“Totalitarianism, at its essence, is an attempt at transforming reality into fiction.”


“Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating ten more.”


YOU Decide

Surprise, surprise.

WordPress won’t allow me to upload this video, so I’m going to leave the link below. The fact that this platform is prohibiting me from sharing this video must mean that the content of the video is valuable. And what could be more valuable than the truth?

You watch it. And YOU decide: https://www.bitchute.com/video/63HWY6XB3bM8/

Another Reason To Stop Buying From Amazon

Amazon fires delivery drivers who refuse ‘biometric consent’ form

Cameras powered by artificial intelligence will record and store information about the driver’s face, location, movement, driving style, and even if the driver yawns or shows signs of drowsiness on-shift.

By David McLoone For LIFE SITE News

Amazon delivery drivers across the country face the prospect of losing their jobs if they refuse to consent to intrusive new biometrics technology inside their vans and trucks. The technology would capture and store personal information on a “driver account.”

75,000 drivers in the U.S. were asked by the tech giant to sign new contracts at the end of March that permit Amazon to use camera technology, powered by artificial intelligence (AI), to identify and store information about the driver: his face, location, movement, driving style, and even if the driver yawns or shows signs of drowsiness on-shift. Information collected is then shared with the dispatcher.

Failure to comply with the request for consent will result in the termination of that driver’s employment with Amazon — or the related third-party delivery service partner (DSP) which employs them — a copy of the “Vehicle Technology and Biometric Consent Agreement” obtained by Motherhood confirmed.

Amazon disclosed in the form that vehicles will be “video-monitored by cameras that are both internal and external and that operate while the ignition is on and for up to 20 minutes after the ignition is turned off.”

“Using your photograph, this Technology, may create Biometric Information, and collect, store, and use Biometric Information from such photographs.”

“This Technology tracks vehicle location and movement, including miles driven, speed, acceleration, braking, turns, and following distance … as a condition of delivery [sic] packages for Amazon, you consent to the use of Technology,” the form states.

The technology is being provided by Netradyne, a fleet management AI-technology start-up from San Diego. In a February announcement, reported by The Information, Amazon said the company’s four-lens “Driveri” camera would be installed in its delivery vehicles for “safety” reasons, as well as improving the “quality of the delivery experience.”

presentation from Netradyne demonstrates the capabilities of the technology, including identifying a driver’s “seatbelt compliance” and “distraction” level, which ranges from using a cell-phone to simply “looking down.” Driving style is also closely monitored, with events like “hard acceleration” and stop sign violations being recorded and swiftly reported to dispatchers.

Deborah Bass, a spokeswoman for Amazon, stated that the decision to implement round-the-clock surveillance on their drivers was made “to help keep drivers and the communities where we deliver safe.”

Bass explained that Amazon previously “piloted the technology from April to October 2020 on over two million miles of delivery routes and the results produced remarkable driver and community safety improvements — accidents decreased 48 percent, stop sign violations decreased 20 percent, driving without a seatbelt decreased 60 percent, and distracted driving decreased 45 percent.”

“Don’t believe the self-interested critics who claim these cameras are intended for anything other than safety,” she added.

Eva Blum-Dumontet, Senior Research Officer at Privacy International, a U.K.-based charity dedicated to protecting privacy rights across the globe, mockedBass’ contention that Amazon is “worried about road safety,” calling the notion “disingenuous.”

“The only thing they are concerned about here is their reputation and ensuring they can draw maximum profit from their drivers,” she said, adding that if Amazon “were truly concerned about road safety, the solution would be actually hiring employees and offering them enough protection so that they are not enticed to complete more tasks than it is safe to do so.”

In like manner, a number of employees (remaining nameless for fear of retaliation from Amazon) soon expressed concern that the company will use the countless hours of footage as “a punishment system,” likening the system to “Big Brother.”

Giving substance to driver concerns, the “biometric consent” form detailed that “Amazon may … use certain Technology that processes Biometric Information, including on-board safety camera technology which collects your photograph for the purposes of confirming your identity and connecting you to your driver account.”

An accompanying privacy policy relates that Amazon may then use that information “for employment purposes, including as part of an investigation of suspected misconduct or violation of safety or other DSP policies.”

One driver, Vic, quit his job delivering packages for Amazon in the Denver, Colorado, area after learning of the requirement to have AI-powered cameras constantly watch him while working, he told Reuters. “It was both a privacy violation, and a breach of trust … And I was not going to stand for it,” he said.

The installation of high-tech cameras is just the latest in a line of increasingly invasive biometric requirements imposed by Amazon, Vic said, explaining that drivers were already asked to install a monitoring app, Mentor, which logged a number of driving details.

“If we went over a bump, the phone would rattle, the Mentor app would log that I used the phone while driving, and boom, I’d get docked,” he said.

Biometrics technology, including facial recognition software, is becoming increasingly sophisticated, giving rise to new ethical concerns. In January, researchers at Stanford University, California, published a paper in which they claim it is possible to teach a computer to recognize a person’s political leanings, purely from scanning their face.

Using a collection of over one million images, freely taken from dating websites and from public Facebook profiles, the team claims the machine correctly predicted political orientation 72% of the time, which is “remarkably better than chance (50%), human accuracy (55%), or one afforded by a 100-item personality questionnaire (66%).”

Lead analyst on the team, Michal Kosinski, warned that it is supremely easy to obtain images through “ubiquitous CCTV cameras and giant databases of facial images.”

On account of this, the technology could be used for nefarious purposes, he noted, since “unlike many other biometric systems, facial recognition can be used without subjects’ consent or knowledge.”

The researchers added that “even a crude estimate of an audience’s psychological traits [based on facial recognition] can drastically boost the efficiency of mass persuasion. We hope that scholars, policymakers, engineers, and citizens will take notice.”

SOURCE: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/amazon-fires-delivery-drivers-who-wont-sign-biometric-consent-form

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.”


The Covid 19 Narrative is About Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 2) — Cassandra’s Box

Introduction In the first part of this article, I discussed the Covid-19 narrative in the context of nature. The article concluded that there were significant signs of an agenda to detach human beings from nature: firstly, in the denial of the reality of death, and secondly, through the normalisation of mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccinations. […]

The Covid 19 Narrative is About Destroying Our Links With the Natural World (Part 2) — Cassandra’s Box

Green Pass: Letter of Children’s Health Defense to the European Parliament. TAKE ACTION


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Dear Member of the European Parliament,

Re: Green Pass Requires Debate, Not Emergency Adoption, COM 2021 130

We write to oppose the Parliament’s adoption of the “Green Pass” (Digital Green Certificate, introduced March 17, 2021 with proposal #COM 2021 130) without thorough, vigorous debate. While the intent of the Green Pass is to facilitate travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, we fear it will do the exact opposite: it will stifle travel and human interaction.

We are extremely concerned about how the proposed regulation will affect all travel in the Schengen Zone, for European citizens and others alike, requiring individuals to prove receipt of an experimental vaccine or submission to experimental testing.

The proposal’s premise is that it will prevent transmission of SARS-Cov-2, but it is on shaky scientific and legal ground and requires in-depth debate for the reasons listed below.

1. There is No Proof that Vaccination Blocks Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has repeatedly stated that there is no data proving that COVID-19 vaccines block transmission of the coronavirus. For this reason, vaccinated individuals must continue to maintain social distancing and mask wearing.

While the EMA hopes vaccines will reduce COVID, the reverse may occur: mass vaccination may increase disease spread. This was the case with the Dengvaxia vaccine in the Philippines, as the World Health Organization (WHO) Vaccine Safety Summit detailed in 2019. Independent scientists assessing results in Israel and the United Kingdom question the success of mass vaccination. As coronaviruses are constantly mutating, the effectiveness of these novel vaccines against new variants is doubtful.

2. PCR Tests Are Unreliable Public Health Measures

While PCR tests may be able to diagnose a sick person in a short time window, they have almost no relevance for those who show no symptoms of illness. Positive PCR tests do not confirm illness or contagiousness and many result in ‘false positive cases’.

A recent review in the medical journal The Lancet estimated that isolation of false positive cases is “a net loss to the health, social and economic wellbeing of communities” and concluded that “PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.

In January 2021, the WHO released new guidance on PCR tests, also warning of the danger of false positive results: “as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases.”

Member states should stop testing healthy people and use those resources for treatment.

3. The Green Pass is legally disproportionate

The proposed regulations infringe fundamental human rights, including rights to travel, assembly, privacy, conscience and free and informed consent. Recent scientific studies cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of draconian measures to limit disease spread, including travel restrictions and lockdown measures.

Implementing the Green Pass will require massive resources without a well-founded expectation of success. Investment in hospitals and protections for those at risk would be more effective and economical. At the very least, a cost–benefit analysis and debate are absolutely necessary.

4. The European Parliament Must Apply the Precautionary Principle

COVID-19 vaccines have received only conditional approval; clinical trials will not be complete for months or years. Demanding that European Union citizens and visitors be subject to experimental medical products to exercise fundamental rights violates the precautionary principle enshrined in Article 191 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union.

How these vaccines will affect people in coming months or years is unknown.  The risk of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) is real, i.e. that vaccinated individuals exposed to new viral strains may be at increased risk compared to those who have not been vaccinated. This potentially lethal risk is well-known to vaccine experts and is one of the main reasons why vaccine manufacturers refuse to accept liability for future injuries and deaths.

Several COVID-19 vaccines are based on a novel gene technology never used in healthy individuals before. Manufacturers sidelined the risks in modifying the human genome and triggering autoimmune diseases in the headlong rush to release the vaccines. On July 15, 2020, the European Parliament voted to waive the risk assessment for these vaccines under the Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Regulation. Prominent scientists and doctors recently addressed these concerns in an open letter to the EMA. Further study on the impact of these gene therapies is required before making them compulsory.

5. Vaccine Manufacturers Fail to Warrant Effectiveness or Safety

Esteemed Belgium lawyers recently concluded that the European Commission granted invalid liability and warranty exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers. Given the lack of evidence of safety or effectiveness, manufacturers unsurprisingly refuse to guarantee either. Member States, and ultimately the electorate, will bear the burden of compensating and caring for victims of vaccine injury.

6. Inadequate Guarantee of Data Privacy

Although the proposed regulation states that Member States will protect medical data, there is little to guarantee this protection. These medical data may be used to discriminate against individuals in violation of fundamental rights and freedoms.

7. Risk of Type Replacement and Viral Mutation

Mass vaccination with imperfect vaccines – and none of the available vaccines is perfect – may lead totype replacement and viral mutation. It may well be vaccinated individuals, not unvaccinated ones, that pose the greatest risk of new, more virulent types of coronavirus infection. The classic example of this kind of type replacement occurred with widespread use of the pertussis vaccine, which led to new viral mutations that the existing vaccine did not blockIn other words, it is unclear that mass vaccination will lead to an end to the coronavirus crisis.

8. Risk that Green Passes Become Permanent Without Due Consideration

While the Parliament considers the Green Pass regulation as a temporary measure, it is unlikely to be so. Such restrictions usually become permanent, making the need for robust debate the more important. Could more vaccines be required under the Green Pass at a later date? Why should the Director-General of the World Health Organization have the power to make decisions about them? The long-term implications of the Green Pass require deliberation.

9. The European Parliament Must Uphold Democratic Values

Too often since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, numbers have ruled instead of the rule of law. Small coteries of experts interpreting numbers have set policy instead of democratic legislatures and civil society. Numbers and studies are too often tailored to serve those who produce them. Europe cannot thrive if it relies on mathematical models to the exclusion of human models. The Parliament is entrusted to uphold democratic values.


Please take these points above into consideration and require open debate and analysis before you take further action on the Green Pass.

The citizens of Europe and the world are watching you — our liberty and security are in your hands. Do not let us down! Do not put the future of the European Union in jeopardy by desecrating one of its most fundamental principles: free movement within the Schengen Area.

Yours sincerely,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Chair, Children’s Health Defense

Senta Depuydt
President, Children’s Health Defense Europe


SOURCE: https://childrenshealthdefense.org