Connect with us

Spread & Containment

The Globalist Vision: “15 Minute” Prison Cities And The End Of Private Property

The Globalist Vision: "15 Minute" Prison Cities And The End Of Private Property

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

As a general…



The Globalist Vision: "15 Minute" Prison Cities And The End Of Private Property

Authored by Brandon Smith via,

As a general rule I find that whenever the public scrutinizes any particular agenda being promoted by governments and globalists their first response is to act indignant, much like a narcissist would do when they are up to no good and they get caught.

“How dare you” question their intentions and suggest they might be nefarious.

How dare you suggest they are anything other than loving and benevolent.

Our “leaders” have only ever wanted the best for us, right?

They only want our lives to become safer, more comfortable and more convenient – This is what truly motivates your average elitist, right?

Obviously history tells us a far different story, and it boggles my mind when anyone tries to argue that things are different today compared to 100 years ago, 300 years ago, or 1000 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun. There will always be tyrants attempting to gain more and more power and those tyrants will always lie to the public, claiming they are good people with our best interests at heart.

When that doesn’t work and the citizenry remains skeptical, the tyrants go on the attack, accusing the public of “conspiracy theory.” This is meant to mock and shame free thinkers into silence – You don’t want to stand out, right? Why risk being ostracized from society? Why risk becoming a meme?

This tactic is rooted in the notion that the corporate media and government officials represent the mainstream, and therefore they represent the majority, and the majority represents reality.  None of this is true or relevant, of course. Only facts matter. Sophistry is meaningless. Opinions are meaningless. The truth should be the goal, and if it’s not someone’s goal then they must be a purveyor of lies and should not be taken seriously. There are only two paths to take, there is no in-between.

I will admit there is some value to the “conspiracy theory” accusation because whenever the establishment uses it, it’s a sure sign that you are too close to the target and they are getting nervous. They could simply try to outline any evidence they might have to prove that your position is wrong, but they don’t really do that. Instead of debating your arguments and evidence, they try to undermine you as a valid critic and inoculate the public against your ideas before people ever get a chance to hear them. This is the behavior of villains, not benevolent and caring leaders.

I mention this dynamic because there is one agenda above all others that is aggressively defended by the establishment media, and anyone who remotely questions it is automatically persecuted as a “conspiracy nut” or “denier.” I am of course talking about the climate change agenda.

I have thoroughly debunked the idea of man-made climate change in previous articles and I won’t be spending time on that here.

Instead, I want to examine the end goal of climate change policies – The ultimate solution, which is NOT to save the planet, but to dominate the populace.

The names used for the climate change “reset” vary, but it is often referred to by globalists and the UN as Agenda 2030 or Sustainable Development Goals.  These programs wear a facade of environmentalism but they are ALL rooted in economics.  That is to say, all climate change efforts exist to destroy industry and trade and establish a government/corporate partnership to dominate production.  Climate change is a Trojan Horse to introduce authoritarianism.

I believe one of the most important aspects of Agenda 2030 for globalists is something called the “15 Minute City”; a project which involves hundreds of city mayors from across the US, Europe and Asia working closely with groups like the World Economic Forum. Any mention of this idea in a negative light and the media erupts with anger as well as mockery as if it’s not a real issue worthy of debate.

The establishment paints an interesting picture of 15 Minute Cities – A Utopian future in which everything you need is only a short walk away and private transportation is superfluous (or banned). You might even live in mega-complex, much like a giant mall where you also work. You could spend months within one square mile of space, never having to leave for anything.

It’s no mistake that this idea was pushed hard during the pandemic lockdowns. The public was awash in fear propaganda over a virus with a 99.8% survival rate and that fear made the unthinkable idea of staying at home all the time suddenly thinkable. Media pundits continue to call the connection between covid lockdowns and climate lockdowns a conspiracy theory, but the idea is openly admitted in UN and WEF white papers.

Some people argue that most cities are already “15 Minute Cities” with necessities all within walking distance of their homes. These folks don’t understand what a 15 Minute City really is. As numerous establishment descriptions of the project note, it’s not just about convenience or close access, it’s about changing every aspect of our current philosophy of living. It’s not about gaining amenities, it’s about making an array of sacrifices in order to appease the gods of carbon emissions.

The 15 Minute City is more like a recipe, containing every single ingredient of the climate change and covid lockdown agendas in a single comprehensive Orwellian vision. It includes removing motor vehicles, removing private transportation and roads, smart city and AI monitoring of each person’s electricity usage, monitoring of product consumption and “carbon footprint”, biometric surveillance within a compact and stacked urban landscape, the cashless society concept, equity and inclusion cultism, population control, etc.

It is the culmination, the end game; a massive prison with no bars. A place where you are conditioned to grow accustomed to artificial limitations on privacy, no civil liberties, no private property, and no work options or mobility. You are tied to the land and the land is owned by the state (or corporation). If you want a historic comparison, the closest I can find is the feudal system of Medieval Europe.

Within these cities you are a labor mechanism, nothing more. You will never be allowed to own your own property and thus own your own labor. Everything you have is given to you by the state and can be taken away by the state if you defy them. You might be able to leave the village or community you are tied to for a time, but this will change with increasing restrictions on the public’s movement according to the dictates of climate ideology.

As long as you are productive and submissive you will be give the things you need to survive, but never to thrive. In the case of a technocratic feudal system you would not have any guarantees that the state would need your services. At least in feudal Europe a peasant was seen as valuable resource because of limited population.  In a world where many people are considered “population excess”, you could easily be replaced and booted out of the city to starve and die.

In 2016 the World Economic Forum published a document titled ‘Welcome To 2030. I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy, And Life Has Never Been Better.’ The article was meant to promote a concept called the “sharing economy” which was first publicly fielded to the press at Davos.  The article describes a “hypothetical” future in which a communistic system has ended all private property in the name of saving the planet from climate change. The benefits? Well, like all communistic systems, the big lie is that you will get to work less and most things will be free. This is how collectivist ideals have been sold to the populace for generations and it NEVER works the way the establishment claims.

The WEF has been promoting the sharing economy for years, but when it went mainstream and was widely criticized as dystopian, the media once again flipped the “conspiracy theory” switch and attacked anyone exposing the implications.

Multiple platforms published the article in 2016 but many have since taken it down (Forbes appears to have erased their published copy, for example). They are pretending as if the agenda never existed, probably because the article contains some revealing admissions, including a hint at the 15 Minute City concept. From the article:

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me”

In other words, the globalists imagine a future were the malcontent free thinkers and people replaced by AI are outcasts, scratching and scraping out a meaningless existence in the wastelands of the old world. To stay in the bosom of the new world you will be required to give up all freedom, even freedom of thought. Keep in mind, this article is supposed to be a “positive” promotion of the shared economy and 15 Minute-related cities. Yet, this excerpt sounds more like a threat.

It’s important to understand that these compact cities will not be designed for your comfort.  They will not be designed so that you can have all the amenities you have today closer to your fingertips while also providing “sustainability.” That’s how the globalists try to sell it, but that’s not what it will be. Rather, these cities will be designed to better CONTROL you, so that you can be forced to make the sacrifices they say are necessary for sustainability to be possible.

They are erroneously billed as “decentralized communities,” but they are the exact opposite – They are utterly centralized, like a hamster cage where you are the pet.  The core philosophy behind them is dependency.  If you live in a place which is specifically constructed to eliminate your ability to provide for yourself, then you are a slave.  Though, to be sure, even slavery can be made to look noble if people are convinced that their chains are necessary for the good of the planet.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Tyler Durden Sun, 11/12/2023 - 07:00

Read More

Continue Reading


Running On Censorship: A California Candidate Seeks To Ride The Anti-Free Speech Wave

Running On Censorship: A California Candidate Seeks To Ride The Anti-Free Speech Wave

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It is not easy to unseat…



Running On Censorship: A California Candidate Seeks To Ride The Anti-Free Speech Wave

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It is not easy to unseat an incumbent in Congress, but Will Rollins believes that he has hit on a guaranteed winner to galvanize Democratic support in California’s 41st congressional district.

He is pledging to push for greater censorship to stop those “profiting by spreading division based on lies.”

Of course, the former assistant U.S. Attorney suggests that he will know who is lying and who should be allowed to speak freely.

Rollins is also running on his role “prosecuting insurrectionists” from January 6. While most of us condemned the riot on that day and supported the prosecution of those who broke into the Capitol, polls show that most Americans do not view what occurred as an actual insurrection or rebellion.

That, however, is a legitimate matter of debate and people of good faith can differ in how they view the crimes committed that day. What is far more serious is the embrace of censorship as a political cause.

Rollins pledged to stop people saying things that “erode our democracy.” His policy platform promises “accountability” for tech platforms that “spread conspiracy theories” and do not yield to demands for censorship. It appears to be a pitch to restore censorship systems on sites like X but also pledges to go after “media outlets.”

He is not alone in such efforts. Democratic members caused a firestorm previously by writing to cable carriers like AT&T to ask why they are still allowing people to watch FOX News. Rollins promises to crackdown on “propaganda networks to protect the public’s right to be informed.” He does not identify which networks would be targeted, but the assumption is that it is not MSNBC. (For full disclosure, I am a legal analyst on Fox News). However, he wants ramped up penalties for anything that he considers “harmful lies and conspiracy theories.”

Of course, one person’s “conspiracy theory” is another person’s news. It is again unlikely that Rollins will be pursuing the Washington Post which recently reaffirmed that it is standing by past false claims made about Lafayette Park, the Hunter Biden laptop, and Russian collusion. Rollins is not likely referencing the false conspiracy theories funded by the Clinton campaign like the Alfa Bank allegations.

As someone who was raised in a liberal, politically active Democratic family in Chicago, I remember when the party championed free speech as a touchstone of the party. Now it is often treated as an existential threat to democracy.

In recent hearings on the government’s censorship programs, Democratic members and pundits attacked witnesses as “Putin lovers” or supporters of “insurrectionists” in opposing censorship.

President Joe Biden is now arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. His administration is unabashedly and unrepentantly pursuing the silencing of those with opposing views. Jen Easterly, who heads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, extended her agency’s mandate over critical infrastructure to include “our cognitive infrastructure.” That includes combating “malinformation” – described as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”

Democratic members have warned social media companies that they will not tolerate any backsliding after Elon Musk dismantled the massive censorship system at Twitter.

In one hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate on past censorship. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) pushed back on statements from the witnesses suggesting an effort to protect free speech and reminded them that “the pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm” as well as “climate change misinformation policy” and “climate denialism.”

It did not matter that many censored over their views on the efficacy of masks or the necessity of shutting down schools have been vindicated. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 was denounced as a conspiracy theory. Even after the theory was embraced by government agencies as possible or the most likely explanation, science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli,  continued to denounce the theory as “racist.”

The concerning aspect of Rollins’ campaign is that censorship was largely used as a political tactic in Washington to silence critics and opposing views. It is now an actual political campaign. It shows how speech regulation has become popular with the rank-and-file in the party. It now defines the party.

Campaigning for censorship should be a warning sign of the breakdown of democratic values. Limiting free speech is akin to cutting off oxygen to the body politic. It produces atrophy in a system, the breakdown of our political tissues. That is also reflected in a recent poll that shows that 52% of Biden supporters say Republicans are now a threat to American life while 47% of Trump supporters say the same about Democrats. Roughly 40% of both parties believe violence is now justified and roughly a quarter of both parties now question our system of government.

Politicians fuel that anger by running on silencing their opponents in the name of disinformation or malinformation. It is of course popular. Rage is often popular. Indeed, it can be addictive. Yet, what remains is release from reason in the blind pursuit of those with opposing views.

Will Rollins is right that this is a popular pitch for an age of rage. However, it is the political version of the Dead Sea Fruits that were irresistible to pick but would turn to ashes in one’s mouth. Silencing others creates an insatiable appetite for combating an ever widening circle of “lies.” Until, that is, when you find yourself encircled by your own truth police.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/09/2023 - 20:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

What human diseases can teach us about the immune system

The immune system is a crucial part of our survival, regularly fending off wide-ranging attacks on the body, both internal and external. Unsurprisingly,…



The immune system is a crucial part of our survival, regularly fending off wide-ranging attacks on the body, both internal and external. Unsurprisingly, the elegant defense system that protects us from viruses, bacterial infections, cancer, and other threats is immensely complicated. Each time it mounts a response, it must quickly and carefully orchestrate communication across vast numbers of cells and molecules.

Credit: Oyler-Yaniv lab

The immune system is a crucial part of our survival, regularly fending off wide-ranging attacks on the body, both internal and external. Unsurprisingly, the elegant defense system that protects us from viruses, bacterial infections, cancer, and other threats is immensely complicated. Each time it mounts a response, it must quickly and carefully orchestrate communication across vast numbers of cells and molecules.

Jennifer Oyler-Yaniv is working to figure out how, exactly, the immune system does this — and when and why it fails. 

“There’s always the next question, the next thing we don’t understand. As a scientist, I have full creative freedom to get obsessed with problems,” said Oyler-Yaniv, who is an assistant professor of systems biology in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS.

In an ironic twist, Oyler-Yaniv launched her lab at HMS — which she co-leads with her partner, Alon Oyler-Yaniv — at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when immunology was garnering new levels of attention from scientists and the public alike.

Straddling the worlds of immunology and systems biology, the Oyler-Yaniv lab is using cancer as a model system to uncover the basic principles of how cells in the immune system communicate. In a conversation with Harvard Medicine News, Oyler-Yaniv discussed her interest in immunology, her approach to research, and her insights about the immune system and cancer.

HMNews: How would you describe the essence of your work?

Oyler-Yaniv: We’re an immunology lab that asks quantitative questions about the immune system. Broadly, we’re interested in how signaling molecules travel through tissues in the body, and how their behavior changes once they get to the target cells they’re going to act on. Specifically, we study cytokines, which are signaling molecules that enable cells in the immune system to communicate with each other. Cytokines are essential for the immune system to clear pathogens and kill tumors, but they can cause damage to the body when they act on cells not involved in the immune response. Because of that, their spatial dynamics must be very tightly regulated.

Our lab has two big wings. One wing is focused on understanding the biophysical principles that regulate the spread of cytokines through three-dimensional, dense tissues. We want to understand how these cytokines are spatially distributed in tissues, and what factors affect their distribution. We are interested in this topic from a basic immunology perspective, and for its clinical applications to cancer. On the other side, we’re interested in how cytokines change their decision-making when they act on cells, including decisions such as whether to die, proliferate, or become dormant. These decisions have important implications for viral infections and cancer.

HMNews: What sparked your interest in immunology?

Oyler-Yaniv: My interest in immunology took off during grad school. Immunotherapy was becoming a viable treatment option for people with cancer, and I was at Memorial Sloan Cancer Center, where a lot of the pioneering work was being done. We would see these survival curves where people who were very sick with cancer and expected to die enrolled in a clinical trial and ended up responding to immunotherapy. It was an incredibly energizing and exciting time to see what the immune system could do to treat cancer, and being in that environment provided me with a huge momentum to study the immune system. I’m interested in the immune system beyond cancer immunotherapy, but that was the catalyst for what got me so excited about it in the first place.

HMNews: You are an immunologist. Why did you join a systems biology department?

Oyler-Yaniv: As a field, systems biology aspires to extract details to find general principles and repeating patterns. That’s something I’m very interested in. My lab aims to identify broader patterns in the way groups of tissues or molecules behave to understand general principles of the immune system. For example, some of our research focuses on how the cytokine interleukin-2 interacts with immune cells called T cells. We are, of course, interested in the biology of that specific interaction, but we also think that it can be a model system to understand how cells communicate more generally. Ultimately, we hope that finding these general principles that can be applied broadly to different diseases and tissues will allow us to form a more unified view of the immune system.

Being in a systems biology department is helpful because we have the perspective of people who care about finding general principles and we are also able to do a lot of mathematical modeling. We use computational tools like machine learning to analyze very large imaging data sets, including data sets from human tumor specimens. A strength of our lab is analyzing those data sets to understand the spatial relationships between different cell types. We also do a lot of live cell microscopy and experiments with basic mouse models of disease, just like every other immunology lab. I think we are in a hybrid space between systems biology and immunology.

HMNews: Your lab recently published a paper on cytokines in melanoma. What were the central findings?

Oyler-Yaniv: I’ve been interested in the pro-inflammatory cytokine interferon-gamma for a long time. Interferon-gamma is an important cytokine in cancer because it is absolutely essential for certain cancer immunotherapies to work. Yet there have been really conflicting studies in mice and humans about the spatial spread of this cytokine through dense tissues — specifically, how far it can spread through a tumor. Some studies claim that this cytokine is released only to its nearest neighbor, and others claim that it can spread over long distances. We approached this question of spatial spread from a biophysics perspective: We generated dense, three-dimensional tissues in a lab dish that allowed us to have a lot of control over the experimental parameters as we investigated how far this cytokine can travel.

In a previous study, working with interleukin-2 as a model system, we found that the spread of molecules through dense tissue is a competition between diffusion, which spreads them further, and consumption, or uptake of molecules by cells with receptors that bind to them. In the new study, we found this is also true for interferon-gamma in the context of melanoma: We could predict how far interferon-gamma would spread in a tumor based on the amount and distribution of cells producing the cytokine and cells with receptors that bind to it. One of our key conclusions was that the only way you get widespread penetration of interferon-gamma through a tumor is if you have a lot of cells producing it and those cells are evenly distributed throughout the tissue. We think that this information could help refine biomarkers to identify who is likely to respond to immunotherapy. We are interested in applying this framework to understanding drug penetration with the idea that drugs are not too different from cytokines in how they spread through a tumor.

HMNews: When you aren’t in the lab, what else do you spend time on at HMS?

Oyler-Yaniv: I teach a science communication and ideation course to our first-year graduate students, which is one of two required courses. I care a lot about helping students communicate more effectively and helping them acquire confidence in coming up with new ideas. There are a lot of misconceptions in science that an idea just pops into someone’s head, when it’s really a lot of storytelling and putting pieces of data together. Research is a team effort, and coming up with ideas is hard. I think that we can normalize that for students and also help them develop a positive attitude and a mindset that it will get easier with time. This is especially important for students who might not have any scientists in their family, so might not be aware of these misconceptions about how creativity works in science. We can also give students some techniques to actually do it — to learn how to come up with ideas, and how to be original and innovative. These are things that are studied and taught in creative fields, but not really in science, so we want to do that.

Authorship, funding, disclosures

Additional authors on the PNAS paper include Edoardo Centofanti, Chad Wang, Sandhya Iyer, Oleg Krichevsky, and Alon Oyler-Yaniv.

This interview was edited for length and clarity

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

How The Billionaire Elite Manipulate The World

How The Billionaire Elite Manipulate The World

Authored by Raymond Ibrahim via,

What is ultimately behind so many of…



How The Billionaire Elite Manipulate The World

Authored by Raymond Ibrahim via,

What is ultimately behind so many of the (manufactured) ills currently plaguing the West, from leftist lunacy and gender insanity to unnecessary lockdowns and wars?

In a word, the ultra-rich -- the billionaire elite.  So argues bestselling author Hanne Nabintu Herland in her latest book, The Billionaire World: How Marxism Serves the Elite.

In a series of brisk chapters, Herland -- a historian of religions and founder of The Herland Report -- traces all the world’s major problems back to the billionaire elite and their use of Marxist repression and social engineering. 

While this may seem counterintuitive, Herland makes -- and documents -- several powerful arguments. 

The fact that a tiny elite control much can be seen in that  even seemingly opposing and competing brands, such as Coke and Pepsi, are usually owned by the same company, says Herland.  The same applies to supposedly opposing “leftist” and “rightist” media. Six corporations control 90% of all U.S. media. As for the political arena, the “richest 0.01% have accounted for 40% of all campaign contributions through corporate donations.”

In short, “These mastodonte private companies completely dominate our way of life, what we eat, drink, watch on TV, what we wear, and who we vote for.”

Little wonder that, no matter what happens in the world, and no matter how such developments are detrimental to the average person, the ultra-rich tend to only get richer. According to Herland, “82% of all wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1% among us, while the poorest world population of 3.7 billion saw no increase in wealth.” 

But it’s worse than that; there seems to be a direct correlation between how much poorer the average man gets and how much richer the billionaires get.  Writes Herland,

[T]he richest among us made billions of dollars on the COVID-19 world tragedy, while the world’s poor plunged into unimaginable poverty…  The shutdown strategy made the billionaires’ profit soar.  In the span of just a few months in 2020, Bill Gates made $75 billion, Jeff Bezos $67.9 billion, Mark Zuckerberg $37.8 billion, and Elon Musk $33.6 billion.

Meanwhile, 48% of small business owners in America experienced severe economic turmoil -- with fully one-third of them going bankrupt, and with Black-owned businesses suffering disproportionately -- due to this lockdown that otherwise profited the billionaires.

From a macro-historic perspective, the  West is slowly regressing, and the ultra-rich are becoming “the globalist version of feudal lords, as the new Western slave class emerges beneath them.”

But how did this lamentable state of affairs comes to pass in the first place?  Marxism -- in its myriad forms and iterations -- is Herland’s answer.  Since the 1960s, beginning with the “free sex and drugs” movement, Marxism, especially in the guise of godless materialism, has wormed its way into Western culture, poisoning, corrupting and destroying everything that originally made the West great, and therefore making it ripe for the most powerful -- meaning the richest -- to manipulate and control.   Writes Herland,

The Marxist attack on historic Western values has weakened the very core of our culture, destroyed social stability and the family, quenched free speech and silenced the people -- and thereby removed the obstacles for the billionaire class to gain centralized control… The combination of strong private corporations coupled with political socialist ideologies has pushed for a radical groupthink model in which the population is expected to agree with the consensus -- not unlike that which we witnessed during National Socialism in Germany before and during World War II.”

Marxism is especially apt at exploiting any environment where freedom and liberty erode and are replaced with groupthink.  In the words of Vladimir Lenin:

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth... We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion and scorn towards those who disagree with us.

It needs no great expounding to say that these tactics dominate all social and political discourse today -- more than a century after they were first written down.

There is much more to recommend Herland’s Billionaire World. Almost every pressing topic -- including the politicization of science, the rise of (openly Marxist) groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM), the global persecution of Christians, the stoking of racial tensions, and the rewriting of history -- is connected to the overlooked role of the billionaire elites and their self-serving agendas.

*  *  *

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Defenders of the West and Sword and Scimitar is the Distinguished Senior Shillman Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/09/2023 - 17:00

Read More

Continue Reading