COVID hasn’t worked well enough - weaponize it now?

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

i'm not a big fan of oregonlive.

i gravitate to KGW or KOIN6 but even those two are sketchy sometimes.

I’m not a lover of OLive either but for me, credit where it’s due.

I think they didn’t get the memo on the narrative early enough and set some reporting wheels in motion they can’t undo.

So for that I thank them.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: EnigmaChaser
Your a bit late. They've already hit us with "even though you've had it, you can catch it again" or the new go to " the virus has mutated and we have a new variant about to run rampant". Plus the biggie "we think the vaccine will only work for a few months".

Those very well could be the paths they choose to go down here to reach the same objective for sure.

To me, those are stop-gaps in a way because those claims are going to be hard to substantiate.

If you say, “you’ll catch it twice” then we’ll need to see thousands of people contract the illness for a second time. Tens of thousands. If it’s not a huge number, it is too easily called out for testing issues, how we count cases or “presumed” cases or if they screen for lower amounts of the virus and thus you “have a case again”. Lots of things you’d have to be on the lookout for.

Same goes for the new variant. It very likely does morph naturally but if that’s a little too obvious someone will start asking questions.

Said another way, you don’t need to get cute here. If you just infect more people to create cases, you don’t have to change anything else at all and the existing machine can keep spinning.

That’s why, to me, inserting the virus in a targeted way is the, well, “easiest” approach once you figure out the right delivery mechanism.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

After this year, Im rather convinced that the most effective bioweapon is one whose real danger lies in information control of said weapon.

If its not particularly deadly, but is reported otherwise, it might be one of the most effective divide & conquer applications in human history.

Releasing a variant that is truly lethal would likely bring together the population in ways that are unpredictable and uncontrollable. I strongly doubt that will occur. At least.. not before extreme control mechanisms are widespread (like robotic enforcement wandering the streets).

The more "they" can get people believing in a false reality, the better. In this respect, things like dropping cases/deaths actually serve the same end in a much more effective fashion.

If people can be convinced through information control that normal events are, in fact, a horrible apocalypse.. The only thing that ever needs to be done is controlling information channels. Compared to more traditional approaches, this is an exceptionally low effort tactic that ends up being more effective than manufacturing events and controlling information.

Weaponizing normal, everyday life events is very clever and efficient.

I’ll add -

My thinking on most any “TPTB” subject is that once you think big, then think simple.

Big things that aren’t complex are achievable. Big, complex things are harder to achieve.

From experience, I’ve helped with various projects at work that had some fairly complex algorithms and analyses behind their “rollout”. When we went to test, it was decided that we’d test the tool in a very sophisticated, multi-step and massively time consuming way. I voted against that and lost narrowly.

Turns out, we got the learning we wanted but it was a mess getting it with many irritated employees along the way.

After review, the postmortem suggests we could have just done it the easy way more quickly, will less problems and more cleanly readable data.

That was at the scale of 1,000 humans. Enlarge that number to 340mm humans and it would get really, really challenging to enact something that’s multi-step and complex.

That’s why, to me, the virus is pretty easy to get more mileage out of as it stands - getting fancy introduces variables and more variables are more points of failure.

If you could put it in foods, for instance, or make it survive on surfaces there’s a number of “inspection points”, government officials or even just delivery people who could spread this thing like wildfire - no fancy “special ops” required.

Perhaps you’re right though and once Biden is in they’ll control everything and could deploy the fancier strategies more easily - it would be challenging now though as they don’t hold all the cards yet.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

After this year, Im rather convinced that the most effective bioweapon is one whose real danger lies in information control of said weapon.

If its not particularly deadly, but is reported otherwise, it might be one of the most effective divide & conquer applications in human history.

Releasing a variant that is truly lethal would likely bring together the population in ways that are unpredictable and uncontrollable. I strongly doubt that will occur. At least.. not before extreme control mechanisms are widespread (like robotic enforcement wandering the streets).

The more "they" can get people believing in a false reality, the better. In this respect, things like dropping cases/deaths actually serve the same end in a much more effective fashion.

If people can be convinced through information control that normal events are, in fact, a horrible apocalypse.. The only thing that ever needs to be done is controlling information channels. Compared to more traditional approaches, this is an exceptionally low effort tactic that ends up being more effective than manufacturing events and controlling information.

Weaponizing normal, everyday life events is very clever and efficient.

This is a really good train of thought. I need to noodle on this but I think you could be very right about this at first pass.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

If that is truly the play here, it would be a bit of a relief in terms of a deadly pathogen.

However..

It would represent one of the most horrifying dystopias I can imagine, where everyday life itself is weaponized.

Once this has been established as the "norm" over 5-15 years of conditioning, then I could see them return to more traditional manufactured events. Such things will be incomparably more effective than if it was done now, and will give plenty of time to deploy those extreme measures. People think things like robotic enforcement is scifi nonsense, but its a lot closer than many are led to believe. Thankfully, "the government insists that they won’t be using face tracking or collected personal data."

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

If that is truly the play here, it would be a bit of a relief in terms of a deadly pathogen.

However..

It would represent one of the most horrifying dystopias I can imagine, where everyday life itself is weaponized.

Once this has been established as the "norm" over 5-15 years of conditioning, then I could see them return to more traditional manufactured events. Such things will be incomparably more effective than if it was done now, and will give plenty of time to deploy those extreme measures. People think things like robotic enforcement is scifi nonsense, but its a lot closer than many are led to believe. Thankfully, "the government insists that they won’t be using face tracking or collected personal data."

I really like this train of thought.

To your point on data, they’re getting all the data they need. That data is understanding how much they can manipulate the population via lying with statistics and the media’s hyperbolic fear tactics - coupled with turning American’s against one another.

Now it’s possible to weaponize anything - no need for major “false flags”.

I imagine they could deploy things around the food supply, water supply, the sun/sun exposure and more.

The problem is, most of those “everyday” things would be hard to scale to the global level - and you can’t lock down if the world isn’t locked down as you’d do too much damage to yourself.

Which is another thing I find fascinating on this subject. The world - particularly North America and Western Europe + their allies are all moving in more-less lockstep.

If the US went full open right now, for instance, we could economically pull quite far ahead.

Which, depending on your view of the world, might be the most intelligent power play if your goal is to be dominant.

I don’t suspect that’s the goal here, however.

what if cov19 is just normal flue?
and all the rest is smoke and mirrors.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The numbers represent a continuing trend of fewer reported cases and fatalities over the last several days, but the state’s data often lags during weekends and around holidays so may not be reflective of the actual state of the pandemic in Oregon.

This is exactly what happened in the UK (we were told the same by major media outlets when the case numbers were falling). But then the 'new, mutated strain, more highly transmissible' appeared, and we all got double lockdown measures imposed a couple of days before Christmas. Hard to take things seriously now, it seems there is something more insidious than a virus on the loose (though I'm certain there is a virus).

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Data collection is kinda funny, isnt it?

I know plenty of people that say they dont care.. But everyone should. As you say, this data is used specifically to manipulate behavior in real time. Its not so much about getting everyone in that net either, just enough to be able to direct social & cultural momentum. That percentage is a lot smaller than many might imagine too.

Before, they used to have manufacture/manipulate/weaponize both information and events. Now its just information. Its brilliant, but I dont think its "good."

You are absolutely correct that this all represents an immense opportunity. It all comes down to what themes really take hold, and what foundation we are building for the future. Whichever direction we take will completely reshape our civilization.

Im 100% biased in that I believe I see the opportunity to build something that will actually move us towards an idealized version of humanity. Yet, many of the facets that are required for this have been hijacked, obfuscated, and muddled (intentionally, imo).

For instance, I dont believe its "right" that anyone should have to work to survive. But I strongly believe its "right" that everyone should have to work to truly thrive. We havent had the tools to achieve much in this direction until recently, and there is little distinction between "survive" and "thrive" in really any narrative.

Further, there is very little consideration given to pragmatism. A pipeline has been created between ideals and corporate politics. Meaning, the development & deployment of the actual tools to reach those ideals (like eliminating world hunger) are not part of the conversation.

Instead.. all thats required is total allegiance and compliance with corporate-political figures/organizations (& their marketing/Narratives). Naturally, if one questions that compliance, then you are a bad person and want people to die.

I think we are looking at a fundamental paradigm shift for our entire civilization. This presents an incredible opportunity, but the only option that is presented is acceptance/rejection of the corporate-political Monolith. No meaningful alternative(s) have penetrated the mainstream Cultural Story. That single aspect best encapsulates what I have personally been trying to accomplish for a couple decades now. I believe it is very, very important.. especially since I think there are superior alternatives. Even for those who believe they will benefit most from the current repeating trend of tyranny and authoritarian systems.. Basically, I believe that for the first time in (known) history, we have the opportunity to work towards Anarchy as a beneficial, thriving paradigm. Absolute decentralization of the basic framework of our society, like manufacturing, food, etc. It "just so happens" that this is also the only way to stall the momentum of the Monolith that is forming. Traditional methods of fighting back will not be effective (quite the opposite).

a reply to: Serdgiam

think we are looking at a fundamental paradigm shift for our entire civilization.

Have you heard of 'community banks'?
Catherine Austin Fitts says that everyone should remove their money from central banks and use 'community banks" towards the end of this interview from a documentary called Planet Lockdown which is released in full later this month.


I posted this earlier today on another thread, it had 1.8 million views then......now it says 1.9 million (interview posted just a week ago).

Other interviews with other people are also available...Pam Popper is another.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I kinda watched that video in the background when it first released. Definitely some relevant info, and Pam Popper has some good perspective as well.

I believe a distinction needs to be made between "universal" structures and "centralized" structures. They are frequently conflated since authoritarian systems will nearly always attempt to centralize universal aspects (like currency).

I find currency to be an incredibly beneficial concept. Its just a representative notion of "work done," a bit like a running tally of contributions to society. However, I do believe that centralized systems of control are detrimental. I also think we could come up with significantly better methods of distribution and "scorekeeping."

While I think that awareness of what is going on is important in a lot of ways, I think that actually adopting and deploying competing systems is incomparably more critical. Im a big fan of anything that at least attempts to work in that direction.

Ive tried to do just that for as many aspects as I could, but it is inherently a team effort. I have little to no resources, influence, or say in the matter. So, people need to first become aware of what has been happening for decades and then also adopt competing, decentralized systems.

We can build a framework that starts to truly leverage the immense potential of humanity. But, that potential runs both ways.. either an authoritarian structure that is staggering in its tyranny or one that enables the individual at the most granular level. Far too few realize there even is a choice; they either support the tyranny under the auspices of "righteous goodness," or want to fight against it with escalating, traditonal force. Both of which will inevitably result in tyranny at this stage of our species.

Even establishing "community banks" is more of a reset to centralized options than a true alternative paradigm. A bit like Parler vs Twitter, or advocating for third parties. It doesnt actually fix anything.. but even so, such a reset may give more time for folks to wrap their heads around the situation.

Blockchain is a system that works directly towards that granular autonomy, however, it can (and will) be centralized to maintain control. Robotics & automation is another great example of a universal concept that is being centralized. The Narrative is crafted so that the metaphorical baby is thrown out with the bathwater if someone dissents. In all that, it might be most accurate to determine successful implementation by how much it enables the individual and how much it rejects and resists attempts at centralized authority.

Significantly more things fail that litmus test than many imagine, particularly since the entire current paradigm is predicated on hijacking emerging "threats" as they form.

COVID, the actual disease, seems like a side note. There are much worse things fairly readily available to those who would do such things.

Someone, somewhere wanted to test out a few theories ... how quickly the world economy could be shut down, how many would resist what seemed to be in their best interests, and how long people would remain under house arrest.

Measurements are being taken, data is being collected.

IMO

a reply to: Gryphon66

I feel like covid can accurately be described as a disease that is currently plaguing society. However.. whether or not it is caused by a virus (in whole or in part) is still up in the air for me. Particularly given that the tests only identify ~1% of the sequence of the virus itself (about 200-300 vs 20k-30k). That also means that when something like a fruit or motor oil tests positive, the test isnt failing, its just inappropriate in the context its being used.

I agree that data is certainly being collected, but not for some far off plan. They spent years honing the real-time manipulation, and are now making their play.

Even if it was started as "just a test," its been so successful that Id run with it if I was in their shoes. At its core, all that needs to be done is get people fighting for or against the Narrative, and make sure that any possible competition that arises is in the same easily hijacked form as always.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Calling COVID a "sidenote" wasn't a suggestion that it's not real or that it isn't having a detrimental effect. Beg pardon if it seemed that was what I was saying.

Killing folks with COVID wasn't "the point" in my opinion. Gathering data on global behavior was. The processes of controlling smaller groups of people are well-known and exploited.

As far as what the endgame might be ... well, you can't have a savior without something to save people from.

I expect a period of conciliation and consolidation ... a "synthesis" period if you will.

Only my opinion though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No worries, I think I understood what you were getting at! My point was that I am not convinced that some (or all) of what is going on is due to a virus. Its just assumed to be true. But a "disease" can sure mean a lot of different things.

For instance, Im quite curious to see how many cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome occured. I was tentatively diagnosed with it and Im pretty certain it almost took my life. It was rough and Im still recovering almost a year later. Doctors told me it was benign and told me to deal with it, essentially. Thus began an interesting journey of research

My current belief is that environmental factors, many of which are direct results of numerous large industries, have come to a head with regards to public health. Coupled with decreasing general health in the population, a novel virus (which pop up quite frequently), and long term control agendas.. and here we are.

99% of the measures we are taking are not only largely ineffective, whether for a virus or environmental factors, they are highly detrimental. We are damaging our medical system, immune systems, social discourse, etc. and I believe its all directed in real-time through data.

a reply to: Serdgiam

You have some valid points.

I wonder how much of the "cascade" effects leading to death from "COVID" are due to damage to the endocrinal system.