The Evil Empire That COVID-19 Made

I have written several articles on the coronavirus and on masks and healthcare issues. A series of links have been provided at the bottom of this article for your convenience. This article will, however address a different aspect of the virus or on healthcare issues in general.

I sat down and listened to a three hour podcast on the Joe Rogan Show, while I don’t care too much for his politics and his anti conservative jabs, his interview with Dr. Robert Malone was quite illuminating. While there wasn’t too many earth shattering reveals on COVID, it helped to galvanize many of my thoughts on the subject. Unless you have just fallen off a turnip truck or have been living in a cave for most of your life, you know that society in general is corrupt. Before you jump on the anti capitalist wagon, all society is corrupt, that means communist and religious based cultures as well. The reason for this is human nature in general is faulty. Unlimited power and wealth corrupts and I mean it corrupts everybody. If someone says that they can’t be bought they are kidding themselves. They reason they can’t be bought is because they haven’t been offered the right price. Everybody has a price, they may not even know what it is yet, but if it were to come across the table they would know it. You may say what about Buddhist monks, they can be corrupted too. Just read their history if you don’t believe me.

Even though the COVID pandemic changed the world, it did not create our corrupt world. The building blocks were already there. There is an old saying, that I have used in a previous posting, but it bears repeating in this one as well. “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Unlimited wealth also does the same thing. Most politicians go into office for all the right reasons, however the longer they are in the office the greater the temptation becomes to attain wealth and the thirst for more power increases. That is why there should be term limits in all the levels of the government, and that includes the courts. I think justices should serve one 10 year term and that is all. The more times you run for office the more apt you are to become beholden to those donating money to your campaign. Nobody donates tens of thousands of dollars to a campaign without expecting something in return for it. I mean nobody.

There is another quote that was popular in the times of the wild west: “God created all men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” This ties into the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the great corrupter and destroyer. It destroyed the Trumps presidency and allowed Biden to win in 2020, something he could never have done, if it had not been for the pandemic. Fear of the unknown gave absolute power to politicians of all levels, from Federal to the Local level. Politicians used their control of the purse strings to corrupt everybody else, from hospital administrators, doctors, CEOs and even private individuals.

Using Fear to Gain Power

There are two general models for organizational culture: one is based on fear, intimidation, and violence; the other is based on love, empathy, and support. The model that is most common, that causes so much dysfunction, and that undermines the profit theology, is the fear model.

Fear was the tool used by Harvey Weinstein to manipulate others. In this model, someone in power consciously or unconsciously creates fear in others. This could be through acts like sarcasm, shaming, bullying, physical intimidation, actual physical or sexual violence, and blacklisting. An event like this does not have to occur often for people to develop a fear of the possibility of it occurring in the future. A leader who targets only one person even one time can create fear among witnesses and those who hear about it through the grapevine. It’s not even necessary that a leader be the actor if another engages in these behaviors and a leader doesn’t stop it.

Over time, the fear becomes normalized such that people can forget it ever was different, and it can outlive whoever was the initial seed. Thus one’s ability to recognize the wrongness of the behavior disappears and it becomes accepted. People then act unconscious of their own fear. Anyone joining such an organization might learn the behaviors only as the unwritten rules of the culture, unaware even that their roots were in real fear-based events. The fear culture becomes self-perpetuating as newcomers strive to fit in.

As in a totalitarian regime, it is the awareness of what could happen that keeps everyone in fear and working to avoid doing anything that would put oneself at risk. The existence of gulags and concentration camps, and the knowledge that the reasons for being sent there could be arbitrary and capricious, were enough to encourage everyone to keep their heads down, their mouths shut, and willing to engage in or overlook otherwise inhumane or delusional behavior.

So too it is in the workplace. One angry tirade, “eviscerating email,” sarcastic remark, or other private or public criticism, let alone something worse, is all it takes for an employee to decide that they will do what they can to avoid a repeat. Human Resources employees can be seen as the gulag guards if they are believed to be untrustworthy, e.g., reporting back to one’s supervisor about a private conversation or inquiry made to HR, or the agents of mysterious disappearances (when an employee suddenly and without explanation stops showing up at work).

Harvey Weinstein’s fear-mongering was more overtly tied to survival, as he threatened careers. In an employer-employee relationship, fear also can arise around the content of a performance review, the size of a bonus, the opportunity to do interesting work, promotions and pay increases, and the threat of termination.

Some will argue that being able to withstand intimidating behavior is about not being “soft.” That’s the argument of a bully, and a red flag that indicates someone to avoid. Which is not to say to judge that person; they might be the unaware victim of intimidation themselves and unconsciously see it as the only way to recover the power taken from them by whoever was their victimizer. For these behaviors are ultimately about taking another’s power to compensate for one’s own sense of disempowerment. It’s a habit developed to fill an internal power void. The original cause of the void might be long gone but the personal power vacuum remains. There are many examples of these people in power, from Harvey Weinstein to Anna Wintour

Having empathy for the abuser does not mean tolerating their behavior. That is a form of giving away one’s power. Part of what the victim learns — and the Weinstein victims fit this description — is that silence means acquiescence, even if there is a financial settlement, and that the victimizer has still won; completely separate from his ability to continue the behaviors, he has still taken your power by silencing you. Regardless of any calling you might feel to fight on behalf of someone else, as Rose McGowan is doing, your first obligation is to yourself and your own self-worth and self-respect.

Harvey, in paying people for their silence, only extended into a new realm the deal that already exists in every employer-employee relationship: buying an individual’s acquiescence in exchange for money. Wells Fargo is an obvious and egregious example of a case where this power was abused when conditions were created that encouraged employees to open fake checking accounts for unwitting customers. More than 5,000 people were fired as a result of the checking accounts scandal at Wells, though hardly any of those were responsible for creating the unethical conditions and, in any case, were punished only after the facts became public. In other words, management nearly got away with the abuse, then when caught, nearly got away with blaming the more than 5,000 people they fired for doing what management expected them to do — even though everyone knew opening fake accounts was wrong.

From an organizational success perspective, the most pernicious effect of a fear culture is how it limits self-expression to avoid behaviors and actions that might inspire verbal or physical harassment or otherwise draw unwanted attention. The threat of attack drives self-censorship that denies the organization the benefit of every employee’s best ideas and contributions. Leadership hears more of what employees think it wants to hear, divorced from whether that is actually best for the organization or not. They stop contributing and innovating, which in this era of “disruption” and ever faster change creates real risk to the survival of the organization.

Individuals who self-censor can be further harmed because they often slowly withdraw into themselves until one day they realize, or those who love them realize, they are no longer the same person they were before they took “that job.” It’s a sad and avoidable corrosion of the quality of life that affects the individual, their family, and their community — and it’s very tough to recover from.

The fear of a gruesome death incurred by Covid-19 made it easy for our leaders to enact draconian measures to prevent the spread of the virus, especially when they were only supposed to be for 15 days. However fear mongering and constantly changing data made it easy to keep the lockdowns going. Dr. Fauci of the AIDS/HIV scare fame was back up to his old bag of tricks with a new pandemic. You could see that he was enjoying himself during his press conferences, especially when he could contradict President Trump. You ever wonder why he is still in power even with a Democrat in power? It was because he was a tool of the left from the very beginning. Just think of this, he is going to retire with the most lucrative pension plan in our government’s history. His yearly pension is going to be $350,000 a year. Tell me this is isn’t a payoff for a job well done? It is so obvious. You tell me why Dr. Fauci was so against therapeutics for Covid, including Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin and he pushed a very expensive Remdesivir, $3,500 as opposed to $2.00 for Hydroxychloroquine. By the way Dr. Fauci has stocks in Remdesivir. Have you ever wondered why they want you to stay home until you are deathly sick from the covid virus? Because the chances of you surviving from the virus, especially when the docotrs are not allowed to use all of the treatments available, is pretty slim. I know I am jumping around a lot, it is because there is so much nasty shit out there.

Lets back track a little to fear mongering. Why was it necessary to post the daily death counts on all the news shows on 2020? It of course was to scare the living hell out of Joe Citizen, and to hurt the Trump presidency. They were trying to make it look like what he was doing was ineffective.

Another bit of information, that is not common knowledge but has been going on since covid began starting to spread. It was done to supposedly help the financially strapped hospitals. Because they had to stop all elective surgeries and treatments, and treating covid patients was extremely expensive at first, both of which were in fact true. But giving extra money for every positive case was wrong, giving money for every intubated patient was even more so and giving additional money for every death caused by covid was especially heinous. So what is this saying, we are paying hospitals to do a shitty job?! If they truly wanted to help the hospitals they could have based support on the size of the hospital and what types of services they provided. By doing it the way they did, none of the numbers coming from the hospitals can now be trusted. It also made it more appealing to hold back on therapeutics, especially cheap ones. So hospital administrators were helping to increase the counts for positive covid cases.

According to one of the fathers of mRNA technology who is a world renowned physician with both a PHD and an MD, Dr. Robert Malone, hospitals are black balling doctors who are pushing for the early use of therapeutics. He is not only for early treatment, he is against mask mandates and vaccine mandates. He is pro choice. He believes that vaccines for young children are dangerous and ill advised, unless the benefits outweigh the risks, such as children with comorbidities. Mask wearing in children and remote teaching is delaying their development. There have been studies that their IQs may be as much as 20 points lower. Why would our leaders want this to happen? For one it is easier to lead dim witted sheep than intelligent foxes.

This is where the brains of government come into play. Somebody told them that the Omicron variant would be the dominant variant from now on, so they stopped supplying the hospitals with the Delta version of the monoclonal antibody. Did anybody tell them that so far there have been no deaths for the omicron variant and they would not even need the monoclonal antibody treatment? Did they also forget to tell them that the patients sick enough to be admitted to the hospital and require the monoclonal antibody treatment have the delta variant? If they are not going to help maybe they should just stop doing anything.

Another question you may ask is why are we ignoring the natural immunity incurred from previous covid infections? Well there is no money in natural immunity for one, it is also far superior to the immunity from receiving vaccines and it most likely doesn’t need boosters or maybe just one shot at the most. Pfizer one of the most corrupt pharmaceutical companies in the country is making bank on all these vaccine shots. It is becoming their cash cow. They are also known for bribing doctors and medical administrators and doing shoddy testing. As a result many of the side effects from the vaccines are being under reported by hospitals. Well to give then some credit, the side effects being exhibited by the vaccines tend to mirror the symptoms of the covid virus so it is difficult to differentiate the causality.

I am not blaming President Trump for the vaccine issues. He did what he thought was best, in actuality the vaccines did save lives, however now they are being used as weapons for control. Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson are becoming insanely rich.

What is amazing is that all the money floating around the world is due to the hard work of people like you and me. We are paying politicians to F–k us over. The richer and more powerful they become the poorer and more dependent on the government dole we become.

There is supposedly limits to how much money that can be donated to candidates running for office, however Bloomberg managed to donate $100 Million to the Biden campaign effort in Florida. You might ask how is this possible?

On Nov. 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 midterm elections, a new set of federal campaign finance laws went into effect. Known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the law increased the contribution limits for individuals giving to federal candidates and political parties. Every two years, the Federal Election Commission updates certain contribution limits — such as the amount individuals may give to candidates and party committees — that are indexed to inflation.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, there is no longer an aggregate limit on how much an individual can give in total to all candidates, PACs and party committees combined.

This is how companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter can also donate 100s of millions of dollars to campaigns to sway the result of elections. For one the federal government is run by the democrats and the supreme court while being conservative has been rendered impotent from fear of justice packing. So there is in essence no negative consequences for any illegal activities perpetrated by politicians or big wigs. Look at Hunter Biden for instance. He does whatever he pleases with total impunity.

Lets ask one more question who do you think a politician is going to listen to a supporter who owns a small flower boutique who donated $10.00 in campaign contributions or the owner of Walmart who donated lets say $50 million? So now you know why the decisions that were made were made. Walmart, and the other box stores became essential while the small mom and pop stores were shut down. Amazon and Walmart reported record profits last year. Why were marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores deemed essential and churches not? The answer is easier people who are drunk or high are more malleable than people who have support from their church and religion.

So we have a vicious cycle, the rich become richer, the poor become poorer, and the powerful become more powerful and the weak become weaker.

There are several other things that are going on that are not directly related to the COVID pandemic but are related to destroying our country and making its citizens weaker. Destroying the first and the second amendment, so now people are no longer able to speak out against the injustices being perpetrated by our government and they are no longer able to protect themselves. Why are criminals being released, why are illegal aliens being allowed to cross the border at will? The list just goes on and on.

Prof Michel Chossudovsky: COVID-19 Coronavirus: The Crisis

(Updated 1/19/2022)

PQC: Folks, I already put forward my “final judgement” on this fake pandemic. No need for me to say anything more. However, I strongly recommend you to listen carefully to this interview in it entirety in order to be able to fathom this unthinkable concerted operation, which I commented that it is much much bigger and much larger than the 911!

If one could not be able to see the 911 as it was, a Jewish controlled Cabal conspiracy, then there would be no chance for such person to just accept this Covid19 Pandemic is a fake, a hoax, and that the whole thing had been planned by the Cabal and has been carried out concertedly by multi-state players. The ultimate purpose of this operation, among and above other objectives, is to consolidate the role of the State and its absolute centralized power.

Anyway, listen carefully and have your own conclusion. /.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Bonnie Faulkner Global Research, March 27, 2020 Guns and Butter 19 March 2020

Michel Chossudovsky discusses his new series of research articles on the “pandemic” including, “COVID-19 Coronavirus “Fake” Pandemic: Timeline and Analysis” and “Coronavirus COVID-19: “Made in China” or “Made in America”?, among others. A blockbuster show!



 On January 30th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in relation to China’s novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) categorized  as a viral pneumonia.  The virus outbreak was centred in  Wuhan, a city in Eastern China with a population in excess of 11 million.

In the week prior to January 30th decision, the WHO Emergency Committee “expressed divergent views”. There were visible divisions within the Committee. On January 30th, a far-reaching decision was taken without the support of expert opinion at a time when the coronavirus outbreak was limited to Mainland China.

There were 150 confirmed cases outside China, when the decision was taken. 6 in the United States, 3 in Canada, 2 in the UK, etc.

150 confirmed cases over a population of 6.4 billion (World population of 7.8 billion minus China’s 1-4 billion).

What was the risk of being infected? Virtually zero.

Michel Chossudovsky and Bonnie Faulkner on Guns and Butter

COVID-19 Coronavirus: The Crisis

Full Transcript of Guns and Butter Interview with Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and Bonnie Faulkner

This is Guns and Butter.

The WHO Director-General, who had been in Davos just a few days earlier, determined that the so-called outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and, as I mentioned, that decision was taken on the basis of 150 confirmed cases outside China. Now, anybody who takes cognizance of that should not trust anything else that they say because at the beginning is a big lie, and it’s a big lie which is instrumented by very powerful people. It’s the combination of what I call Big Money and Big Pharma.

I’m Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter, Michel Chossudovsky. Today’s show: COVID-19 Coronavirus: The Crisis.

Michel Chossudovsky is an Economist and the Founder, Director and Editor of the Center for Research on Globalization, based in Montreal, Quebec.  He is the author of eleven books including Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September Eleventh, America’s “War on Terrorism” and The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

Today we discuss the historical background and lead-up to the World Health Organization’s January 30th Declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern; Event 201: Simulation of a Coronavirus Pandemic; the World Economic Forum; financial warfare; and the economic and human toll of the declared pandemic.

Bonnie Faulkner: Michel Chossudovsky, welcome.

Michel Chossudovsky: Good morning.  Delighted to be on Guns and Butter.

Bonnie Faulkner:The United States government has now declared the COVID-19 virus a global pandemic. Your article, COVID-19 Coronavirus “Fake” Pandemic: Timeline and Analysis, begins with the January 30th, 2020 World Health Organization declaration of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern in relation to China’s novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, categorized as a viral pneumonia.  Both the timing and the intent of the WHO’s declaration raise serious questions.  Where is the best place to start and examine what is behind this now global disruption?

Michel Chossudovsky: First of all, I should mention – and this is where all the lies come in – is that on the 30th of January the global public health emergency was declared on the orders of the Director-General of the WHO ( right) . There have been recent statements that this public health emergency has been declared but, in fact, it was declared on the 30th of January, but nobody wants to talk about that for the simple reason that at that time there were only 150 confirmed cases outside of China. In other words, we’re talking about a population of 6.4 billion, (excluding China which is 1.4), out of a world population of 7.8 billion, and there they go ahead and declare a global health emergency. 150 cases does not justify it. But in fact, it did, but it was dictated by very powerful economic interests. So we’re starting with a lie.

But the thing is, we’re starting with a lie on January 30th. And then on January 31st what happens? Immediately the Trump administration calls for a ban on air travel to China. In other words, a declaration to the effect that both Chinese and foreign travelers (from China) will not be admitted to the United States. This has the effect of essentially intimidating people, closing down trade and trade transactions.

We’re talking about a very important volume of trade and transportation with China, affecting, of course, major airlines and shipping companies. So that happened on the 31st. We’re talking about the timeline. On the 31st of January, Trump already launches a hate campaign against China, and there was no health issue of concern, because 150 cases worldwide outside China is virtually nothing as far as risk is concerned.

Then we see the evolution of this crisis and what I’m saying, and we must be very clear on that, is that this is not a biological war against China or against of anybody else; it is the use of the coronavirus as a pretext to implement drastic changes which affect economic activity, trade, transportation, which ultimately has an impact on national economies. It sort of pushes national economies into a situation of crisis. At the outset, we were dealing with economic warfare supported by a media campaign, and this was coupled with the deliberate intent by the Trump administration to undermine the Chinese economy.

But I think we should be clear that the media disinformation campaign was fundamental, because first of all, they never mentioned that it was 150 cases to start with, and they’ve always distorted the figures with regard to the extension of this health threat throughout the world.

Bonnie Faulkner: What is the WHO Emergency Committee?

Michel Chossudovsky: The WHO Emergency Committee is a committee made up of specialists – and I should mention that they first met on the 22nd of January and there were divisions within the committee as to whether they had the justification to actually declare a global emergency [the pandemic was declared on March11]. And then, when they met on the 30th, the meeting on the 30th took place shortly after the Davos World Economic Forum, which took place from the 21st to the 24th of January. And at that meeting there were important discussions between different partners including the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and various entities linked up to Big Pharma.

Those consultations at the World Economic Forum were essentially instrumental to the decision taken on the 30th. It happened just about a week later. It was essentially the World Economic Forum, the Gates Foundation, a body called CEPI, which is this Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations for the Development of Vaccines – already there were discussions with Big Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, which is also integrated into this group. There were discussions with the IMF and the World Bank, with the State Department, with US Intelligence. And one suspects that the decisions were taken a few days before, because when they met on January 30th in Geneva there was virtually no discussion. The WHO Director-General, who had been in Davos just a few days earlier, determined that the so-called outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, and, as I mentioned, that decision was taken on the basis of 150 confirmed cases outside China.

Now, anybody who takes cognizance of that should not trust anything else that they say because at the beginning is a big lie, and it’s a big lie which is instrumented by very powerful people. It’s the combination of what I call Big Money and Big Pharma. And essentially they initiated this process. They also have a vaccine program and, ironically, the vaccine program was – in a sense also announced at Davos before even having pandemic. It was announced at Davos and discussed, and it was only much later in February that the vaccination campaign was announced by the World Health Organization. In fact, it was February 28th. It was a month later. Dr. Tedros of WHO announces that a massive WHO vaccination campaign has been approved by the World Health Organization. And who is behind that campaign? GlaxoSmithKline in partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which is a Gates/World Economic Forum partnership.

Another important thing is that back in October, on October the 18th, the Gates Foundation together with the World Economic Forum and in partnership with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health – but it was a very specific component of the School of Public Health – it was the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. You can see that Johns Hopkins School of Public Health is already linked to Wall Street.

But it was the Center for Health Security. So there you have a partnership between the Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and what do they do on October 16th? This was, of course, way before the public announcement of the coronavirus, which was at the beginning of January when the Chinese authorities discovered it and began testing it. They discovered it on January 1st and then on January 7th they actually came up with lab exams and so on.

But back on October 18th there was a simulation of a coronavirus pandemic. It was called Event 201. That simulation was integrated by a whole series of people from mainly private financial institutions, corporate execs, foundations, Big Pharma, CIA, there was a representative from the CDC but there were no health officials on behalf of national governments or the WHO. It was essentially a simulation which included quite a number of things, including the collapse of stock markets, the extension of the virus to something like 65 million people and so on and so forth.

Now, what I am suggesting, without necessarily drawing conclusions, is that the organizations involved in the simulation, which was a detailed simulation with videos and so on examining what would happen to financial markets, what would happen to the media, to the independent media and so on – essentially the people involved in the simulation were also involved in the actual management of the pandemic once it went live.

So the people who were simulating actually went live on January 30th, 2020, which was the day when that [global health emergency was launched] [Officially the pandemic was launched on March 11]. I should mention that the people who actually were behind the WHO meeting on the sidelines of Davos are the same people who organized and financed the [global health emergency]: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum and the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

COVID-19 Coronavirus: A Fake Pandemic? Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization

So there you are. You simulate and then you go live. I’m not suggesting any kind of conspiratorial relationship, but I’m just saying there was a simulation and a couple of months later the whole thing goes live with the same actors involved in the simulation who are now involved in saving the world from the coronavirus.

Now, here’s another element, whether it is relevant or not. On October 18th Event 201, Baltimore, Coronavirus Simulation and Emergency Preparedness Task Force at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health Security, they identified the virus under the acronym nCoV-2o19. I’ll repeat: nCoV-2019. Now, when the actual virus was discovered two months later – it was early January, two and a half months later. To be precise, it was on January the 7th that the Chinese authorities identified a new type of virus. They isolated it on 7 January and the coronavirus was named by the WHO as 2019-nCoV – exactly the same name as that adopted in the World Economic Forum/Gates/Johns Hopkins October 18th, 2019 simulation exercise. So it’s as if they took that name and they stuck it into – it became then, of course, a real pandemic. But bear in mind, at a later date they changed the name. They must have realized that that name was misleading because it was the name of a simulation. But it started up as 2019-nCoV and then after that they adopted the COVID-19. But I think that happened almost a month later, and these were names which were attributed to the virus by the World Health Organization.

Bonnie Faulkner: It seems to me that they had to change the name because it was too big of a giveaway as to what was going on.

Michel Chossudovsky: I don’t want to draw any kind of implications. I’m just saying it appears odd that they would choose the same name for the virus as the one which they had for the simulation, and in my view, the nCoV reflects what it is. N stands for novel and Co, Coronavirus. It was a novel coronavirus.

Now, I think to avoid any confusions they then adopted a different name to that of the simulation and exercise. Nobody denies that these simulations took place. There’s a video – I’m going to play that video for you, and I think it’s the video from the simulation. They had tons of videos – you can go through it, but let’s say this video is so incredible because it’s the first few minutes. Here it is:

Woman: Okay. We will now advance three weeks to the fourth and final meeting of the Pandemic Emergency Board, on December 18th, 2019.

Man: Okay. Thank you for reconvening and let’s get an update from Dr. Rivers.

Dr. Rivers: In the last three weeks, case numbers have continued to grow exponentially. We now have an estimated 4.2 million cases, and 240,000 deaths. Almost every country is now reportinßg cases, and those who aren’t may simply not have the resources to conduct surveillance. We don’t see any change in the rate of rapid spread, and models estimate that we could have more than 12 million cases and close to a million deaths by mid-January. We’re not sure how big this could get, but there’s no end in sight. Financial markets are universally down by 15% or more on the year. Fear of a catastrophic pandemic and uncertainty about the capacity for governments to respond –

When the organizers of the simulation were confronted, particularly at the height of the financial crash, end of February, they said, “Well, we’re not predicting anything. We’re not predicting what happened. We’re just simulating.” But it just so happens that in fact it was practically word by word, that they simulated an initial collapse of financial markets of “15% or more.” Now, I checked the financial press in late February. In late February I checked the financial press and Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, and that was exactly what happened, and they used the same words, 15% or more, was the collapse of money markets at that time. Now, since then, the situation has evolved.

But the thing is that this simulation was not taken by an independent body of scientists and researchers and economists. No, it wasn’t. It was taken by Big Money and Big Pharma. Big Money and Big Pharma were simulating. And then, meanwhile and before the pandemic was actually declared on January 30th– and there was no basis for declaring that pandemic – there were only 150 cases outside of China. About, what, six cases in the US, three in Canada, two in the UK.  Well, we have the complete list; it’s provided by the World Health Organization. But before that historic venue, there was already a vaccination program, which was ongoing by different pharmaceutical companies.

Bonnie Faulkner: Michel, I’d like to go over some of this in greater detail. You write that, “The World Health Organization did not act to reassure and inform world public opinion. Quite the opposite. A fear pandemic rather than a genuine Public Health Emergency of International Concern was launched.” Would you describe this development as a media disinformation campaign?

Michel Chossudovsky: Absolutely. And I don’t think that the World Health Organization spearheaded the media disinformation campaign. The media disinformation campaign was already embedded with the organizations who were behind this initiative, in other words, the foundations, the World Economic Forum and so on. The media campaign, if it had been real news, first of all they should have said the decision of the WHO borders on ridicule; it’s in violation of its mandate; you don’t declare a global health emergency for 150 people. Punto. Six in America, two in Canada, three in the United Kingdom and so on. I think that should have been put forth, that this historic January 30thdecision was a big lie. And it was not only a big lie; it was the launchpad of a process of ultimately economic warfare.

I should clarify, because there’s a lot of confusion. This is not biological warfare, because the coronavirus is not a dangerous virus. It has certain similarities with other viruses. It triggers pneumonia, then there’s a recovery process. In fact, if we look at recent developments, the pandemic in China is more or less resolved. They’ve announced that more than 80% of confirmed cases have been resolved. Now, the media will not discuss that because once they say, “Oh, people are recovering, they’re getting well” and so on, that sort of undermines the panic. What they want to do is trigger panic, and that’s what people are doing right now. It’s fear and intimidation, it’s panic. People feel threatened, and the authorities are taking actions, which are not protecting people’s health but ultimately doing exactly the opposite.

Now, I’m not saying that coronavirus is not a health concern. It really is. But what is more of a concern are all the millions of people who lost their jobs as a result of the coronavirus, not to mention those who lost their lifelong savings on the stock exchange. Think of all the smaller investors who put their money with their broker and so on, and what happens? They lose everything when the market collapses. Now, that, of course, is a concern, and that has also health implications. Some people commit suicide when they lose their savings. But that simply is considered as part of a market mechanism.

It’s not part of a market mechanism. It is part of a process of manipulation through sophisticated speculative instruments such as short selling. We know that. And if you have foreknowledge that President Trump is going to implement a ban on trans-Atlantic travel to the European Union, immediately those who have foreknowledge can speculate on the collapse of the airline stocks. It’s very easy. They place a bet and if it goes down, they make money, and they know it’s going to go down. So that is where, of course, these powerful corporate interests and financiers and hedge funds are making a tremendous amount of money.

And what we are witnessing now is a transfer of money wealth, a concentration of money wealth, which I think is unprecedented. It’s perhaps one of the largest transfers of money wealth in modern history. In other words, it’s characterized by bankruptcies of small and medium-sized firms, mounting debt, mounting personal debts, corporate debts, the takeover of competing companies. And in a sense, it’s characterized by conflict within the financial establishment.

It’s not only a war against China. At the beginning it appeared to be an economic war against China, which led to the closing down of trade and shipping and so on, where factories had to close down and so on, not to mention the tourist industry. But it is more than that, because it also affects the internal balance of power within the financial establishment. The fact that the airlines are the victims of this is significant, because the airlines – their stock may collapse and then, of course, they’ll be bought up, and that means that there’s been a redistribution not only of money wealth but also of real wealth. These are assets.

Without pointing to the fact that the existence of the coronavirus, which generates uncertainty, panic, is ultimately the ideal environment for people who want to speculate and make money at the expense of those who have savings, at the expense of small businesses and at the expense of perhaps competing corporations. That’s the situation we’re in, and I don’t recall any period in our recent history that is comparable to what we’re living now, where entire economies are in a standstill – I think of Western Europe, Italy, where people are ordered to stay at home and so on, and this ultimately has been achieved under the pretext – the pretext – of a virus, of a coronavirus. They said, “We must protect our population so let’s close down the economy.” Well, you don’t protect your population by closing down an economy. You can take certain public health actions which are selective and well thought out, but that’s not what’s happening.

Bonnie Faulkner: Getting back to the virus, you write, “Remember the unusual circumstances surrounding the April 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic.” What were these unusual circumstances? Was the data manipulated?

Michel Chossudovsky: This is not the first time that the WHO has declared a fake pandemic. I am talking about the decision taken on the 30th of January where we only had 150 people outside of China who were confirmed cases.

In 2009, April, there was another case, which was called the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic. The same atmosphere of fear and intimidation prevailed. The process was somewhat different but the statements made by the WHO Director-General at the time were far-reaching, because Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General in 2009, stated with authority that as many – I’m quoting, from the World Health Organization – “as many as two billion people could become infected over the next two years, nearly one-third of the world population.”

Now, what was Margaret Chan involved in, in making this statement? It was a multi-billion-dollar bonanza for Big Pharma, which was instructed by the WHO Director-General Margaret Chan to implement a massive vaccination program. She further states later on the following and, again, I’m quoting, “Vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario.” Can you imagine 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots per year in the best-case scenario? In other words, this was a green light to the vaccine producers to produce billions of flu shots for the H1N1 and it was also a green light to national governments to actually purchase these billions of flu shots from the pharmaceutical companies.

Now, it turns out that this campaign in 2009, which was launched by the WHO, relied on fake news, fake statistics and lies at the highest levels of government. When it was debated under the Obama administration, Obama actually said, “Swine Flu could strike up to 40% of Americans over the next two years and as many as several hundred thousand could die if a vaccine campaign and other measures aren’t successful.” There were several statements – Associated Press: “The US expects to have 160 million doses of Swine Flu vaccine available sometime in October.” That statement was made in July of 2009. Business Week: “Wealthier countries such as the US and Britain will pay just under $10 per dose for the H1N1 flu; developing countries will pay a lower price.” And so on. This was a multi-billion-dollar fraud in favor of Big Pharma and, in fact, there was no pandemic. Millions of doses of Swine Flu vaccine had been ordered by national governments. Millions of vaccine doses were subsequently destroyed. There was a problem of collecting the data as to whether it was the seasonal flu Influenza Virus B, or whether it was the Swine Flu vaccine. The data was manipulated and there was ultimately no investigation into who was behind this multi-million-dollar fraud.

But I think we have to acknowledge, because things sometimes come much later, that in the wake of that fake pandemic there was a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which is a human rights watchdog, and they questioned the motivations of the WHO. They actually made the statement that the World Health Organization was involved in conflict of interest and that the pandemic was fake. That investigation is on record with the European Parliament. There we have an example of what happened. There were no economic and social implications as exist today, there were no actions to repeal air travel and so on but, let’s say from the point of view of the vaccination program – that vaccination program was launched and ultimately it was totally dysfunctional and the pharmaceutical companies cashed in on large amounts of money, which were largely funded by the taxpayers’ because it was the budget of the Ministries of Health.

And then, of course, the H1N1 mutated. So the vaccines were totally useless. It’s very similar to a seasonal flu pandemic; there’s a mutation of the virus. I recall in Canada, the Ministry of Health ordered millions of doses of the vaccine and then they acknowledged, they said, well, we can’t use them because you know the H1N1 virus has mutated. So what they did is they said we’re going to send that in the form of aid to developing countries, which was in effect also a fraud because the vaccine couldn’t be used from a health point of view, but then they decided simply to send it off to some country in Latin America or Sub-Saharan Africa, knowing that the virus in itself had mutated and that these vaccines were totally useless.

So there we have a situation where the Director-General of the WHO gives the green light to Big Pharma, making erroneous statements to the effect that billions of people across the world will be affected, as many as two billion, she said, and we must act, and Big Pharma comes to the rescue and in effect the vaccine makers made a bundle of money at the expense of the public purse.

Bonnie Faulkner: Now, in the current situation, coming up to 2020 – you’ve been talking about 2009 – you write that, “The campaign to develop vaccines was initiated prior to the decision of the WHO to launch a global public health emergency.” Is that right?

Michel Chossudovsky: That’s correct. There are several things. One, there was a decision taken at Davos where they actually stated that a vaccine campaign was necessary, and that decision precedes the pandemic by about a week. But there are indications that, in fact, for them to have made that statement the companies involved were already working on the vaccine. Now, I can’t say exactly when they started, but certainly well before the World Economic Forum and certainly well before the launching of the pandemic. Mind you, the number of cases were so small in late January of 2020 – it was 150 cases outside China; those are WHO statistics. Now, you’re not going to initiate a vaccine campaign internationally for 150 people, but I think that there must have been some kind of foreknowledge that eventually the pandemic would move forward with a fear campaign, the media disinformation and then ultimately the recipients would be the vaccine producers, Big Pharma. And they already had a working relationship with the foundations. They were involved in the consultations in Davos. They were also directly or indirectly involved in the simulation scenario back in October. So maybe the simulation back in October is what gave the green light to Big Pharma. I think that’s certainly feasible because they were already talking about vaccinations in the simulation. So the simulation was talking about the need to develop vaccines for their hypothetical nCoV virus, as it was called at the time, and there was also evidence that before the pandemic was actually officially launched on 30th of January that the vaccination program had been announced at Davos.

Now, there’s another important announcement that was made, but it came a month later. That was by the WHO saying – I think it was in mid- to late-February when the WHO confirmed categorically that there was the need for a vaccination campaign. But that statement was made after the industry took the decision to develop the vaccines. And there are quite a number of companies involved.

Bonnie Faulkner: What is CEPI? What does that stand for? Is this a vaccine organization?

Michel Chossudovsky: Yes. The CEPI is a very important body and also actor in this whole process. It is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and it is essentially part of the World Economic Forum/Gates partnership. They made an announcement quite early in the game to the effect that they would be funding several programs to develop vaccines against the so-called coronavirus. At that time it was called nCoV-2019. The CEPI works in consultation with the Gates Foundation and the WEF, and it also is tied into the pharmaceutical industry. Their major partner is GlaxoSmithKline.

Bonnie Faulkner: Now, at the same time as this simulation Event 201 in Baltimore on October 18th, from October 18th to the 27th of October 2019, the CISM Military World Games were taking place in Wuhan, China. What are Military World Games, and who were the participants?

Michel Chossudovsky: These games, it’s a sport event, which takes place I guess once a year in different countries. There are more than 100 countries which participate, and they send in members of the armed forces, but essentially for sport events. Some people call it the Military Olympics.

Now, what the Chinese authorities have raised, and this relates in a very direct way to the fact that the virus may not have originated in China but may have originated in a foreign country, including the United States, is that there were 200 American military personnel participating in this 10-day event. Of course, they’re there and they visit the city and they go around, etc., etc. It has been intimated that the virus could have been either accidentally or deliberately dropped somewhere in the seafood market in Wuhan.

Now, we have absolutely no proof, but there are scientific assessments of the virus, and it’s a bit complex to explain, to the effect that what they call patient zero which – there’s patient zero and patient one – the thing is, where is that patient zero? Is the patient zero in the United States? In other words, assuming that it comes either from an animal or from a lab, etc., and then it’s transported to China.

Also, interestingly, the Chinese as well as Taiwanese and Japanese virologists have examined – looking at different strains of the virus in different locations – they have come to the conclusion that the virus was not made in China. At this very moment there’s a big debate in China on whether the virus is made in China or made in America. Increasingly, the scientific evidence points to the latter.

What is significant is that in recent developments we even have evidence that emanates – at least statements which emanate from the Director-General of the CDC – in other words, I’m talking about Robert Redfield, who made a statement just this week to the US Congress. It was during hearings of the so-called House Oversight Committee. He makes statements to the effect that some of the diagnoses of the common flu in the United States, the seasonal flu, Virus B, could have been coronavirus. This was in a committee context, and he answered the questions in a somewhat candid way and he said, “Yes, in some cases diagnosed as seasonal flu could have been coronavirus.”

Bonnie, there are two pieces of audio which I think you should broadcast. I’ll broadcast the first one now and you’ll hear it. That is the one by Redfield. It’s 30 seconds.

CDC director Robert Redfield admitted some Americans who seemingly died from influenza were tested positive for novel #coronavirus in the posthumous diagnosis, during the House Oversight Committee Wednesday. #COVID19

— Global Times (@globaltimesnews) March 12, 2020

Redfield: University of Washington has developed their own tests –

Congressman: Were those test kits available last Friday?

Redfield: Yes, sir.

Congressman: Thank you. And without test kits, is it possible that those who had been susceptible to influenza might have been mischaracterized as to what they actually had, it’s quite possible they actually had COVID-19?

Redfield: The standard practice is the first thing you do is tests for influenza. So if they had influenza they would be positive for –

Congressman: But only if they were tested. So if they weren’t tested, we don’t know what they had.

Redfield: Correct.

Congressman: Okay. And if somebody dies from influenza, are we doing post-mortem testing to see if it was influenza or it was COVID-19?

Redfield: There is a surveillance system to test for pneumonia that the CDC has. It’s not in every city, every state, every hospital.

Congressman: So we could have people in the United States dying for what appear to be influenza when in fact it could be the coronavirus or COVID-19.

Redfield: Some cases have been actually diagnosed that way in the United States today.

Congressman: Thank you.

Now, that statement corroborates the studies conducted in China and Japan and Taiwan, but it also begs the question, when? Was it in October? Was it in November? Was it in December? In other words, Redfield’s statement doesn’t say when those influenza tests were conducted. Well, they’re conducted on a routine basis. Presumably if it’s seasonal it starts in November or October and it extends right through the winter.

But what happened is that this statement in effect provides legitimacy to studies conducted by Japanese, Chinese and Taiwan virologists to the effect that it is possible that the virus did not originate in the seafood market in Wuhan; it actually could have originated in the United States of America. And the Taiwan virologist stated, because he was following what was going on, that there were more than 200 pneumonia type cases which resulted in death in the United States, and it was triggered by the patient’s inability to breathe. Then he said he was in touch with US health authorities and he begged the question whether those deaths could have been the result of the coronavirus. He also said that the virus outbreak may have begun at an earlier period than what is assumed, suggesting that it could even go back to September. And I presume it goes back to September because that’s when the flu virus actually starts to develop.

But I think what’s important is that – one of our own authors, Larry Romanoff, who is based in Shanghai, has done extensive research on this issue and if we patch together the statements of Robert Redfield, the Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese studies, there is a good likelihood that the virus did not come from China but it could well have originated in the United States. It is a talking point in China at this very moment because the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – and the Chinese don’t actually improvise in the same way as Americans their foreign policy stance – but when they’re commenting on the CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield they say, well, you know, this kind of information has to be explained. If the US reported 34 million cases of influenza that’s – I think he’s exaggerating but that’s what he says – I’m talking about the representative from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I think it’s more like 15 million – but in any event, he then concludes and says, please tell us how many are related to COVID-19. That is a tweet – the Chinese also adopted tweets.

What the Director Robert Redfield has admitted is that seemingly some people who have died from influenza could have been tested positive for the coronavirus. So this has opened up Pandora’s Box, so to speak, because the consensus in China is that the virus was not made in China; it was made in America.

It remains to be fully assessed and so on, but it changes the rhetoric. It also changes China’s geopolitical position. China is now at the stage where the pandemic is almost over. I think in a matter of a couple of weeks they’re going to go back to normal life throughout the country, and then they also are now going to acknowledge that the possibility is that this virus did not originate in China.

Bonnie Faulkner: Michel Chossudovsky, thank you so much.

Michel Chossudovsky: Delighted to be on the program. This is a very important topic. Best wishes.


I’ve been speaking with Michel Chossudovsky. Today’s show has been COVID-19 Coronavirus: The Crisis. Michel Chossudovsky is an economist and the Founder, Director and Editor of the Center for Research on Globalization, based in Montreal, Quebec.  The Global Research website,, publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis. Since posting a series of very credible research articles on the novel coronavirus, GlobalResearch’s readership has exploded, and they have added many tens of thousands of new readers in China.

Resources, “The 8 Laws of Power: How to Get Power Using Science.” By Vanessa Van Edwards;, “Using Fear to Gain Power.” By Rick Hanson;, “Contribution Limits”;, “Prof Michel Chossudovsky: COVID-19 Coronavirus: The Crisis.” By Tham Khao;


The 8 Laws of Power: How to Get Power Using Science

Want to know how to get power in your personal and professional life? Here are my top 8 strategies to launch your power out of this world!

Do you want to know how to get power? We all know someone who exudes it— they may be a master of nonverbal power, have a powerful voice, or be in a position of power. Can you identify what makes them powerful? 

Whether in work or in a personal relationship, we are constantly trying to judge someone’s power. But power has an interesting truth: it can be gained or lost in an instant. Even based on appearance alone.

Here’s what I mean…

Researcher Anthony Little and his colleagues “modified” the faces of candidates from 8 different political races in 3 countries. They changed the faces using computer software to make them unrecognizable while still keeping the candidates’ facial features intact. Then, the researchers had participants vote on who would be the better leader.

In all 8 races, the participants chose the face of the politician who had actually won the election.

In other words, there is a “look” to people who command power, and we know it at a subconscious level. 

Power can be earned and learned. 

In fact, many hidden dynamics exist that rule our choices when it comes to power.

Let’s look at exactly what these forces of power are.

What is Power? (Definition)
Power is the ability to influence the behavior of others. 

We pay attention to powerful people because we know that they can create change—and we like to know who’s capable of creating change. Powerful people influence the behavior of others, change institutions, and make big impacts in business. Are you one of them?

How to Gain Power (and How It’s Measured)

There’s one lie about power that we’ve been told—that the key to a powerful career, loving partner, and amazing friends is something people either have, or don’t.

But that’s not the case. Forbes comes out, yearly, with a list of the most powerful people in the world. That list is constantly changing, with newer, more powerful people taking the top positions. Here are the 4 variables they listed that make up power:

It’s amazing how simple power is when you break it down into these 4 elements (and sometimes, you don’t even need all 4 elements to have great power).

For a real-life example, let’s take a look at #5 on the Forbes list: the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos:

Control? Amazon has almost 1 million employees.
Wealth? A lot—Bezos has a $148.6 billion net worth, as of May 1, 2020.
Spread? Besides Amazon, he also owns the Washington Post and Blue Origin, an aerospace company.
Usage? Yes, his influence is everywhere. Jeff Bezos is a household name.
Of course, real power doesn’t have to be seen at such a grand scale. We see powerful people everyday—those that have great power in social situations, small companies, and in relationships—power doesn’t need to be so large.

Power can be exercised on a small scale.

Who’s the most controlling in your company or in your social interactions? Who has the biggest impact on your finances? Who are the people that affect multiple areas of your life? Are they exercising their power?

These are the questions that you should ask yourself to find the truly powerful people in your life. And likewise, ask yourself: “Do I have power in my life?”

If not, you can always earn more power! All you have to do is understand the science behind it.

To make this easy, I have created 8 “Laws of Power” based on the latest research—and they happen to be particularly valuable in business. 

Note: Power doesn’t necessarily mean “evil.” The beauty of power is that it can be used for good, too. Having greater power means you can decide to do what you want with it.

Here are the 8 Laws of Power you should know.

Power Law #1: Utilize the Power-Confidence Loop

How do powerful people think? Let’s get inside the heads of powerful people.

Did you know that powerful people believe more in their own thoughts and ideas?

Research has found that powerful people are more self-assured, so they tend to find their mistakes, failures, and breakups easier to handle. This also gives them more confidence.

Confidence and power go hand in hand in what I call the Power-Confidence Loop.

The loop goes like this… the more confident someone is, the more deserving of power they feel. The more deserving of power they feel, the more power they command and the more confident they become! In this way, confidence and power feed each other in a loop.

Power isn’t just about affecting the people around us, it also defines our self-esteem.

Real power works by energizing yourself and others from a place of stability and self-worth, not by demanding power from other people’s fear or arrogance. People with real power receive real benefits:

More persistence. Powerful people are confident in their attitude and actions, and research finds they are more persistent. They will focus longer on a single task before moving to the next, and avoid multitasking. 
First to take action. Powerful people are often the first to take action in emergency situations or high-stake negotiations in the workplace. (Though, perhaps this is the powerful person’s kryptonite—when powerful people do not know what to do, they can really get stumped and take longer to make decisions.)
How to Be More Powerful: Start with your self-worth. If you want to up your power, you should build up your inner confidence. This is the fastest way to become more powerful. Here are 20 ways to feel more confident right now.

You are in control of how powerful you feel. 

Power Law #2 Use Powerful Language

Here’s some frightening food for thought: we have more negative words in our vocabulary than positive words. 


Robert Schrauf, linguistics professor at Penn State, asked two sets of participants—one group in their twenties and the other in their sixties— to write down as many words as they could think of in 2 minutes that express emotion.

Here’s the surprising result: 

Half of all the words the participants wrote down were negative (like fear, anger, and sadness). 
Only 30% were positive (like joy) and 20% were neutral (such as surprise). And this is regardless of age or culture.
If you want to be more powerful, it’s time to change your vocabulary. 

Unlike negative words, studies suggest that positive words and phrases improve cognition and induce more positive emotions in people.

In short, positive words create powerful people.

Words can be used to both describe your emotions and DIRECT your emotions. This can be an incredibly easy way to step into your power. 

This is called priming psychology. Your words are powerful—if you know how to use them.

Start by kicking these phrases out of your brain completely.

  1.     I can’t …
  2.     I don’t believe …
  3.     I’m bad at …
  4.     I’m afraid of ….
  5.     It’s impossible…

In fact, don’t only remove them from your vocabulary— 

Stop exposing yourself to negative talk entirely. 

If your Monday morning water cooler conversation involves hearing “I’m so bored by my job,” “My boss is awful,” and “I’m so tired,” know that these phrases will sap your energy… energy that you need to be happy and successful and motivated.

Try to redirect these conversations into something more positive, or—if your teammates aren’t receptive to that—remove yourself from this type of negative talk.

Removing negative language is a great start but you need to do more than that.

Replace the above negative phrases with these:

  1.     I can …
  2.     I know …
  3.     I will …
  4.     I am confident …
  5.     Anything is possible.

Is your mind constantly stuck on negativity? Alison Ledgerwood gives an amazing TED talk on how to get rid of your own negative thoughts:

Another thing you can try is using positive affirmations. Studies show that positive affirmations help individuals restore their self-competence and self-worth when faced with difficulties. There are tons of positive affirmation YouTube videos you can find online.

How To Obtain More Power: The more powerful words you use, the more you will feel powerful and will incite power. Think about strengthening your language.

Power Law #3: Speak with Power

One of the best ways to gain influence and power is to use your natural ability: your voice.

Research has even found that we assess someone’s power simply by hearing the sound of their voice. Powerful people have more resonance and are less nasal. Think of a violin vs. a guitar. We like deeper voices. This is because we can learn a lot about someone’s emotional state from their voice.

Someone who is anxious or lying has more limited breathing, raw tension, and tight shoulders. This creates less vocal resonance, less volume, and more subglottal pressure. This makes the voice sound tight, small, and nasal. When we feel powerful, we breathe more deeply and our voices become lower. 

Researchers even found that the amount of dominant sounds made by one candidate over another accurately predicted the outcome of upcoming elections! 

The deeper-voiced candidates win every time.

It’s no wonder that Theresa May, Forbes’ #14 most powerful person, has a very deep voice:

Here’s an example of how voice can change: Margaret Thatcher was underestimated due to her gentle, soft voice. So she underwent an astounding vocal transformation to sound more powerful and be taken more seriously. See how the power in her voice sounds before and after:

If you want to increase your power, make sure you are relaxed, breathing deeply, and using the lowest end of your natural register. 

How To Sound More Powerful: Learn to speak with confidence.

Power Law #4: Build Your Personal Board of Directors

This is an important one. 

Powerful people know how to ask for help. They also know how to give help.

It’s time to think about building a powerful network around yourself. Not just your immediate team, but beyond. I call this a personal board of directors.

Personal Board of Directors or Mastermind Groups:

Groups of like-minded people who offer each other peer support, brainstorming ideas, and who promote accountability. They are typically goal-oriented and success-driven. 

The Inklings was an old literary group founded in the early 1930s, and consisted of famous writers like C.S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien. Even Benjamin Franklin created a mastermind called the Junto to discuss morals, politics, philosophy, and business.

Behind every great mind, there is a mastermind.

But you don’t have to be a famous writer or Founding Father to benefit from a mastermind.

Industry friends, contacts in other fields, experts, and interns… if you develop a network of people you admire who have a similar goal-oriented outlook on life, you will find their habits will stick on you. You will find that you’re more ambitious. You will even find, according to the American Society of Training and Development, a 65% likelihood of achieving your goals.

Warning: When you’re building a network, do it with sincerity. Don’t go into this trying to use people or seeing people as commodities. Remember… you’re developing the type of acquaintances, colleagues, and friends who will help you along your journey to success. And in return, you should offer your value, too.

Helpful people will be the exact opposite of those who stand around a water cooler complaining about how boring their job is and how tired they are.

How to Gain Power: I like to have at least one influencer, one mentor, one connector, and one supporter in my Personal Board of Directors. Do you have these in your life?

Influencers: Influencers have always played a huge role in networks, but particularly in the modern day. Influencers often have large audiences, or might just be considered the leader of a circle of office friends. Connecting with these people gives your own presence a bit of a boost—though you shouldn’t rely too heavily on others.
Mentors: These are the people you reach out to when you need their wisdom and guidance. They could be connections from university, or more senior people in your business. You can learn from their mistakes and their successes, and use this experience to guide your own decisions. 
Connectors: Typically, connectors are outgoing extroverts who are well known in their industry for introducing all of the right people at the right time. They know exactly who is who, understand the goals of the people in their network, and know who will add value to the various groups within it. 
Approaching the connectors in your network can help you extend your connections.

Supporters: Within your network, identify the supporters. You probably already have a few! These may be old friends from school, family members, or friends in similar careers. The supporters do exactly that—support. They are the people you can call before a big event to give you a pep talk, or you can send a long, rambling email and “unload” your business problems to them.
Some of your supporters will give you practical advice or help, like proofreading the new text for your website or advising you on how to deal with a difficult negotiation. Others will give you emotional support so you stay optimistic and motivated even on the most difficult of days. 

Forbes’ #13 powerful person, Mark Zuckerberg, talks about the importance of learning from the people around you in this clip:

Power Law #5: Your 5 Power People

This is one of my favorite quotes:

Who do you spend the most time with? Quickly, make a mental list the 5 of them now: 

Be honest with yourself—this is not your ideal 5 people. It’s the current people! Take a look at your list. How do they make you feel? Are you happy with those folks? If not, you might try some relationship management.

Now do your ideal list. Who do you wish you spent the most time with?


Here’s some crazy science, from a 2017 study by Northwestern University:

People who sat within 25 feet of a high-performer at work improved their own performance by 15%. But sitting within 25 feet of a low performer hurt their performance by 30%.

Now take a look at your top 5 people again. If they’re hurting you or bringing you down, their negativity is affecting you as well. 

In fact, I like to think of the 5 people I spend the most time with as my…

Power People:

The 5 people who influence your self-esteem, actions and feelings the most.

Perhaps it’s time to say goodbye to old friends or start networking for new ones. Science suggests that effective networking can give you new opportunities, help you achieve personal development goals, and lead you toward more collaboration with your peers.

Warren Buffet, the #16 most powerful person, describes the importance his father and wife had on his success:

So the question is… Do you like the 5 people you spend the most time with? Are they serving you?

How to Be More Powerful: Do a people check. 

Say no to the toxic people in your life (7 types to be aware of).
Get rid of fake friends.
Build more genuine adult friendships.

Power Law #6: Self-Assess

We all think we know ourselves. Unfortunately, this usually isn’t the case. 

Generally, studies suggest that people only have a weakly to moderately accurate sense of their character and skill.

In other words, we are bad at defining who we are.

So why are we so bad at assessing ourselves honestly?

It’s partly because the mechanisms we have for understanding ourselves lay deep within our subconscious. It’s also partly because it’s a defense mechanism to protect us from complete self-honesty. Think about it: if we were completely honest with ourselves about all our faults, we’d be completely devastated!

We all trick ourselves into thinking we are more successful than we really are. This can be a great thing! Who would want a life where their thoughts were occupied only by all of their own flaws?

It’s important to find a healthy balance between obsessively nitpicking at your flaws, and reviewing yourself regularly to make sure you’re on track for a successful future.

There are many different ways you can assess yourself. You can work out your personality type, keep a journal, use self-knowledge quizzes, or use an app on your phone to monitor your goals, your happiness, and how you spend your time. 

Some people even find it beneficial to take up yoga or spend part of the day on meditation and inward reflection. 

It can be difficult to go head-to-head with your flaws, but our flaws often hold us back. 

Being aware of your flaws—and either accepting them or working to change them—can be an important step on the way to power.

Because when you learn to accept your flaws, you no longer feel unacceptable. You no longer have pressure that you’re out-of-place. And you no longer try to impress.

Jack Ma even acknowledges his “ugliness” and unsupportive upbringing. Yet, he doesn’t let that stop him from being the #21 most powerful person:

How to Get More Power: Powerful people are accurate at self-assessment. They know their strengths and weaknesses and how to leverage them. It’s time to take stock of yours!

My biggest strengths are:
My biggest weaknesses are:
I need to learn how to _____.
I highly recommend finding and focusing on your A work. This is one of my favorite power-inducing activities! When you do your best work, you are more confident and do better work:

Power Law #7: Know When To Say YES (and when to say no!) 

Opportunity in life is nothing, if you’re not willing to say “Yes!” to it.

And, if opening doors to new opportunities and experiences isn’t convincing enough, scientific studies have also shown that keeping busy makes us happy!

But just like the other “laws” written here, the trick is all about balance. If you say yes to everything, you won’t have time to work on your goals.

Powerful people not only know what they are good at, but they are also judicious about how they spend their time. Research from the University of Kentucky found:

“The judicious expenditure of self-control resources among powerful people may help them prioritize their efforts to pursue their goals effectively.”

In other words… Powerful people say no. Saying “no” is an important part of staying focused on getting where you want to be in life. Here’s how to say no:

Imagine this: a friend who you haven’t seen for several years is in town for the night and has asked you to go for dinner. But you have a deadline for a new project, and you really want to make it good to impress your colleagues. Which do you choose?

When you need to decide whether to say no, ask yourself these questions: 

1.Does saying no feel like relief? Sometimes it is hard to tap into your intuition. I find the easiest way is with a little thought experiment. If you are thinking of saying no, pretend you have already said no. Do you feel relief? Then you should say no. Do you feel regret? Then you should say yes.
2.Does saying no help or hinder your long term goals? How does saying yes (or no) help or hinder you, long term? Would dinner with your friend significantly cheer you up after a bad week? Would this deadline be a case of “make or break” in your industry?
3.When looking back on this moment later in your life, which would you determine as being the most important? Sometimes, the events that feel really big and important now, you won’t reflect on later as having so much importance. 
The trick to power often comes from knowing when to say yes and when to say no. And it’s all about trusting your intuition. Say yes to: “I want power!” And no to: “I want to waste time!”

Kenny Nguyen gives an amazing TEDx talk on the art of saying no:

The bottom line: don’t waste time on fruitless ventures—but don’t close the door to opportunity, either.

Power Law #8: Stand Like Superman

Want to know one of the best tips on how to gain power and influence? Try changing your body language.

Powerful body language can be the difference between a killer presentation and a complete flunk. 

Imagine someone you consider to be powerful. How are they standing in your mind’s eye? It’s likely they are standing shoulders back, head up, perhaps with their palms open. 

Openness and expansiveness are associated with powerful people. 

A study published in Psychological Science found that good posture directly helps us feel more confident. Here’s why:

-When we stand broadly, or walk and sit erect, we take up more space.
-This allows us to take in deeper breaths, which in turn helps us feel stronger and more solid.
-Gestures also help us be broad. Gestures enlarge our physical presence and help us become more powerful communicators.
Powerful body language doesn’t only help the people around you to see you as powerful, but it also develops your inner sense of competence and strength.

Just take a look at Jeff Bezos and his powerful, wide hand gestures when he is talking:

How to Be Seen as More Powerful: Let me give you a precise list of what you can do to be more powerful. In one study, participants were given a long list of behaviors and asked to select which cues were characteristic of powerful people. The most common answers for high-power individuals were:

-More frequent initiation of handshake
-Make more and longer eye contact
-Use broader gestures 
-Open posture 
-Lean forward
-Orient the body and head toward others
-Animated hands 
-Self-assured physical expression

Do these things in your next important meeting!

Remember: Be Yourself

Gaining power is not only about following the 8 Laws. Here’s the most important one:

Be authentic.

Studies have shown that being authentic leads to happiness and life satisfaction. And you can only be truly powerful if you are happy and confident. 

If it feels unnatural to make broad expansive gestures (see tip #7) then don’t do them! Start with another cue—like eye contact—or start with smaller gestures. If you do not feel authentic, it will show.

And don’t be afraid of showing your vulnerability, either. Elon Musk, powerful person #25, even cried during an interview when he talks of his “idols” rejecting his idea and saying he’ll never make it:

One of the best ways to be more powerful? Lean into what makes you you. 

Spend time enjoying your own company. Find hobbies that fulfill you. Spend time with people you actually like. Practice what you preach.

Authenticity means aligning your words, actions, and beliefs. 

Remember, it takes about 66 days to make a habit. So start now, and set a day on your calendar. After two months, assess whether these power laws have helped you get more power in your career, relationships, and in your life.

We think you’ll be pleasantly surprised!

More power to you,


Contribution Limits

On Nov. 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 midterm elections, a new set of federal campaign finance laws went into effect. Known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the law increased the contribution limits for individuals giving to federal candidates and political parties. Every two years, the Federal Election Commission updates certain contribution limits — such as the amount individuals may give to candidates and party committees — that are indexed to inflation.

Following the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, there is no longer an aggregate limit on how much an individual can give in total to all candidates, PACs and party committees combined.


In the 2021 – 2022 election cycle, an individual may give:

  • $2,900 to each candidate or candidate committee per election;
  • $5,000 to each political action committee (PAC);
  • a combined total of $10,000 to state, district & local party committees per calendar year;
  • $36,500 to national party committees per calendar year;
  • $109,500 per account per year to additional national party committee accounts.

Authorized Campaign Committees

In the 2021 – 2022 election cycle, an authorized campaign committee may give:

  • $2,000 to each candidate or candidate committee per election;
  • $5,000 to each political action committee (PAC);
  • contributions to state, district & local party committees are not limited;
  • contributions to national party committees are not limited.

Political Action Committee (PAC), Multicandidate

In the 2021 – 2022 election cycle, a PAC (multicandidate) may give:

  • $5,000 to each candidate or candidate committee per election;
  • $5,000 to each political action committee (PAC);
  • a combined total of $5,000 to state, district & local party committees per calendar year;
  • $15,000 to national party committees per calendar year;
  • $45,000 per account per year to additional national party committee accounts.

Political Action Committee (PAC), Not Multicandidate

In the 2021 – 2022 election cycle, a PAC (not multicandidate) may give:

  • $2,900 to each candidate or candidate committee per election;
  • $5,000 to each political action committee (PAC);
  • a combined total of $10,000 to state, district & local party committees per calendar year;
  • $36,500 to national party committees per calendar year;
  • $109,500 per account per year to additional national party committee accounts.

State, District and Local Party Committees

In the 2021 – 2022 election cycle, a state, district or local party committee may give:

  • $5,000 to each candidate or candidate committee per election;
  • $5,000 to each political action committee (PAC);
  • contributions to state, district & local party committees are not limited;
  • contributions to national party committees are not limited.

National Party Committees

In the 2021 – 2022 election cycle, a national-level party committee may give:

  • $5,000 to each candidate or candidate committee per election;
  • $5,000 to each political action committee (PAC);
  • contributions to state, district & local party committees are not limited;
  • contributions to national party committees are not limited.

covid-19 and Healthcare Postings