Author: Søren Roest Korsgaard

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 2 (Apr 2020)

Fluoridation amounts to public murder on a grand scale. 
– Dr. Dean Burk

More than sixty long years have passed since community water fluoridation began in Beaconsfield, Tasmania. A few decades passed and most of Australia’s water supplies had become fluoridated. 

When fluoride was first added to water supplies, asbestos was the preferred fireproofing material, PCBs were used as insulation and in pesticides, and the notoriously “safe and effective” DDT was sprayed in schools and from airplanes over large populations, killing tens of thousands of people from cancer and other diseases. All of these chemicals have been banned, except fluoridation. 

The first country to enforce fluoridation was the US that started this practice in 1945 and continues it to this day. Fluoridation is not a common practice, and in 2012 only about 5% of the world consumed fluoridated water. In the US, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has proclaimed that water fluoridation is “one of public health’s greatest success stories” and “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” 

Likewise, the Australian Department of Health declared that water fluoridation has been “endorsed by leading organisations in Australia and internationally,” and it has “made a significant contribution to improving the oral health of Australians.” Regarding safety issues, they claim there is “no evidence that water fluoridation at Australian levels is associated with other health effects such as thyroid dysfunction or cancer.” Many government scientists agree with these statements, such as Matthew Hopcraft, Clinical Associate Professor at the Melbourne Dental School. In 2017, he published an article claiming that fluoridation is “one of our greatest public health achievements, with evidence gathered over more than 60 years showing it works and is safe.” He went as far as to state that “making up infant formula with fluoridated tap water at levels found in Australia is safe.” 

Australian water supplies contain about 1 ppm of fluoride, i.e. one milligram per litre of water. If we adopt the mainstream reasoning that governments and their scientists serve the interest of the people, then there is no reason to dig any further. However, if we consider tobacco and numerous other hazardous chemicals and practices that at one point were touted to be safe by health authorities, then we should always be highly sceptical of “official truths.” In fact, numerous peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that Australian health authorities have deceived the public about the dangers of fluoridation. 

Intelligence 

While the CDC and many other organisations praise and glorify water fluoridation on their respective websites and elsewhere, they omit a massive body of peer-reviewed studies that correlate fluoride exposure with reduced IQ in humans. In fact, 64 studies that included a total of 23,773 children and 245 adults have documented this link. Many of these studies examined fluoride levels equivalent to or lower than the concentration found in Australian water supplies and adjusted for relevant variables such as socioeconomic status and toxins that affect IQ. 

Mainstream ‘experts’ also omit numerous animal studies that have thoroughly established fluoride can produce cognitive impairment in animals and bring about “anxiety-depression-like behaviours in mice” (Liu et al., 2014). Here are quotations from a small sample of these studies. Bartos and associates concluded in 2019 that “the present study reveals that exposure to [fluoride] in early stages of rat development leads to impairment of memory in young offspring.” Another rat study revealed that “the learning and memory of rats in [the fluoride] group significantly decreased” (Zheng et al., 2016). Jetti et al. showed in their 2016 study that “the rats that received fluoride water exhibited impairment in their spatial learning and memory deficits.” In 2014, a study led by Jiang S. reached the conclusion that “fluoride and arsenic, either alone or combined, can decrease learning and memory ability in rats.” Chioca and co-workers concluded in their 2008 study, which can be found in the European Journal of Pharmacology, that “moderate intoxication with sodium fluoride has potentially deleterious effects on learning and memory.” 

Dozens of animal studies have shown adverse cognitive effects in animals as well as many other issues not covered to any degree in this article, including cancer, infertility, loss of bone strength, and genetic damage, each topic requiring lengthy dissertations to cover. 

Now we will briefly summarise the conclusions of a few selected epidemiological studies. In 2009, Sudhir and co-workers studied 1,000 schoolchildren exposed to several degrees of fluoride: <0.7 ppm, 0.7-1.2 ppm, 1.3-4.0 ppm, and >4.0 ppm. Sudhir and his research team observed that the “number of intellectually impaired children were gradually increased with the increase in fluoride concentration in the drinking water” and a “high fluoride environment adversely affects the development of intelligence in children.”

Ding and co-workers examined low fluoride levels, between 0.24 and 2.84 ppm, and how they had affected 331 children. They showed that 1 mg of fluoride present in urine was associated with a 0.59-point decrease in IQ. Their study, which was published in 2011 in the Journal of Hazardous Materials, reached the conclusion that “low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.” 

Excessive fluoride intake produces easily seen damage to tooth enamel, called dental fluorosis. In its most severe form, the enamel begins to erode and crumble, often giving the appearance that the teeth are “rotten,” resulting in severe psychological problems, especially among children. Dental fluorosis becomes especially concerning when we consider the CDC’s own study on dental fluorosis in the United States. In the period 1999–2004, the prevalence of dental fluorosis in adolescents, aged 12–15, was 40.6%. For children and adolescents, aged 6-19, a total of 37% had dental fluorosis. A follow-up study by Eman Behbehani that focused on the period 2011-2012 showed that the number of affected had increased to 57% for those aged 6 to 19. Contrary to mainstream experts, fluoridation not only destroys health but also teeth and does so irreversibly. Numerous large-scale studies by independent scientists have demonstrated that populations with unfluoridated water do not have a higher incidence of cavities than in the US and Australia and that fluoridation is ineffective at best. 

Urine-fluoride levels are scrupulously (or rather unscrupulously) avoided by mainstream pro-fluoridation scientists in the US and Australia. However, one of the few studies that can be dug up dates back to 1985, named “Urinary fluoride levels in South Australian pre-school children in summer and winter.” It was found that in an area of South Australia (1 ppm of fluoride) the mean urine-fluoride level was 1.72 mg per litre during winter (note that children do not consume as much water as adults). A total of 103 children were excluded from the study as their parents fed them fluoride tablets as recommended by the government. According to the British Fluoridation Society, about 17,600,000 Australians consumed artificially fluoridated water in 2012. By invoking the data from the aforementioned study by Ding, it can be shown that fluoride in Australia is associated with a loss of at least 17.9 million IQ points. As we shall see, this figure underestimates the true nature of the carnage. 

In 2019, a major study was published in JAMA Pediatrics titled “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada.” This study, which had been funded by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Science and by the Canadian government, demonstrated that an increase of 1 mg of fluoride in urine among pregnant women resulted in a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, and collectively for both genders a drop of 3.66 IQ-points could be documented. 

It gets much worse. The US government approved and secretly installed “fluoridators” in schools across the US in the 1960s, and possibly earlier, and continued until the 1990s to adjust fluoride levels to as high as 5.4 ppm. In 1992, over 100,000 school children were exposed to this horror. Dr Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health, who has published several papers on fluoride, stated in 2014 that “fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” 

In a presentation on fluoride, renowned neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock asked: “If you’ve demonstrated [that fluoridation] doesn’t reach its objective: that is reducing cavities… Why is it still being added to the water? If it has these profound health effects, why is it still being added to the water?… Either they’re incredibly stupid and incompetent or criminal or they are doing it on purpose.”

Other Health Effects

This article has briefly examined a few selected studies revealing that fluoride affects IQ, but the problem does not end there. Fluoride causes havoc in the body. Fluoridation can damage the male reproductive system (see, for example, Freni et al., 1994), and studies from China, India, Mexico, and Russia show that high fluoride exposure can reduce male testosterone levels (see, for example, Peizhong et al., 1997). Those who live in fluoridated areas are well-advised to filter all of their water (even that which is used for showering). Inexpensive water filters removing fluoride are easily accessible (e.g. ZeroWater). Toothpaste without fluoride is readily available in health stores and online. 

Dr Dean Burk, one of the most famous and decorated cancer research scientists in the world during the 20th century, and Dr John Yiamouyiannis, president of the Safe Water Foundation, compared in a 1975 epidemiological survey the cancer mortality rate of central cities in the United States that were either fluoridated or unfluoridated. Prior to fluoridation, the cancer death rate remained identical for both sets of cities, but subsequent to fluoridation the cancer death rate skyrocketed in the fluoridated cities, but not in the unfluoridated ones. In 1976, Dr Burk was asked: “Is this conclusive evidence that fluoride kills because of cancer?” He replied as follows: “It is one of the most conclusive bits of scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” He added, “[fluoridation] amounts to public murder on a grand scale.” 

The explosive findings were a thorn in the side of the pro-fluoridation policy of the US government, and the study was criticised, the main contention being that the association could be explained away by demographic changes. In 1977, Burk and Yiamouyiannis addressed the criticism in another survey. They showed that sex, race, and age did not explain the significant cancer deaths correlated to fluoride. 

The cancer-fluoride survey led to three historic trials in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas in 1978-1982. Although pro-fluoridation scientists from the National Cancer Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Statistical Society, and the Royal College of Physicians attempted to dispute the evidence, three veteran trial judges in three different States found that water fluoridation causes cancer and other ailments in humans. In each of the trials, it had been shown that the US government, or their surrogates, had attempted to conceal laboratory studies showing that fluoride causes cancer, and left out available and pertinent data in their demographic adjustment of surveys linking fluoridation and human cancer (Graham et al., 1999). These findings were never disturbed on appeal. 

After the judicial findings, Dr Burk and co-workers published more expansive adjustments of demographic factors in epidemiological data in 1984 and 1988, showing that the evidence presented in court was too conservative. Specifically, Burk, Graham, and Morin showed in 1988 that “artificial fluoridation appears to cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years.” Using this data, it can easily be shown that at least a million excess cancer deaths in the United States have been caused or promoted by water fluoridation since this measure was endorsed by the government of the United States in 1951.

Fluoride also affects behaviour. Following extensive peer-review in 1995, Mullenix and co-workers published their study into the possible neurotoxicity of fluoride in rats. In order to eliminate bias, Mullenix utilised a computer-pattern-recognition-system to detect if fluoride had an effect on behaviour. Strikingly, it was discovered that fluoride produced life-long changes in behaviour. If young rats were exposed to fluoride in their drinking water for a few weeks of the rat’s lifetime, it produced hypoactivity. Mullenix later said, “they became slower, ‘couch potatoes’ if you like.” They also gave a one-time subcutaneous injection of fluoride into pregnant rats. As the offspring of those rats grew up, they became distinctly hyperactive, indicating that fluoride affects different regions of the brain depending on the time exposure. Mullenix and her team also discovered that “there was major accumulations of fluoride in all the regions of the brain, and that some areas looked like there were greater accumulations than others, that were sex-determinant.” 

Several other animal and epidemiological studies have supported the conclusions drawn by Mullenix, including Jennifer Anne Luke’s PhD dissertation in 1997 which showed that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland affecting melatonin production and results in accelerated onset of sexual maturation in female gerbils. In regard to hyperactivity, a 2015 study demonstrated that “state prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status…. Each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011” (Malin et al., 2015). 

Pursuant to Dr Blaylock, the effects of fluoridation and other environmental toxins are immense: “We’re seeing a society that not only has a lot more people of lower IQ, but a lot fewer people of higher IQ. In other words: a dumbing down, a chemical dumbing down of society. So everyone is sort of mediocre. That leaves them dependent on government, because they can’t excel. We have these people of lower IQ who are totally dependent. Then we have this mass of people who are going to believe anything they are told because they can’t really think clearly – and very few people of a very high IQ have good cognitive function who can figure this all out. And that’s what they want.”

Successive government officials, academics, mainstream experts, dentists, and journalists continue to cover-up fluoridation’s profoundly hazardous effects. The responsible parties must be hurled before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. 

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 2.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.

From New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 5 (Oct 2020)

In the so-called “developed world,” governments are working tirelessly to implement a digital dictatorship.¹ Convincing evidence shows that numerous countries are gearing up their respective countries for similar systems.² 

Since the false flag attack of 11 September 2001, the world has experienced an unprecedented escalation in the obliteration of civil and human rights.³ With suspicious synchronicity, governments acted in concert to strip citizens of fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and many others. In retrospect, the original plan, that commenced with the controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings and the attack on the Pentagon, has become manifest: an elite wants total control of you and everything else. 

The path toward totalitarianism has its victims, and today we can observe with clarity the consequences of giving power structures the privilege to manoeuvre unhindered. For example, legal systems have become geared toward injustice, science has been corrupted, technological advances that could benefit humanity have been utilised in the military and policing domain, and ‘enemy’ countries are invaded and bombed, often on false pretexts.⁴ 

Since 2001, a long list of mass casualty events – some of which were exposed as false flag attacks with direct evidence – have been conducted to maintain official narratives and further the elitist agenda of a digital gulag.^5,6 

Most recently, the supposed unprecedented ‘Black Death’-like dangers of COVID-19 resulted in the largest human experiment in history with billions of people reduced to chess pieces in a larger game directed by the mass media and other institutions.⁷ Unanimously, governments worldwide, regardless of political ideology and system, acted in near-perfect tandem, wiping out whatever was left of our rights and inventing a “new normal,” a grotesque and Orwellian term, part of a long list of modifications made to the dictionary by the mass media and government institutions. 

We now move to the all-important question: How will it be to live in a digital prison? 

Surrogate Solitary Confinement

We have plenty of historical firsthand accounts of how it was to live under dictatorships not involving advanced technology. Living in a technologically controlled dictatorship is likely to be much worse than under past dictatorships. One of the central reasons for the inevitable worsening living conditions is that the technology runs without interruption, constantly collecting and analysing massive amounts of data in a split second. In stark contrast, everything had to be done manually in the more primitive dictatorships of the past. Technology allows for total dominance and subversion (if the ‘power’ stays turned on). 

Most people – but especially those who regularly use internet-based communication – already assume they are being spied on all the time, in part due to the revelations of whistleblowers and alleged whistleblowers. There are also ‘controlled’ whistleblowers who release information to further the agenda of the elite. For example, Edward Snowden, whose documents revealed nothing new, appeared on front pages across the world. He was interviewed countless times on TV, and bestselling autobiographies were published after he went public with his supposedly secretly and illegally obtained documents from the US National Security Agency (NSA).^8,9 

Previous whistleblowers who revealed the exact same information, like Bill Binney, a former director of the NSA, are labelled “conspiracy theorists” and deliberately ignored by the mass media, a clear indication that at that time, the elite had no interest in exposing their secret surveillance. Later, it was to their advantage to tell the world about the massive spying and intrusion of privacy. Of course, an NSA-equivalent government institution exists in most developed countries, surveilling citizens and sharing data with other countries.¹⁰ 

The elite essentially wants you to believe that you have zero privacy, and they will find out if you misbehave. It is well-known that people change their behaviours when they think they are being spied on. In a highly advanced dictatorship, there will be little or no privacy; essentially, you will never know when you are private or when you are being spied on – delivering, in effect, total surveillance. The likely consequences of a digital dictatorship are as follows:

A. Isolation-like measures imposed on those who cannot stay within the framework of the system. 

B. Full ‘matrix’-style manufactured news via advanced digital manipulation. 

C. Anti-establishment content, such as this article very difficult if not impossible to find, and punishment for accessing it. 

D. In addition to the technology, strangers and friends monitor your behaviour and report you to the authorities if you are not behaving correctly (‘mental health’ issues). You will never know who is a friend or an enemy. The Chinese social credit system rewards people for spying on each other.

E. Facial recognition software identifies and tracks you almost everywhere you go. 

F. You are forced to alter your thought patterns if, in any way, your thoughts “offend” the state, which may use “cognitive spyware”¹¹ to control your thoughts. 

It can be argued that the conditions of living under constant stress in a digital prison produce the same psychiatric outcomes as when people are exposed to solitary confinement, which is classified as torture by the United Nations.¹² 

Being unable to express your innermost feelings due to fear of punishment – humans are complex biological and spiritual beings – can result in feelings of social isolation and inhibition. 

In the early 1990s, Dr Stuart Grassian conducted extensive interviews with people held in isolation at the Pelican Bay State Prison, a supermax prison in California. Dr Grassian discovered that solitary confinement “induces a psychiatric disorder, which he called ‘SHU Syndrome’, characterised by hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations, panic attacks, cognitive deficits, obsessive thinking, paranoia, and a litany of other physical and psychological problems. Psychological assessments of men in solitary at Pelican Bay indicated high rates of anxiety, nervousness, obsessive ruminations, anger, violent fantasies, nightmares, trouble sleeping, as well as dizziness, perspiring hands, and heart palpitations.”¹³

Although it is a subject with considerably many facets, including economic advancement and even spurious diagnoses, the great rise in mental disorders in the West can likely, in part, be ascribed to the increase in stress and demands of modern society. It is highly likely that mental disorders will explode under conditions of digital totalitarian confinement. 

Regardless of psychiatric diagnoses, the living conditions inside a social crediting system strongly resemble that of regular prisons: Everything has to be done in a certain way, there is no privacy, cameras everywhere, and snitches are on every street corner ready to reveal your infractions to better their own abysmal situation. No creativity is allowed within this rigid control grid, every wrongdoing instantly reduces your privileges, and you are expected to do what you are told to do and not ask questions. A digital prison will be a real-life nightmare with serious consequences for the well-being of the majority. 

Fusion between Fiction & Real-Life Events

People generally fall victim to propaganda designed to push through politically expedient laws that reduce individual discernment and disenfranchise the masses. In the future, propaganda will see new levels of sophistication such as undetectable digitally manufactured events. At that time, even dissidents and critically thinking academics, if they still exist, will have trouble discerning real-life events from that manufactured to sustain the system, and keep people asleep and conforming to the “new normal.” As the flow of information is highly restricted, it becomes easier to persuade, manipulate, and convince the masses of blatant lies. The elite will assuredly want to control your reality to the greatest extent possible.

There will undoubtedly be people who can cope with the draconian rules. It remains, however, a distinct possibility that the majority will become chronically stressed from constant surveillance, lack of privacy, and anti-human processes. 

Presenting a full description of how life will be in a digital dictatorship could easily take up several volumes. For example, we could mention transhumanist dreams of fusing AI into human biology and its effect on those going down that path or discuss how “implanted memories”¹⁴ and technology will play a key role in creating the future “model citizen.” 

Overall and essentially, in this world we will experience autonomous systems disrupting and depriving people of what has been called “the power process.”¹⁵ For instance, autonomous robotic technology and machines will replace factory workers, self-driving vehicles will replace bus and taxi drivers, food will be chemically manufactured by printers rather than harvested, etc.¹⁶ In a digital tyranny, it is essential to reduce and control the masses into simple compliant cogs in the social machine, like the reliable algorithms of AI systems and robotics. 

Ultimately, humans become depressed, lethargic, and apathetic if they do not have meaningful goals in which attainment requires effort; hence, the power process has been disrupted. We use goals to give our bodies (and minds) the exercise it needs to function optimally. Unlike historical dictatorships, the possible future one will likely offer the physical necessities of life (think ‘universal basic income’). The danger of a digital dictatorship is that may offer convenience, safety and even perceived luxuries (think ‘Brave New World’) in a wide range of areas, but the convenience comes at great cost. 

‘Morality Pills’ for Dissidents

Three years ago, I made a bold prediction in my article “The Notion of Evil Killer Genes Examined”:

In the foreseeable future, if western governments embrace the highly questionable notion that violence is, in large part, a result of genes rather than environment and culture, it could lead to enforcement of mandatory genetic editing such that future generations would not have allegedly undesirable genes. To persuade public opinion, the spurious argument could be injected via the mainstream media that opponents to genetic editing are responsible for violence and killings carried out by those with bad genes because they allow such genes to exist.¹⁷ 

Three years later, the very idea of covertly modifying behaviour – deemed undesirable by the people in power in the name of the public good – appears to be on the agenda. The elite are fully aware that the “last refuge,” when everything else fails or is corrupted, is the human mind. Power is the money of the elite, and they want control of your cognitive faculties. They want perfect citizens, a new generation of bovine conformism, created and shaped by neurologically targeting human decision-making processes.

Recently, Dr Parker Crutchfield, an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law at the Western Michigan University, advocated Nazi-like government intervention by administering “moral enhancement” to noncooperative people for the alleged “public good.”¹⁸ The doctor explicitly says that “the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement.”¹⁹ 

In a 2018 peer-reviewed paper, “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert,” he argued that “a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.”²⁰ He later suggested that it perhaps should be done via “the water supply.”²¹ His later paper, “The epistemology of moral bioenhancement,” notes that “Moral bioenhancement is the potential practice of manipulating individuals’ moral behaviours by biological means in order to help resolve pressing moral issues such as climate change and terrorism.”²²

If Nazi doctor Josef Mengele had lived to see the aforementioned recommendations and the new technological ability of modern science to manipulate behaviour, it would have brought a cynical smile to his old lips. As is well-known, Dr Mengele conducted horrific human experiments on subjects regarded as undesirable, or unworthy of life, by the establishment. His experiments revolved around the spurious philosophy that the Aryan race was superior to other races due to genetics rather than environment. Although strongly condemned by the scientific community, it is striking how some vocal scientists are publicly encouraging methods that parallel the ruthless, inhuman, and grotesque methods of Dr Mengele whose experiments were carried out within the law but without the consent of the participants. The idea that there is a necessary nexus between morality and legal validity is pseudoscientific nonsense. 

The well-paid scientific technocratic elite, legislators, and the like, in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies and other powerful institutions, frequently cite the purported lack of morality of dissidents who, for example, refuse to let their children be injected with aluminium-laden vaccines, despite the fact that studies have found a causal link between aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease.^23,24 The elite, and scientists like Dr Crutchfield, equate “good moral behaviour” with what they deem appropriate for “the public good.” Collectivism has many victims, not limited to the destruction of axiomatic individual rights. In reality, what is considered good or evil is highly variable within societies and cultures, dependant on historical and spiritual developments, and subject to change over long periods of time. 

It is increasingly apparent that the world religion of the 21^st century is scientism. In his masterpiece, “Our New Technocratic Lords,” philosopher Jerry Day eloquently describes how science has become a powerful vehicle for population control:

Science is being used as a means of social control. That means control of you. Both science and religion have been used throughout history as mechanisms of social control. The elite classes put forth the idea that they know something the common classes do not know, and therefore the common classes must heed the commands of the elites. The elites claim that they have heard God speak, or they have discovered some new mysterious science, and the common masses must, for their own survival and protection, follow the direction of the wise and learned elites. 

Science, when applied politically, is just another faith. It is a faith controlled by central authorities who pick and choose the science they wish to use to achieve goals, applying terminology such as climate change. Anything referred to as science is supposed to be taken as true or real and not to be questioned. Of course, true science is the practice of unwavering scepticism and inquiry, constant challenge, and re-evaluation. Science as a political tool is no longer science: it is behavioural control, power over others. When science is used politically, it is not research, inquiry, exploration, or progress as science is supposed to be. In political application, science is simply dogma and tyranny. Real science is always evolving, open to question, and should never be used as a device for social control. The only thing that justifies control of humans is when those humans grant informed consent to be controlled, not as a voting mass, but one by one, individually, with the power of revocation of that grant. Science is incidental to such political enterprise. 

You might say that real science is the discovery of physical reality. In politics, science is turned into something very different. Science is redefined to mean group truth, imposed reality, inflexible absolutist doctrine, something you must agree with and behave accordingly, or suffer reprisal at the hands of the state. There will never be any such thing as group truth. A group is nothing but a bunch of individuals with individual viewpoints. Individually, we believe whatever we want, whenever we want.²⁵

Conclusion: Conformity is Insanity

By observing the overall reaction of people to the ever-harsher demands of the powerful and over-privileged, we can safely conclude that people generally embrace conformity; resisting the establishment requires energy and dangerous commitment. Society, backed by the power of the mass media, largely accepts, without question, the pious platitudes regurgitated by the rich and wealthy. The masses eagerly vote for a new candidate, hoping this time it will get better, but nothing changes. Change by means of voting is an illusory quest: a system can never be changed in the long-term within the legal and moral boundaries set up by ruling elites. Voting maintains the power of the elite; if voting could transform society it would have been made illegal. 

Considering the rapid changes to living conditions in the last few years, even months, without any signs of resistance, it appears that unless a major collapse of developed countries takes place – financial and social – it is likely we will end up in a digital prison. At that time, it might be too late to resist. Thus, unless a collapse takes place or a powerful quasi-religion emerges to swallow the elite and other parasitic entities, then, inescapably, freedom will be illegal in the future.   

[alert type=”general” dismiss=”no”]This article was published in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 14 No 5.[/alert]

[alert type=”success” dismiss=”no”]If you appreciate this article, please consider subscribing to help maintain this website.[/alert]

Footnotes

1. “One World Digital Dictatorship” www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/05/one-world-digital-dictatorship/

2. Ibid. 

3. “Key Evidence of Controlled Demolition” www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview 

4. “US-Imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide,” Dr. Gideon Polya (Korsgaard Publishing 2020) 

5. Ibid. 

6. “BOSTON BOMBING CHRONICLES” www.crimeandpower.com/boston-bombing-chronicles/ (Korsgaard Publishing 2020)

7. “The New 9/11: A Global Virus Pandemic,” New Dawn 180 (May-June 2020)

8. “What Do We Know About Edward Snowden? Webster G. Tarpley” www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zPkhkEr7Ko 

9. “How to identify CIA limited hangout?” https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/04/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout/

10. “UKUSA Agreement” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement 

11. “One World Digital Dictatorship” www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/05/one-world-digital-dictatorship/

12. “The United States is the Largest Prison Camp in the World”, www.crimeandpower.com/2019/12/06/the-united-states-is-the-largest-prison-camp-in-the-world/

13. “What are the psychological effects of solitary confinement?” https://solitarywatch.org/facts/faq/

1. “’Implanted’ Memories Indistinguishable from Real Ones”, New Dawn 180 (May-June 2020)

15. “Technological Slavery,” Ted Kaczynski (Fitch & Madison Publishers 2019) 

16. “Here’s how 3D food printers are changing what we eat”, www.techrepublic.com/article/heres-how-3d-food-printers-are-changing-the-way-we-cook/ 

17. “The Notion of Evil Killer Genes Examined” www.crimeandpower.com/2019/09/30/the-notion-of-evil-killer-genes-examined/ 

18. “‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist” https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

19. Ibid.

20. “Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12496

21 Ibid.

22. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=oEHIR14AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

23. “Alzheimer’s Disease Linked to Exposure to Aluminum” https://scitechdaily.com/alzheimers-disease-linked-to-exposure-to-aluminum/

24. “Aluminum and Amyloid-β in Familial Alzheimer’s Disease” https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad191140

25. “Our New Technocratic Lords” www.crimeandpower.com/2020/01/20/our-new-technocratic-lords/

© New Dawn Magazine and the respective author.
For our reproduction notice, click here.