skin treatment:
…When you look at the modern practice, it could be assumed she’s not literally rubbing recently-harvested foreskins on her face.
Yes, the penis facial is the catchy name for what’s professionally known as an EGF (epidermal growth factor) facial, which uses stem cells from the foreskins of circumcised Korean boys.
That bit is true, technically.
The cells work to encourage skin cells to turn over rapidly and regenerate, so they’re often used for brightening, exfoliating, and healing the skin – not all that dissimilar to enzyme facials, when you break it down.
And they’ve been around for a while – the treatments, that is.
Back in 1986, Rita Levi-Montalcini and Stanley Cohen’s discovery of EGF earned them the Nobel Prize and the compound was also shown to promote wound healing in clinical studies (which is probably why the beauty industry jumped onto the bandwagon in the quest for ageless skin).
When it comes to the origin of these foreskins these days, according to The Cut, one facialist said the cells are grown in a lab, ‘not continually harvested fresh from Korean male babies – the progenitor cells are cloned’.
However, yes, it is to be seriously noted there was once a time, not too long ago, when people were using the regularly-sourced (through means that aren’t clear) foreskins from young boys.
SkinMedica created one particular cream with EGF that was aforementioned touted by Oprah over a decade ago and in regards to the stem cells in question, the company says they were cultivated originally from the stem cells of a single baby foreskin 20 years ago.
So, while we cannot confirm where the stem cells of Sandra’s particular facial came from at the time, we can assume it was from cloned compounds taken decades ago.
The outlandish skin treatment certainly brings to mind the elite’s vampire-like quest to harvest the cells of young people in order to stay young.
One tech billionaire, 46-year-old Bryan Johnson, admits he uses his son as a “blood boy” to provide fresh blood for transfusions which he injects to stay young.
In 2022, Hollywood actress Megan Fox revealed that she and her rapper fiancé Machine Gun Kelly consume each other’s blood, however she claimed it was “for ritual purposes.”
Former fashion mogul Peter Nygard is on video with his former business partner Steve Powers talking about a company they created to replace DNA from white people inside the nucleus of eggs from African women to create what they call a genetically pure race.
Nygard also described how he wanted these black women to have abortions so he could use the fetal stem cells for “age-defying research.”
The masses are beginning to wake up to the depraved practices of the world’s elite and wealthy celebrities.
The globalists are increasing their attacks on Infowars and the stakes have never been higher!
Please consider donating and visit InfowarsStore.com for merch, nutraceuticals and survival gear.
Follow the author on X, Facebook, Gab, Minds, Truth Social and Gettr.
Slap On Wrist: DOJ Recommends Suspected Jan. 6 Provocateur Ray Epps Serve Six Months In Prison
The Biden Department of Justice is recommending suspected January 6th provocateur Ray Epps be handed a six-month prison sentence for his involvement in the debacle.
Filed on Tuesday, the DOJ sentencing memorandum claims Epps receiving a six-month sentence would be the “high end” of sentencing guidelines under the plea deal he reached with the feds.
BREAKING: The DOJ is recommending just six months in jail for Ray Epps, the only J6 defendant caught on camera telling people to go into the Capitol building.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 2, 2024
They say that they gave him a plea deal because he cooperated with the FBI, tried to “descalate conflict” and was the… pic.twitter.com/K96HHz8E7v
The document explains Epps turned himself in to the FBI within two days of learning he was on their “watch list,” and that he cooperated with the Bureau and Congress by sitting down for interviews.
Epps also allegedly “engaged in at least five efforts on January 6 to de-escalate conflict and avoid violence between rioters and police officers.”
Of course, Epps was documented telling individuals “we need to go into the Capitol” on Jan. 5th and, “We’re here to storm the capitol,” on Jan. 6th.
The suspected government informant or asset also texted his nephew about the events at the Capitol, writing, “I was in the front with a few others. I also orchestrated it.”
Continuing its bizarre list of why it took it easy on Epps, the DOJ states, “He also expressed what appears to be sincere remorse” and “Epps has been the target of a false and widespread conspiracy theory that he was an undercover government agent on January 6.”
It’s worth noting the document is basically declaring Epps was not a government asset despite the fact the FBI refused to say as much in 2022 when asked point-blank by GOP Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
Is Ray Epps a Fed?
— DirkDiggler (@Muffhugger) July 12, 2023
FBI Director: “I cannot answer that question” pic.twitter.com/TgdvurJ43J
Meanwhile, loads of prominent J6ers were hit with insanely long prison sentences, such as Purple Heart recipient Joe Biggs getting 17 years, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes’ 18-year punishment and Proud Boys Chairman Enrique Tarrio 22 year sentence despite him never setting foot in D.C. that day.
Biggs called into The Alex Jones Show from prison back in September to provide an update on his case and his time in jail:
Don’t forget, Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT! To continue funding this independent operation, we urge you to visit the Infowars Store where you can fund the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements, air and water filters, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more.