At this point we're well past interpreting any of this as incompetence. It's simply impossible to credit that such a vast number of highly trained specialists and subject-matter experts could have been completely blind to the blindingly obvious.
The only remaining possibility is malign intent: pressure coming down from the top, from people who for reasons I sincerely doubt had a scintilla of anything to do with providing immunity to COVID-19, wanted the frankenjuice jabbed into every arm and didn't give a good god-damn about any deleterious consequences. Everyone beneath them in the hierarchy was made to understand that it was in their personal best interests to NOT understand any problems with this project, no matter how staggeringly clear they were in the data or how easily predicted they could be by anyone with even a bit of common sense. Dissent and get fired; dissent too loudly, and be derided in the controlled press as a lunatic.
The most interesting question at this point isn't even, "Is the V counterproductive or just ineffective?" It's, "what was the real reason they wanted so very, very badly to jab everyone with this concoction?"
What's dispiriting to note is how many knew something was seriously off and remained silent in the face of it. Paycheck>>>Integrity, apparently.
If the goal was simply to get people enrolled in a digital ID system, why not go with a run-of-the-mill attenuated virus vaccine...or saline? Nope, mRNA it was! For everyone. I cannot think of a single innocent explanation as to why the authorities pushed to get a needle into every arm, since the virus posed almost no risk to healthy people under 70 yo.
Precisely. It doesn't make sense if the goal was public health; nor does it make sense if the goal was a giant fakeout to herd people into digital ID or whatever. It follows that they're up to something extremely dark.
depopulation...gates stated it in his ted talk...to paraphrase, if we do a good job with birth control and vaccines we will slow population growth and reduce carbon emissions
I think maybe they believed that mRNA technology was the magic bullet that would lead to a cure for a multitude of maladies from viruses to cancer and everything in between.
Like the introduction of functions in early programming languages, they thought it had the potential to revolutionize the field. mRNA technology was believed to be a similar game changer, malleable, and general enough to enable it to be recruited to do whatever particular tweek was needed to get the body to heal itself.
If thousands of deaths in the short term were necessary to save millions in the future, they rationalised that to be an ethical exchange.
Maybe, but it is unethical to sacrifice unwitting thousands to save millions down the line.
We are dealing with incredibly wealthy sociopaths who have gained control of many governments throughout the world. There are billions of us polluting their planet. They are not about the business of improving our lives. More like culling the herd, I fear. Nothing that's happened since vaccines rolled out has budged me off this apocalyptic scenario. In fact, most things that transpired since then affirm it. God help us.
The mRNA tech probably does have enormous potential. But what early testing had been done was spotty and disappointing. I fully agree that the mRNA products should never have been approved. But that's because they haven't been adequately tested for safety or efficacy. I concur that what is going on now is a monstrosity of greed and power-seeking at the least, and could have darker motives.
But none of the above precludes, in the least, the possibility that mRNA might prove a great technology if/when they overcome its obvious bugs.
Believe it or not, most Nazi doctors were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's programs. The human detritus would be coldly dealt with in order for the Master Race to flourish. They fancied being on the front lines in bringing about a positive future as they envisioned it. The ends justify the means, and all that...
Our doctors turned a blind eye to this evil to maintain employment. Absolutely despicable.
The Nazis were devils, no doubt. But other nations were to some extent in the same boat. If you've done any reading about Eugenics, it was a popular movement in the early 20th century, to include the USA. Of course we never took things to the lengths the Nazis did, but we certainly did our share of sterilizations, in some places, the programs continued until the 1970s. Americans like to ride on their moral high horse but alas, we too have a few skeletons in the national closet.
And the really horrifying truth? At its core Eugenics is correct: It is NOT in the "herd's" (humanity's) long-term interest to allow the "less fit" to reproduce. And yes, the very ill, the old, the weak and the unfit are a drain on resources and thus should be "culled." This is "correct" in the natural sense, that Nature demands survival of the fittest.
None of this is news, it has been well known to scientists and ethicists for hundreds of years. Nietzsche wrote about it in the 19th century; his arguments were along the lines that democracy was the (many) weak organizing to protect against the (few) strong, ultimately producing a tame, domesticated citizen. In places he explicitly argues the weak should be culled.
Please observe I'm not defending Eugenics in any moral sense. Other than the most humane forms of it ("positive" eugenics) which would be, say, voluntary mating by consenting people, virtually any other types very quickly wades from the relatively firm ground of the merely morally dubious (mandatory birth control, anyone?) to the muck of forced sterilizations, ultimately into the quicksand of extermination.
We now return you to your preferred, Disney-esque fantasy world where all animals are herbivores and peace, happiness, butterflies and rainbows are the norm!
I support eugenics as an ideal. Why wouldn't we want more people to be strong, healthy, brave, intelligent, good-looking, honorable, and otherwise gifted, than the reverse?
The clinker is that Eugenicists usually wanted this program to be carried out by the government. I was disabused of this hope upon reading 1984 when I was a college freshman, and realized that if the government was running it, they would inevitably breed mediocre conformists instead, because those are the people they can rule over.
If the government is doing it, the result will be domestication. We eugenicists are hound dogs who aspire to be wolves, but the government would turn us into pugs, or toy poodles, or perhaps those little dogs the Aztecs used to eat.
I think Nietzsche had a sense of this. His concept of the "superman" was the eugenic ideal, but in contempt of government, absent Darwinian logic, and wrapped in the mantle of tragedy.
I've also heard that women are natural eugenicists in their search for a husband. They should be left to follow their instincts, and let the men each pursue his own "superman". That is the real eugenic method that we have always practiced, and the only one that actually works.
Women USED to be тАЬnatural eugenicistsтАЭ...They, like other mammals, used to look for the fittest mate, the one most likely to provide shelter and safety and a good life for her and her children. Unfortunately, with the so-called тАЬsafety netтАЭ of our social welfare system, the government has become the provider for many women and their children. Many women are now WILLING to тАЬmateтАЭ with sub-par men that are unwilling to work OR protect their progeny. Too many women donтАЩt demand it of them.
Women are no longer gatekeepers. WeтАЩve lost the instinct mentioned above...and society is weaker as the result.
About that...from the GAO, "HHS Agencies Need to Develop Procedures and Train Staff on Reporting and Addressing Political Interference" https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104613
If they can normalize all the corners they've cut with this shot, which obviously but unprovably and unpredictably kills some of the people who get it, and wrap this into a digital ID system that ties to medical, financial, and social credit, they've got us. You have no money without a current ID, your ID won't stay current without your regular booster, and your shot will be individualized to you given your genetic/medical profile, so it won't be the same as what any other person gets. If you make yourself troublesome you will die of a previously undiagnosed condition conveyed by your next booster, and no one else will dare to help you because they are vulnerable to the same thing themselves. Dissidents and deadwood can be plucked out. If the economy is tight, your retirement will be short. Even if you own land and can farm, you can't pay your taxes without a current ID card, and your land will be seized. Short of living as a hobo, you are stuck.
That is the power they are grasping for here: the arbitrary power of life and death over every human being in the reach of this economy. The power to kill people, individually or in groups, as anonymously and unaccountably as they have been freezing or deleting social media accounts over the past two years. For the scheme to work, they have to set up an endless schedule of required Russian roulette shots into every arm, with no exceptions.
I have no doubt that everything you wrote is exactly correct, and yet, I can't help but suspect that there's something even more nefarious at play in the specific nature of the technology they're pushing to inject into everyone.
You may be right that there is something special about the mRNA injections, beyond any garden-variety poisoning. We'll have to wait and see what becomes of our loved ones who have taken them.
The vision of Bill Gates: Windows on every desktop and a jab in every arm. BMGF own substantial positions in companies that produce quackcines. Coincidence?
Gates: "Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it."
My goodness, why bother with recovered if natural immunity is a fairy tale or has no real effect and only vaccination can achieve anything at all? Why shouldn't it be vaxxed or unvaxxed period?
At this point we're well past interpreting any of this as incompetence. It's simply impossible to credit that such a vast number of highly trained specialists and subject-matter experts could have been completely blind to the blindingly obvious.
The only remaining possibility is malign intent: pressure coming down from the top, from people who for reasons I sincerely doubt had a scintilla of anything to do with providing immunity to COVID-19, wanted the frankenjuice jabbed into every arm and didn't give a good god-damn about any deleterious consequences. Everyone beneath them in the hierarchy was made to understand that it was in their personal best interests to NOT understand any problems with this project, no matter how staggeringly clear they were in the data or how easily predicted they could be by anyone with even a bit of common sense. Dissent and get fired; dissent too loudly, and be derided in the controlled press as a lunatic.
The most interesting question at this point isn't even, "Is the V counterproductive or just ineffective?" It's, "what was the real reason they wanted so very, very badly to jab everyone with this concoction?"
What's dispiriting to note is how many knew something was seriously off and remained silent in the face of it. Paycheck>>>Integrity, apparently.
If the goal was simply to get people enrolled in a digital ID system, why not go with a run-of-the-mill attenuated virus vaccine...or saline? Nope, mRNA it was! For everyone. I cannot think of a single innocent explanation as to why the authorities pushed to get a needle into every arm, since the virus posed almost no risk to healthy people under 70 yo.
Something very evil is going on.
Precisely. It doesn't make sense if the goal was public health; nor does it make sense if the goal was a giant fakeout to herd people into digital ID or whatever. It follows that they're up to something extremely dark.
depopulation...gates stated it in his ted talk...to paraphrase, if we do a good job with birth control and vaccines we will slow population growth and reduce carbon emissions
I think maybe they believed that mRNA technology was the magic bullet that would lead to a cure for a multitude of maladies from viruses to cancer and everything in between.
Like the introduction of functions in early programming languages, they thought it had the potential to revolutionize the field. mRNA technology was believed to be a similar game changer, malleable, and general enough to enable it to be recruited to do whatever particular tweek was needed to get the body to heal itself.
If thousands of deaths in the short term were necessary to save millions in the future, they rationalised that to be an ethical exchange.
Maybe, but it is unethical to sacrifice unwitting thousands to save millions down the line.
We are dealing with incredibly wealthy sociopaths who have gained control of many governments throughout the world. There are billions of us polluting their planet. They are not about the business of improving our lives. More like culling the herd, I fear. Nothing that's happened since vaccines rolled out has budged me off this apocalyptic scenario. In fact, most things that transpired since then affirm it. God help us.
The mRNA tech probably does have enormous potential. But what early testing had been done was spotty and disappointing. I fully agree that the mRNA products should never have been approved. But that's because they haven't been adequately tested for safety or efficacy. I concur that what is going on now is a monstrosity of greed and power-seeking at the least, and could have darker motives.
But none of the above precludes, in the least, the possibility that mRNA might prove a great technology if/when they overcome its obvious bugs.
Yes. This might offer insight: https://themariachiyears.substack.com/p/covid-vaccines-as-the-aschen-agenda?s=w
Excellent essay and compilation of videos.
Neuralink & meta verse.
Most doctors in Nazi Germany went along with the program too.
I bet it was just like this.
We used to wonder how it happened. Now we know.
A bunch of people just...going along.
Believe it or not, most Nazi doctors were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's programs. The human detritus would be coldly dealt with in order for the Master Race to flourish. They fancied being on the front lines in bringing about a positive future as they envisioned it. The ends justify the means, and all that...
Our doctors turned a blind eye to this evil to maintain employment. Absolutely despicable.
The Nazis were devils, no doubt. But other nations were to some extent in the same boat. If you've done any reading about Eugenics, it was a popular movement in the early 20th century, to include the USA. Of course we never took things to the lengths the Nazis did, but we certainly did our share of sterilizations, in some places, the programs continued until the 1970s. Americans like to ride on their moral high horse but alas, we too have a few skeletons in the national closet.
And the really horrifying truth? At its core Eugenics is correct: It is NOT in the "herd's" (humanity's) long-term interest to allow the "less fit" to reproduce. And yes, the very ill, the old, the weak and the unfit are a drain on resources and thus should be "culled." This is "correct" in the natural sense, that Nature demands survival of the fittest.
None of this is news, it has been well known to scientists and ethicists for hundreds of years. Nietzsche wrote about it in the 19th century; his arguments were along the lines that democracy was the (many) weak organizing to protect against the (few) strong, ultimately producing a tame, domesticated citizen. In places he explicitly argues the weak should be culled.
Please observe I'm not defending Eugenics in any moral sense. Other than the most humane forms of it ("positive" eugenics) which would be, say, voluntary mating by consenting people, virtually any other types very quickly wades from the relatively firm ground of the merely morally dubious (mandatory birth control, anyone?) to the muck of forced sterilizations, ultimately into the quicksand of extermination.
We now return you to your preferred, Disney-esque fantasy world where all animals are herbivores and peace, happiness, butterflies and rainbows are the norm!
I support eugenics as an ideal. Why wouldn't we want more people to be strong, healthy, brave, intelligent, good-looking, honorable, and otherwise gifted, than the reverse?
The clinker is that Eugenicists usually wanted this program to be carried out by the government. I was disabused of this hope upon reading 1984 when I was a college freshman, and realized that if the government was running it, they would inevitably breed mediocre conformists instead, because those are the people they can rule over.
If the government is doing it, the result will be domestication. We eugenicists are hound dogs who aspire to be wolves, but the government would turn us into pugs, or toy poodles, or perhaps those little dogs the Aztecs used to eat.
I think Nietzsche had a sense of this. His concept of the "superman" was the eugenic ideal, but in contempt of government, absent Darwinian logic, and wrapped in the mantle of tragedy.
I've also heard that women are natural eugenicists in their search for a husband. They should be left to follow their instincts, and let the men each pursue his own "superman". That is the real eugenic method that we have always practiced, and the only one that actually works.
Women USED to be тАЬnatural eugenicistsтАЭ...They, like other mammals, used to look for the fittest mate, the one most likely to provide shelter and safety and a good life for her and her children. Unfortunately, with the so-called тАЬsafety netтАЭ of our social welfare system, the government has become the provider for many women and their children. Many women are now WILLING to тАЬmateтАЭ with sub-par men that are unwilling to work OR protect their progeny. Too many women donтАЩt demand it of them.
Women are no longer gatekeepers. WeтАЩve lost the instinct mentioned above...and society is weaker as the result.
The Nazi doctors. Not everyone by any means was part of that party, though they suffered for their not joining.
it is becoming a very bleak science fiction movie...
I expected my cyberpunk dystopia to come with street samurai, bionic limbs, heat vision, and a hacker cyborg gf. This movie sucks.
It reminds me of Soylent Green. Maybe this IS the remake.
we may still get the zombies, if they keep rolling out the boosters
Well said
ha!
"pressure coming down from the top"
About that...from the GAO, "HHS Agencies Need to Develop Procedures and Train Staff on Reporting and Addressing Political Interference" https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104613
ЁЯШ│
It would be the power to poison people at will.
If they can normalize all the corners they've cut with this shot, which obviously but unprovably and unpredictably kills some of the people who get it, and wrap this into a digital ID system that ties to medical, financial, and social credit, they've got us. You have no money without a current ID, your ID won't stay current without your regular booster, and your shot will be individualized to you given your genetic/medical profile, so it won't be the same as what any other person gets. If you make yourself troublesome you will die of a previously undiagnosed condition conveyed by your next booster, and no one else will dare to help you because they are vulnerable to the same thing themselves. Dissidents and deadwood can be plucked out. If the economy is tight, your retirement will be short. Even if you own land and can farm, you can't pay your taxes without a current ID card, and your land will be seized. Short of living as a hobo, you are stuck.
That is the power they are grasping for here: the arbitrary power of life and death over every human being in the reach of this economy. The power to kill people, individually or in groups, as anonymously and unaccountably as they have been freezing or deleting social media accounts over the past two years. For the scheme to work, they have to set up an endless schedule of required Russian roulette shots into every arm, with no exceptions.
I have no doubt that everything you wrote is exactly correct, and yet, I can't help but suspect that there's something even more nefarious at play in the specific nature of the technology they're pushing to inject into everyone.
You may be right that there is something special about the mRNA injections, beyond any garden-variety poisoning. We'll have to wait and see what becomes of our loved ones who have taken them.
Bingo.
The vision of Bill Gates: Windows on every desktop and a jab in every arm. BMGF own substantial positions in companies that produce quackcines. Coincidence?
Bill Gates: The vaccines are a miracle. https://youtu.be/VOgVcFv_tWs?t=50
Gates: "Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it."
https://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/bill-gates-calls-for-a-digital-certificate-to-identify-who-is-vaccinated/
Certificate of Vaccination COVid. Interesting.
My goodness, why bother with recovered if natural immunity is a fairy tale or has no real effect and only vaccination can achieve anything at all? Why shouldn't it be vaxxed or unvaxxed period?
facilities Neuralink & meta verse.
I think we've all noticed the vaxxed getting sick more regularly than purebloods, and not just with COVID. Clearly ADE isn't the only thing going on.
the kids with hepatitis
Not likely. Many of the hepatitis cases are in the very young, too young for Covid-19 jabs in nearly all places, far as I know.
I hope you're right. But it's horrifying no matter what.