Last Summer I Pointed You Toward The Lockstep Scenario (REDUX 7/30/20)

wrongkindofgreen |  (wrong kind of green dollar-dollar-bill-y'all is just entirely too clever)

“The ruling class exists, it’s not a conspiracy theory. They operate as a class, too. They share the same values, the same sensibility and in Europe and North America they are white. They act in accordance with their interests, which are very largely identical. The failure to understand this is the single greatest problem and defect in left discourse today.”

— John Steppling, Author, Playwright


“This report is crucial reading for anyone interested in creatively considering the multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve.”

— Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation

Storytelling. Dystopian scenarios. Not Huxley, Orwell, Bradbury or Brunner.

Scenario planning for corporate strategy was pioneered by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1970s. [Further reading on scenario planning: The Art of the Long View]The following excerpts are highlights from the May 2010 “Scenarios for the Future of Technology & International Development” report produced by The Rockefeller Foundation & Global Business Network. Not just the more known “Lock Step” scenario, but all four scenarios.

Following “Event 201” (Oct 18, 2019), we must concede that the ruling class has been gifted with phenomenal and prophetic intuitions and insights. (They truly are the chosen ones.) Thus it is worthwhile, even mandatory, to study their scenario exercises and simulations.

“We believe that scenario planning has great potential for use in philanthropy to identify unique interventions… scenario planning allows us to achieve impact more effectively.” [p 4]

“The results of our first scenario planning exercise demonstrate a provocative and engaging exploration of the role of technology and the future of globalization.” [p 4]

“This report is crucial reading for anyone interested in creatively considering the multiple, divergent ways in which our world could evolve.” [p 4]

“*I offer a special thanks to Peter Schwartz, Andrew Blau, and the entire team at Global Business Network, who have helped guide us through this stimulating and energizing process.” [*Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation] [p 4]

“*I hope this publication makes clear exactly why my colleagues and I are so excited about the promise of using scenario planning to develop robust strategies.” [*Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation][p 5]

Peter Schwartz is an American futurist, innovator and co-founder of the Global Business Network (GBN), a corporate strategy firm, specializing in future-think & scenario planning. Founded in 1987, GBN was “a membership organization comprising executives from many of the world’s leading companies alongside individual members from business, science, the arts, and academia.” The proprietary list of GBN’s corporate members included “more than 100 of the world’s leading companies, drawn from virtually every industry and continent.” Members paid an annual subscription fee of $35,000. [Source] Following an acquisition by Monitor in 2000, GBN then specialized in scenario-based consulting and training. GBN ceased to be active following the acquisition of the Monitor Group by Deloitte in 2013.

“Perhaps most importantly, scenarios give us a new, shared language that deepens our conversations about the future and how we can help to shape it.” [p 7]

“How can we best position ourselves not just to identify technologies that improve the lives of poor communities but also to help scale and spread those that emerge?” [p 8]

The Four Scenarios

“Once crossed, these axes create a matrix of four very different futures:

LOCK STEP – A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian eadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback

CLEVER TOGETHER – A world in which highly coordinated and successful strategies emerge for addressing both urgent and entrenched worldwide issues

HACK ATTACK – An economically unstable and shock-prone world in which governments weaken, criminals thrive, and dangerous  innovations emerge

SMART SCRAMBLE – An economically depressed world in which individuals and communities develop localized, makeshift solutions to a growing set of problems”

“Each scenario tells a story of how the world, and in particular the developing world, might progress over the next 15 to 20 years,… Accompanying each scenario is a range of elements that aspire to further illuminate life, technology, and philanthropy in that world.” [p 17]

Scenario #1: LOCK STEP

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain — originating from wild geese — was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.” [p 18]

“The pandemic blanketed the planet — though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better — China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter postpandemic
recovery. [p 18]

Does The Spike Protein Epigenetically Silence Endothelial SIRT6?

wmcresearch  |  One may view the actions of the spike protein by reversing a well-worn saying:

“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

The Spike prefers:

“If you stop a cell from repairing itself, it just dies. If you teach the host to stop repairing itself, you rob it of its lifetime.”

On May 31^st of this year, researchers in Israel discovered the Fountain of Youth. They observed that SIRT6 controls the rate of healthy aging. If you increase this, the mice live for an average of THIRTY PERCENT LONGER. So, imagine 130 being the new 100. SIXTY being the new THIRTY! LITERALLY!

An interesting observation was also made by the team: “If we can determine how to activate it in humans, we will be able to prolong life, and this could have enormous health and economic implications."

Enormous implications, indeed. Clearly there are those who certainly DO NOT want Seven Billion people living an extra thirty years…

So, what happens if you REMOVE SIRT6? You guessed it. Very, very bad things happen. Especially death.

Without SIRT6 your body is unable to repair the DNA damage that we experience every day, and which is ENORMOUSLY increased in states of disease, particularly so in the case of SARS-CoV-2.

THE ENDOTHELIAL SENESCENCE CONNECTION

It has been established that endothelial cells become senescent when transfected with the Spike Protein. They have not determined WHY it happens, just that it DOES HAPPEN and the effects it has. I now know why it happens. The Spike Protein is epigenetically silencing SIRT6.

What does SIRT6 do, in addition to controlling DNA repair?

DNA Repair, Gene Expression, Telomeric Maintenance, Mitosis and Meiosis, Stem Cell Pluripotency and Differentiation (how cells obtain their specific functionality), Metablic Diseases (Diabetes, for example), Cancer, Immune Regulation, Stress Response, Senescence and Aging.

Everything COVID and Long COVID.

It has already been hypothesized that Sirtuins are implicated in COVID. In a paper on COVID and related Sepsis it was determined that Metformin may improve metabolic derangements, improve mitochondrial function, and decrease cytokine production. NAD+ boosters such as resveratrol, a naturally occurring polyphenol, found in red grapes and blueberries, activate Sirtuin activity and attenuate the NF-ĸB activity, improve endothelial function, and decrease microvascular inflammation.

SIRT1 is also implicated in COVID: COVID-19: NAD+ deficiency may predispose the aged, obese and type2 diabetics to mortality through its effect on SIRT1 activity

But, what are the possible long term implications? Organisms that are deprived of their natural SIRT6 have very, very short lifespans. Mice, for example, die within four weeks without SIRT6.

Public Policy Has Become More Representative Of Religion Than Science

@sameo416  |  “How Covid-19 spreads: narratives, counter-narratives and social dramas”. Some thoughts and highlight of one aspect, how what they describe is more representative of religion than science 

They distinguish between inside track and outside track that shape policy narratives while the inside track are the literal insiders, SAG. This sounds like Fleck’s esoteric and exoteric circles. In the Stanford entry on Fleck is this prescient para, h/t @awsparling

 

“If the position of an elite is stronger than the position of the masses, the elite isolates itself and demands obedience from the masses. Such collectives develop dogmatic styles of thinking in which a test of correctness is usually located in some distant past in a more or less mythical master or savior. Collective life acquires a ceremonial character and access to the esoteric circle is well-guarded. Conservatism reigns: there is no place for fundamentally new ideas, and one can only better or worse realize the revealed principles.” 

 

If that doesn’t sound familiar read some of .@AntibioticDoc posts. The arrogance and hubris we’ve seen out of most of the public health policy makers has exactly followed Fleck’s thought. ‘Demand obedience’ indeed. This bit: “This is characteristic of most religious collectives” 

 

Droplet dogma is the mythical master by which allegiance to the esoteric circle is assessed. Transgression from that master results in something many religious traditions have practiced, shunning.

I’ve worked both engineering and church ministry. Huge red flag for me when science slips into dogmatic practice and thought. Science, by definition, is supposed to be open to new knowledge at any point. Fortress Infection Control does not reflect that attribute. 

 

The article talks about ‘rituals of purification’ that ‘reinforce the official narrative’. This too is religion writ large. Liturgy and what you do at the altar all reinforce the underlying doctrine of the faith. The authors are spot on. 

 

For public masking, it’s discussed and shut down but no evidence is offered to support the anti-mask claims. This too is an aspect of religion. Can debate the types of robes, colours, music, but if we get to core dogma, like the divinity of Christ, there’s no room for debate. 

 

In discussing why the flawed narratives persist, authors highlight why people are unlikely to change their beliefs. Use of the word belief is significant here as that’s what is being described. I don’t have beliefs about the behaviour of electromagnetic radiation… 

 

I hold understandings that are open for revision with further data. Policymakers exhibit satisficing behaviour. Further reason is scientific elitism. This includes the fetishization of the RCT as the only source of reality. This enables a degree of symbolic violence. 

 

Except its not symbolic. Epistemic violence is violence, worse than blows in many ways. That is focused on ‘outside track’ voices, those outside the esoteric and exoteric circles. The focus on maintaining control consumes all energy that could go to real public protection 

 

Final super line, “…the combination of policymakers’ cognitive biases and satisficing behaviour, scientists’ desire to protect their interests, and politicians’ alignment with individualist values and populist sentiment proved perilous.”

 

Policymaking Is A Contact Sport Involving Competing Narratives, Institutions, and Interests...,

authorea |  This paper offers a critique of UK government policy based on mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (which in turn followed misleading advice from the World Health Organisation) through the lens of policymaking as narrative. Two flawed narratives—“Covid is droplet- not airborne-spread” and “Covid is situationally airborne” (that is, airborne transmission is unusual but may occur during aerosol-generating medical procedures and severe indoor crowding)—quickly became dominant despite no evidence to support them. Two important counter-narratives—“Covid is unequivocally airborne” and “Everyone generates aerosols; everyone is vulnerable”— were sidelined despite strong evidence to support them. Tragic consequences of the flawed policy narrative unfolded as social dramas. For example, droplet precautions became ritualised; care home residents died in their thousands; public masking became a libertarian lightning rod; and healthcare settings became occupational health battlegrounds. In a discussion, we call for bold action to ensure that the science of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is freed from the shackles of historical errors, scientific vested interests, ideological manipulation and policy satisficing.

Policymaking is a contact sport involving competing narratives (about problems, how they arose, and how they will be resolved), institutions (especially government and its bureaucratic machinery) and interests (financial, political, ideological).^{1 2} Policy may—ideally—“follow science” but a key question is whosescience and why? Science shapes policy narratives via an “inside track” (e.g. official advisory committees) and to a lesser extent by an “outside track” (e.g. less mainstream scientists, citizen movements).³

 

Pandemic policymaking has been characterised not by clearly-identified knowledge gaps which science obligingly fills but by toxic clashes between competing scientific and moral narratives. Policymakers have risked losing control of the “dramaturgy of political communication” (page 78⁴).

Getting the mode of transmission for a contagious disease right matters, because preventive strategies follow (Table 1).⁵ Being honest about scientific uncertainty also matters, because—among other reasons—it is hard to back-track after declaring a policy “evidence-based”.

 

Table 1: Droplet versus airborne transmission: implications for public health and healthcare worker protection

 

Think Of The Jackpot As Eugenics Writ Large...,

“The Jackpot” is a reference to William Gibson’s The Peripheral.

Here’s the quote; I think it’s self-explanatory.

[The Jackpot] was androgenic, he said, and she knew from Ciencia Loca and National Geographic that meant because of people. Not that they’d known what they were doing, had meant to make problems, but they’d caused it anyway. And in fact the actual climate, the weather, caused by there being too much carbon, had been the driver for a lot of other things. How that got worse and never better, and was just expected to, ongoing. Because people in the past, clueless as to how that worked, had fucked it all up, then not been able to get it together to do anything about it, even after they knew, and now it was too late.

So now, in her day, he said, they were headed into androgenic, systemic, multiplex, seriously bad shit, like she sort of already knew, figured everybody did, except for people who still said it wasn’t happening, and those people were mostly expecting the Second Coming anyway. She’d looked across the silver lawn, that Leon had cut with the push-mower whose cast-iron frame was held together with actual baling wire, to where moon shadows lay, past stunted boxwoods and the stump of a concrete birdbath they’d pretened was a dragon’s castle, while Wilf told her it killed 80 percent of every last person alive, over about forty years. …

No comets crashing, nothing you could really call a nuclear war. Just everything else, tangled in the changing climate: droughts, water shortages, crop failures, honeybees gone like they almost were now, collapse of other keystone species, every last alpha predator gone, antibiotics doing even less than they already did, diseases that were never quite the one big pandemic but big enough to be historic events in themselves. And all of it around people: how people were, how many of them there were, how they’d changed things just by being there. …

But science, he said, had been the wild card, the twist. With everything stumbling deeper into a ditch of shit, history itself become a slaughterhouse, science had started popping. Not all at once, no one big heroic thing, but there were cleaner, cheaper energy sources, more effective ways to get carbon out of the air, new drugs that did what antibiotics had done before…. Ways to print food that required much less in the way of actual food to begin with. So everything, however deeply fucked in general, was lit increasingly by the new, by things that made people blink and sit up, but then the rest of it would just go on, deeper into the ditch. A progress accompanied by constant violence, he said, by sufferings unimaginable. …

None of that, he said, had necessarily been as bad for very rich people. The richest had gotten richer, there being fewer to own whatever there was. Constant crisis bad provided constant opportunity. That was where his world had come from, he said. At the deepest point of everything going to shit, population radically reduced, the survivors saw less carbon being dumped into the system, with what was still being produced being eaten by those towers they’d built… And seeing that, for them, the survivors, was like seeing the bullet dodged.

“The bullet was the eighty percent, who died?”

 

If The Jabs Are Safe And Effective - Why Are Their Manufacturers Shielded By Liability Waivers?

CTH  |  Many people have asked: how is the best way to stop the insanity behind the incessant vaccine narrative?  The likely best approach is to start demanding the pharmaceutical companies have their liability waivers removed.

If the vaccine is safe and effective, why would the U.S. government still need to provide liability waivers from adverse vaccine outcomes?

Start pressuring legislators and elected officials to force the elimination of the waivers.  Alinsky them… Make them live up to their own narrative; their own words, their own rules.  If the vaccines are safe/effective, why do we need the waivers?    If you want to get more people vaccinated, drop the waiver moving forward.

Eliminate those liability waivers and watch how fast every vaccine mandate is dropped, while every voice demanding vaccination goes quiet.

A Pandemic Of The Feebleminded

spiegel |  Meanwhile, a large population of the feebleminded have continued to ignore the dangers presented by the virus and refuse to be vaccinated. Indeed, the untenable situation in Germany’s intensive care units is primarily due to this group. In its most recent weekly report, the RKI notes that 87 percent of adults under 60 receiving intensive care due to COVID-19 have not been vaccinated.

"The winter will be a societal and medical challenge for Germany, resulting from a lack of preparation, clear rules and rigor," said Gerald Haug, president of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. The unusually stern tone of his message is justified. Almost no preventative measures were taken, the rules now in place aren’t particularly rigorous, and they are hardly enforced.

The fact that Germany is stumbling into the fall virtually unprepared is one problem. The fact that the country has essentially been without leadership since the September general election is another. The leadership shown – or better, not shown – by the country’s political representatives in recent months borders on malpractice. Hardly anyone is doing what they should be doing in the face of a crisis like this. Angela Merkel is no longer offering guidance. Her likely successor, Olaf Scholz, isn’t yet in office. And even worse, the next coalition will in all likelihood include the Free Democrats (FDP), a party which, when it comes to measures to control the coronavirus, is far more focused on what they don’t want than on what is necessary.

The result is that Germany’s federal politicians are pushing off responsibility onto the states. And they are again doing what they always do: Each state comes up with its own strategy. No coordination. Collective negligence.

The consequences are serious. Whereas more than half the population of Israel has received a third dose of vaccine, the rate in Germany is just 4 percent. Despite the fact that it has been known for some time that protection from the initial doses begins to wane after a few months.

Back in summer, immunologists and virologists made it clear to the German government that all elderly people in the country and those with compromised immune systems needed to receive a booster, which can increase protection from the virus by up to 20 times. The Health Ministry, under the leadership of Jens Spahn, calculated that up to 11 million people could be reached by the end of October. It is now November, and just over 3 million have received their booster shots. Just how outgoing Chancellery Chief of Staff Helge Braun intends to achieve his self-proclaimed target of 20 million boosters by the end of the year remains his secret. Preparations for the campaign have suffered for weeks from chaotic agreements and contradictory statements.

And it was Health Minister Spahn himself who was the source of much of the confusion. After he – in concert with the RKI – initially recommended booster shots after six months for the elderly, those with weak immune systems and health-care personnel, he suddenly shifted his approach two weeks ago. He did so in response to a discussion with his Israeli counterpart, who has been preaching booster shots for some time. There are now indications that boosters don’t just help at-risk patients, but can also result in a lower virus transmission rate, thus breaking new chains of infection.

So, Spahn also suddenly recommended that everyone get their booster shot.

The consequence has been massive confusion in medical practices across the country. Primary care physicians say their phone lines were suddenly jammed and people mobbed their offices – right at the beginning of the cold and flu season. Last Tuesday, the outraged doctors took an unusual step. In comments to journalists in Berlin, Andreas Gassen, head of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, said that comments from political leaders introduced "chaos" into German medical practices. It was clear that he was talking about Spahn.

 

 

Only A Softhead Could Pretend Jacobson Vs Massachusetts Made The Mandate Constitutional

 

Twitter is designed in a way to mislead and distort objective reality.

This headline based on one Bloomberg opinion piece was trending on Twitter for literally *weeks*, leading many people to believe that the vaccine mandates were perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. https://t.co/xLNJ3BssWE pic.twitter.com/sAejFzgAjz

— Rav Arora (@Ravarora1) November 13, 2021

In Defense Of The Mandate, Brandon Willing To Take A 25% + Federal Headcount Reduction...,

KHOU |  About 4 million federal workers are to be vaccinated by Nov. 22 under the president's executive order. Some employees, like those at the White House, are nearly all vaccinated. But the rates are lower at other federal agencies, particularly those related to law enforcement and intelligence, according to the agencies and union leaders. And some resistant workers are digging in, filing lawsuits and protesting what they say is unfair overreach by the White House.

The upcoming deadline is the first test of Biden's push to compel people to get vaccinated. Beyond the federal worker rule, another mandate will take effect in January aimed at around 84 million private sector workers, according to guidelines put out this past week.

On Saturday, a federal appeals court in Louisiana temporarily halted the vaccine requirement for businesses with 100 or more workers. The administration says it is confident that the requirement will withstand legal challenges in part because its safety rules preempt state laws.

“The president and the administration wouldn’t have put these requirements in place if they didn’t think that they were appropriate and necessary,” Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “And the administration is certainly prepared to defend them.”

If the mandates are a success, they could make the most serious dent in new coronavirus cases since the vaccine first became available, especially with the news this past week that children ages 5-11 can get the shot making an additional 64 million people eligible. But with two weeks remaining until the federal worker deadline, some leaders of unions representing the employees say that convincing the unvaccinated to change their mind is increasingly challenging.

“I got the vaccine in February, it was my own choice and I thought it would stop the virus,” said Corey Trammel, a Bureau of Prisons correctional officer and local union president in Louisiana. “But it hasn’t. And now I have people resigning because they are tired of the government overreach on this, they do not want to get the shot. People just don’t trust the government, and they just don’t trust this vaccine.”

Federal agencies are warning employees about the upcoming mandate, offering time off to get the vaccine and encouraging workers to comply. But they won't be fired if they don't make the Nov. 22 deadline. They would receive “counseling” and be given five days to start the vaccination process. They could then be suspended for 14 days and eventually could be terminated, but that process would take months.

Corporate Governmentalization IS The New World Order Normal

 

Brandon's NeoVaccinoid Mandate Is The Cutting Edge Of Corporate Governmentalization

mises |  Under the Great Reset governance model, states and favored corporations form “public-private partnerships” in control of governance. The configuration yields a corporate-state hybrid largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments.

The cozy relationship between multinational corporations and governments has even aroused the scorn of a few left-leaning critics. They note that the governance model of the WEF represents at least the partial privatization of the UN’s Agenda 2030, with the WEF bringing corporate partners, money, and supposed expertise on the 4-IR to the table. And the WEF’s governance model extends well beyond the UN, affecting the constitution and behavior of governments worldwide. This usurpation has led political scientist Ivan Wecke to call the WEF’s governmental redesign of the world system “a corporate takeover of global governance.”8

This is true, but the obverse is also the case. The WEF model also represents the governmentalization of private industry. Under Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” and the multistakeholder governance model, governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more importantly, corporations are deputized as major additions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and augmented by the addition of enormous corporate assets. These include funding directed at “sustainable development” to the exclusion of the noncompliant, as well as the use of Big Data, artificial intelligence, and 5G to monitor and control citizens. In the case of the covid vaccine regime, the state grants Big Pharma monopoly protection and indemnity from liability in exchange for a vehicle by which to expand its powers of coercion. As such, corporate stakeholders become what I have called “governmentalities”—otherwise “private” organizations wielded as state apparatuses, with no obligation to answer to pesky constituents.9 Since these corporations are multinational, the state essentially becomes global, whether or not a “one-world government” is ever formalized.

In Google Archipelago, I argued that leftist authoritarianism is the political ideology and modus operandi of what I call Big Digital, and that Big Digital is the leading edge of an emerging world system. Big Digital is the communications, ideological, and technological arm of an emerging corporate socialism. The Great Reset is the name that has since been given to the project of establishing this world system.

Just as Klaus Schwab and the WEF hoped, the covid crisis has accelerated the development of the Great Reset’s corporate-socialist statism. Developments advancing the Great Reset agenda include the Federal Reserve’s unrestrained printing of money, the subsequent inflation, the increasing taxation on everything imaginable, the increased dependence on the state, the supply chain crisis, the restrictions and job losses due to vaccine mandates, and the prospect of personal carbon allowances.10 Altogether, these and other such policies constitute a coordinated attack on the majority. Ironically, they also represent the “fairness” aspect of the Great Reset—if we properly understand fairness to mean leveling the economic status of the "average American" with those in less “privileged” regions. And this is one of the functions of woke ideology11—to make the majority in developed countries feel unworthy of their “privileged” lifestyles and consumption patterns, which the elite are in the process of resetting to a reduced and static new normal.

Archbishop Viganò’s Open Letter to Archbishop Gomez

insidethevatican  |  Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 80, has written an open letter to America’s bishops expressing concern about various issues concerning the Coronavirus, and the vaccinations against the virus.

    The central concern of the former Vatican nuncio to the United States (2011-2016) is that the testing of the various vaccines has not yet been completed, and will not be completed in many cases until 2023 or 2024.

    Since there are already after nine months of vaccinations a number of reported cases of negative reactions to the vaccines, Viganò says that he, and other bishops, ought to be concerned about the announced plan of US President Joseph Biden (link) to vaccinate in the near future 28 million American children between the ages of 5 and 11.

    Since these children have, statistically, faced little danger from the Coronavirus, but might face some type of negative side effect from the untested vaccines, Viganò argues that it would be more prudent to postpone such massive vaccinations plans for such young children until the testing is complete.

    To persist in carrying out the plan would be a crime, Viganò maintains.

    The letter contains many footnotes to scientific articles — some little noted by the mainstream media — which the archbishop believes support his arguments.

    “I realize that it may be extremely unpopular to take a position against the so-called vaccines,” Viganò writes to Gomez, “but as Shepherds of the flock of the Lord we have the duty to denounce the horrible crime that is being carried out.”

    Here is Viganò’s text, when he sent to me yesterday, October 26, though the text is dated October 23, four days ago. —RM

The "Masters" Have Redefined The Meaning Of The Word Vaccine

technofog |   The CDC caused an uproar in early September 2021, after it changed its definitions of “vaccination” and “vaccine.” For years, the CDC had set definitions for vaccination/vaccine that discussed immunity. This all changed on September 1, 2021.

The prior CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination (August 26, 2021):

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

People noticed. Representative Thomas Massie was among the first to discuss the change, noting the definition went from “immunity” to “protection”.

Check out @CDCgov’s evolving definition of “vaccination.” They’ve been busy at the Ministry of Truth: pic.twitter.com/4k2xf8rvsL

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) September 8, 2021

 

To many observers, it appeared the CDC changed the definitions because of the waning effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine falls over time, with an Israeli study reported in August 2021 as showing the vaccine being “only 16% effective against symptomatic infection for those individuals who had two doses of the shot back in January.”  The CDC recognizes the waning effectiveness, thus explaining their promotion of booster shots.

Of course, the usual suspects defended the CDC. The Washington Post, for example, cast doubt that the CDC changed the definition because of issues with the COVID-19 vaccines. The CDC tried to downplay the change, stating “slight changes in wording over time … haven’t impacted the overall definition.”

Internal CDC E-Mails

CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of “vaccine”/“vaccination”. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue.

In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that “Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…”

 

The "Masters" Have Circled Their Wagons To Protect Herr Doktor Fauci...,

Greenwald |  What is going on here is almost too self-evident to require elaboration. For years, The Post favorably covered the animal welfare work of this group without even remotely suggesting it had some nefarious ideological agenda, let alone investigating its finances. Only one thing has changed: their work in highlighting gruesome dog experimentations now has the possibility of undermining Dr. Fauci or harming his reputation, and thus The Post — acting like the pro-DNC liberal advocacy group that it is — set out to smear White Coat as right-wing MAGA activists in order to delegitimize and discredit their investigative work and, more importantly, give liberals a quick-and-easy way to dismiss their work as nothing more than an anti-science MAGA operation even though they are nothing of the sort.

Even more disturbing was the telephone call which Goodman had on Monday with Reinhard and another Post reporter, Yasmeen Abutaleb, assigned to the health and COVID beat. During that call, Abutaleb in particular repeatedly demanded to know whether White Coat was concerned that the activism they were doing on these dog experimentation programs could end up harming Dr. Fauci's reputation and thus make him less able to manage the COVID crisis. They even suggested that by encouraging people to call the NIH telephone lines to protest this experimentation, they might be making it difficult for people with questions about COVID to get through. The obvious premise of the entire conversation was one completely antithetical to the journalistic ethos: it is immoral to do anything that reflects negatively on Dr. Fauci now, no matter how true or warranted it might be, because his importance is too great to risk undermining him. (Request for comment from Reinhard was not responded to as of publication of this article, but will be added if supplied).

In general, as this controversy has unfolded, media outlets have expressed almost no interest in the immorality and atrocities of these taxpayer-funded dog experimentations, and instead have acted as political activists with only one goal: protect Dr. Fauci. PolitiFact, for instance, purported to fact-check White Coat's campaign (laughably calling them “a conservative watchdog group”) by implying they were lying. Aside from citing (but not verifying) NIAID’s denial that they funded one of the experiments, they acknowledged that they did indeed fund others, but then pointed out that nobody could prove that Fauci personally approved the funding for these experiments. Yet that is a claim White Coat has never made and which, in any event, is as unlikely as it is irrelevant given that, for thirty years, Fauci has been the head of the agencies conducting these experiments which have long been the target of activist protest. It is simply impossible that he was unaware of these controversies.

After speaking with the two Post reporters, Goodman told me that “it’s clear based on my conversations with them that rather than investigating the horrific puppy experimentation being funded with our tax dollars by Anthony Fauci — about which they have asked virtually nothing — they are instead interested in attempting to discredit our organization and #BeagleGate campaign in order to run defense for Fauci.” He also described the sudden change in The Post's behavior in reporting on them: “in just five 5 years, the paper went from featuring our group as a model of bipartisanship in the animal protection movement and highlighting our winning campaigns to end taxpayer-funded animal testing to now trying to smear us a conservative front group that doesn’t really care about animals, all because we dared to criticize St. Fauci.”

Bellotti described The Post's sudden turnaround this way:

Having personally witnessed the horrors of animal testing, I founded [White Coat] to unite liberty-lovers and animal-lovers, Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians and vegetarians to fight against wasteful taxpayer-funded animal experiments. Widening the tent is how you win campaigns, and we’ve done this more effectively than any other organization, resulting in historic wins for animals, from shutting down the government’s largest cat experimentation lab to freeing monkeys from federal nicotine addiction experiments to bringing dog testing at the VA to record lows. This has all been done on a shoestring budget with overwhelming support from grassroots advocates and donors. Apparently for some though, disparaging Anthony Fauci for funding the abuse of puppies is a bridge too far. But, to suggest that we’re out to accomplish anything other the save animals from wasteful government spending and abuse is simply not true nor supported by any actual evidence.

Newspapers like The Post vehemently deny that they have any political agenda, insisting that they are devoted to non-partisan and apolitical reporting. Very few people believe this fraud any longer, which is why trust in journalism has collapsed so precipitously, but rarely do we see a test case that so vividly illustrates how they really function.

For years, The Washington Post reported fairly and truthfully on this group, because none of its activities threatened any government officials whom the paper wishes to protect. Suddenly, when the work they have been doing for years began to reflect poorly on a government official vital to American liberalism, The Post launched a campaign that is not even thinly disguised but nakedly clear in its goal: to smear this group by impugning its motives and distorting its agenda so that its work is immediately and uncritically disregarded by the paper's overwhelmingly liberal audience.

If Strikes, Sick-Outs, And Bad Weather Continue - What Will Our Masters Do Next?

consentfactory |  Still, as mass hysterical as things are, count on GloboCap to go balls out on the mass hysteria for the next five months. The coming Winter is crunch time, folks. They need to cement the New Normal in place, so they can dial down the “apocalyptic pandemic.” If they’re forced to extend it another year … well, not even the most brainwashed New Normals would buy that.

Or … all right, sure, the most brainwashed would, but they represent a small minority. Most New Normals are not fanatical totalitarians. They’re just people looking out for themselves, people who will go along with almost anything to avoid being ostracized and punished. But, believe it or not, there is a limit to the level of absurdity they’re prepared to accept, and the level and duration of relentless stress and cognitive dissonance they are prepared to accept.

Most of them have reached that limit. They have done their part, followed orders, worn the masks, got the “vaccinations,” and are happy to present their “obedience papers” to anyone who demands to see them. Now, they want to go back to “normal.” But they can’t, because … well, because of us.

See, GloboCap can’t let them return to “normal” (i.e., the new totalitarian version of “normal”) until everyone (i.e., everyone who matters) has submitted to being “vaccinated” and is walking around with a scanable certificate of ideological conformity in their smartphones. They would probably even waive the “vaccination” requirement if we would just bend the knee and pledge our allegiance to the WEF, or BlackRock, or Vanguard, or whoever, and carry around a QR code confirming that we believe in “Science,” the “Covidian Creed,” and whatever other ecumenical corporatist dogma.

Seriously, the point of this entire exercise (or at least this phase of this entire exercise) is to radically, irrevocably, transform society into a monolithic corporate campus where everyone has to scan their IDs at every turn of an endless maze of perpetually monitored, eco-friendly, gender-fluid, ideologically uniform, non-smoking, totally meat-free “safe spaces” owned and operated by GloboCap, or one of its agents, subsidiaries, and assigns.

The global-capitalist ruling classes are determined to transform the planet into this fascistic Woke Utopia and enforce unwavering conformity to its valueless values, no matter the cost, and we, “the Unvaccinated,” are standing in their way.

They can’t just round us up and shoot us — this is global capitalism, not Nazism or Stalinism. They need to break us, to break our spirits, to coerce, gaslight, harass, and persecute us until we surrender our autonomy willingly. And they need to do this during the next five months.

Preparations therefor are now in progress.

America Has Lost The Covid Plot: Yet These mRNA Jabs And Jab Passports Keep Rolling Along....,

theatlantic |  We know how this ends: The coronavirus becomes endemic, and we live with it forever. But what we don’t know—and what the U.S. seems to have no coherent plan for—is how we are supposed to get there. We’ve avoided the hard questions whose answers will determine what life looks like in the next weeks, months, and years: How do we manage the transition to endemicity? When are restrictions lifted? And what long-term measures do we keep, if any, when we reach endemicity?

The answers were simpler when we thought we could vaccinate our way to herd immunity. But vaccinations in the U.S. have plateaued. The Delta variant and waning immunity against transmission mean herd immunity may well be impossible even if every single American gets a shot. So when COVID-related restrictions came back with the Delta wave, we no longer had an obvious off-ramp to return to normal—are we still trying to get a certain percentage of people vaccinated? Or are we waiting until all kids are eligible? Or for hospitalizations to fall and stay steady? The path ahead is not just unclear; it’s nonexistent. We are meandering around the woods because we don’t know where to go.

What is clear, however, is that case numbers, the metric that has guided much of our pandemic thinking and still underlies CDC’s indoor-masking recommendation for vaccinated people, are becoming less and less useful. Even when we reach endemicity—when nearly everyone has baseline immunity from either infection or vaccination—the U.S. could be facing tens of millions of infections from the coronavirus every year, thanks to waning immunity and viral evolution. (For context, the flu, which is also endemic, sickens roughly 10 to 40 million Americans a year.) But with vaccines available, not every case of COVID-19 is created equal. Breakthrough cases are largely mild; 10,000 of them will cause only a fraction of the hospitalizations and deaths of 10,000 COVID cases in the unvaccinated. The more highly vaccinated a community is, the less tethered case numbers are to the reality of the virus’s impact.

So if not cases, then what? “We need to come to some sort of agreement as to what it is we're trying to prevent,” says Céline Gounder, an infectious-disease expert at New York University. “Are we trying to prevent hospitalization? Are we trying to prevent death? Are we trying to prevent transmission?” Different goals would require prioritizing different strategies. The booster-shot rollout has been roiled with confusion for this precise reason: The goal kept shifting. First, the Biden administration floated boosters for everyone to combat breakthroughs, then a CDC advisory panel restricted them to the elderly and immunocompromised most at risk for hospitalizations, then the CDC director overruled the panel to include people with jobs that put them at risk of infection.

On the ground, the U.S. is now running an uncontrolled experiment with every strategy all at once. COVID-19 policies differ wildly by state, county, university, workplace, and school district. And because of polarization, they have also settled into the most illogical pattern possible: The least vaccinated communities have some of the laxest restrictions, while highly vaccinated communities—which is to say those most protected from COVID-19—tend to have some of the most aggressive measures aimed at driving down cases. “We’re sleepwalking into policy because we’re not setting goals,” says Joseph Allen, a Harvard professor of public health. We will never get the risk of COVID-19 down to absolute zero, and we need to define a level of risk we can live with.

---

Billionaires Were Undistracted And Undeterred By The Controlavirus Shenanigans...,

ips |  U.S. billionaires have seen their wealth surge $1.8 trillion during the pandemic, their collective fortune skyrocketing by nearly two-thirds (62 percent) from just short of $3 trillion at the start of the COVID crisis on March 18, 2020, to $4.8 trillion on August 17, 2021, according to a report from Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality (IPS). A table of the top 15 billionaires is below and the full data set is here.

Elon Musk has seen his wealth increase by an eye-popping $150 billion during the pandemic, a gain of over 600 percent.

America’s billionaire bonanza demonstrates the flaws in our current economic and tax systems President Biden and Democrats in Congress are trying to remedy by advancing a $3.5 trillion budget package, which has already passed the U.S. Senate and is being considered in the U.S. House today. If it becomes law through the budget reconciliation process this fall, it will aid communities and working families by making healthcare, eldercare, childcare, housing and education more affordable, investing in clean energy, expanding the Child Tax Credit and providing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. It will be paid for by making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and it will not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year.

Not only did the wealth of billionaires grow, but so did their numbers: in March of last year, there were 614 Americans with 10-figure bank accounts; this August, there are 708. Their $1.8 trillion of increased wealth alone over 17 months, which will not be taxed unless they sell their assets, would pay for more than half of Biden’s 10-year $3.5 trillion investment package.

Do The NeoVaccinoid Mandates Seem Like "Political Opportunism" Or A Master Plan?

strategic-culture |  Even as scientific studies show that vaccines alone cannot extricate humanity from the Covid-19 crisis, governments are rushing headlong towards the creation of a ‘vaccinated economy’ without any consideration for the consequences. It’s time for an injection of sanity and informed democratic debate.

An astonishing thing happened this week that should have – were it not for a media industrial complex that coddles and cossets the powers that be – incited journalists to scream bloody murder around our increasingly imprisoned planet. What the world got instead was the deafening cacophony of crickets.

When a reporter asked New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about the possibility of the Pacific island nation being fragmented into two distinct classes of citizens – the vaccinated and unvaccinated – Arden didn’t miss a beat as she responded with her trademark Cheshire grin, “That is what it is. So yep. Yep.”

After being further prodded by the deferential journalist as to why she favored apartheid, Ardern, who has already mandated vaccines for government employees or else, responded, unscientifically, that “people who have been vaccinated will want to know that they are around other vaccinated people; they’ll want to know that they’re in a safe environment.”

Under normal conditions – that is, before scientific inquiry was sent back kicking and screaming to the Dark Ages – Ardern’s outrageous remark would have been greeted by robust and vigorous debate from both the political and medical communities. After all, the vaccinated should feel absolutely at ease mingling among the unvaccinated in stuffy public places given that they are, supposedly, protected? Isn’t that the point of the vaccines, to protect the vaccinated and get us back to some semblance of ‘normal’? If not, then why the incessant push to jab every single person on the planet, and not just once, as initially promised, but multiple times? The answer, at least according to Queen Ardern, is so that everyone can feel “confident” once again among their fellow man. That makes absolutely zero sense, especially as new studies show no discernible decrease in infection rates among the vaccinated. So why hedge our bets when just the opposite seems to be happening?

In The Ongoing Mass Psych-Op "Of All Against All" - I'm Not Yet Willing To Condemn Chomsky..,

RT  | Hitherto-revered US leftist Noam Chomsky’s call for the unvaccinated to be ‘isolated’ from the rest of society, and his cold dismissal of concerns over how they would even get food, is deeply shocking. How the mighty have fallen.

The one good thing about the last 18 months is that it has exposed who were the genuine supporters of basic human freedoms and who were not. Goodness me, there've been quite a few surprises, haven‘t there? 

If I had said to you back in 2019 that, under the guise of fighting a virus with an IFR of 0.096% states across the western world would impose the greatest peace-time restrictions on civil liberties ever seen, with people even prevented from attending the funerals of loved ones or visiting them when they were seriously ill in hospital, you’d have probably said ‘I bet that socialist-libertarian Noam Chomsky will speak out strongly against it. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s always against tyranny and disproportionate government measures.’

But Chomsky not only didn’t speak out against lockdowns and mandatory face-masks (if he did, I missed it), he actually went a whole lot further. Showing a level of authoritarianism that would make even Joseph Stalin blanch, he said in a recent viral interview that the “right response” towards those who did not wish to take vaccines was to “insist that they be isolated” from the rest of society. Then, as Max Blumenthal highlighted on Twitter, far from showing contrition, he doubled down. When asked ‘How can we get food to them?’ (i.e. the unvaccinated), he chillingly replied: “Well, that’s actually their problem.”

He went on to say that if they “really did become destitute” then the state would have to move in with “some measure to secure their survival,” as was done with people in jail. Thanks for being so charitable, Noam. 

To justify his extreme position, the much-lauded ‘great thinker’ then made a quite ludicrous analogy. He compared the unvaccinated to people who don‘t want to stop at red lights at traffic junctions. 

While the vaccines have been shown to reduce transmission of the virus, they don’t entirely prevent it spreading, or people becoming sick or even dying from Covid. Never mind the scientific research from Israel which shows that natural immunity confers “longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.”

No, the great Noam Chomsky actually compared people who had made perfectly rational science-based decisions not to take the new-on-the-market vaccines, with nutters who drive through red lights and who really do put themselves and others at risk. It’s a comparison that you might expect a dumbed-down shock-jock to make when they’re desperate to boost radio ratings, but... Professor Chomsky? Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona and Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology? How the mighty have fallen.

Chomsky’s remarks would have been appalling at any time, but against the backdrop of what is actually happening they are really quite horrific. Because what he is calling for is actually being rolled out in a number of so-called ‘democracies.’  Fist tap Dale.

 

 

 

Granny Goodness Urges Boris Johnson To Mandate mRNA Goo Jabs...,

reclaimthenet |  Former US Secretary of State and former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has waded into UK politics and has said UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson should enforce vaccine passport mandates. She made the remarks in an appearance on BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

During the interview, Clinton suggested the enforcement of vaccine mandates in order to contain the spike of infections ahead of the winter.

“I do think it is imperative that the Prime Minister do what he can to stop the rise in Covid in the UK. He doesn’t need to shut the society down but he does need to mandate vaccines,” Clinton said.

When Marr clarified that mandating vaccines equals the implementation of vaccine passports, Clinton said that was the right path to follow.

She referenced the situation in the New York health sector where vaccine hesitancy resulted in the implementation of a mandate. Further illustrating her point, Clinton claimed that a hospital in New York had to fire more than 1,000 employees for refusing to show a passport, suggesting that it was a good thing.

“I think you have got to make it clear that we are not going to go back into lockdown – that is not going to happen,” Clinton said.

“But if you don’t get vaccinated, if you don’t have proof of vaccination when you go into a club or a restaurant…”

Appearing to suggest people should be fired for not showing a passport, she said: “And if employers don’t enforce vaccines, we may see some problems here in the UK as the weather gets colder and people are forced back inside again.”

Clinton’s comment came after the PM publicly decided to stop vaccine certification plans, though there is some speculation they could still be used.