3,530
02-17-2024, 03:15 PM
You seem angry.
Mind you, I'm not saying it's at all unreasonable to be.
There is not a lot in the way of expansion of the topic that I can offer. So instead, I will simply make a few comments which I hope you can welcome, or at least tolerate.
First off, I will self-identify...
I am one of those people who is often incapable of suppressing a particular response to a particular phrase relating to this topic ... which phrase?
"The COVID outbreak really damaged the world/country/[insert etc. here]"
That is a problematic and fundamentally flawed position. One often repeated by the media, political aspirants, cloistered experts, and the willfully ignorant. COVID did no such thing. What COVID did was to infect some people. The easiest correction which is undeniably valid was ...
"Our leaders' chosen response to the COVID outbreak really damaged the world/country/[insert etc. herein.] "
Now we could speculate about "plans to exploit the 'crisis;' or the 'objectives' of those policymakers who played along, or even the machinations of a mega corps' marketing campaign intending to 'stoke the fires of fear and angst' are just that (for the time being) - speculation. There are tentatively appealing sets of evidence and even rumors which inform the post-analysis; but I would say that the efforts of any analysis should not have a "stop-point,' (at least, not yet.)
Having exposed that aspect of my position, I would like to add a few wrinkles to your thread.
One: "Instead, we got a vaccine..." you offered...; I disagree.
We didn't get a vaccine. What we got was an experimental concoction that did nothing to 'vaccinate' as we defined it at the time. So evident was this fact, that they subsequently word-wrangled the definition of 'vaccine.' Suddenly, this untried MRNA manipulation technique was recharacterized as a "form of vaccination."
It was never a vaccine. It was a reprogramming of the life processes native to the immune response. Which could have been acceptable... had it worked.
It did not. No one was rendered "immune" nor incapable of harboring the COVID virus, nor were they even made incapable of transmitting the illness a COVID infection might cause. Suddenly, everything was a "COVID" infection, our medical databases now are devoid of any data regarding other infections like influenza or their ilk during that time period. Official "causes of death" were suddenly peppered with nonsensical data about the proliferation of infectious disease. Never mind the impact it had on treatments... how many suffered from that 'decision' will never be pursued by those who simply accepted the financial incentives and social currency offered for "reporting on COVID." Science itself was damaged... largely by cloistered politically influenced scientists and their leadership.
Two: What you seek to characterize seems to me to be categorized as "social engineering."
The media consumeristic nature of the most strongly supported mediums were coopted... (sadly, as many predicted) to suppress reality, in favor of the "appearances" about a new "global pandemic" which didn't in fact exists. It was anticipated... but it did not really come to pass.
The COVID outbreak was an example of what happens when a moderately serous viral infection spreads throughout the population. It wasn't the "wildfire" the mouthpieces wanted to heroically posture themselves as "dealing with." They simply "marketed" it as such.
I don't want to belabor the dozens of 'efforts' to create the illusion that we were all doomed without their "plans and policies." But somewhere down the line there will be shame and recrimination for the missteps many leaders plainly "allowed" to happen.
I have real concerns about the manner this "novel" virus (notice how I didn't say 'engineered?') was set loose in the world. I am dismayed at the base and callous nature of the exploitation that it engendered, and how 'ready' certain entities were to exploit it... but that really only begs more questions. There are too many people posturing themselves to 'gain' something from the event... including critics hungry for notoriety, and implants seeking to obfuscate reality for the benefit of their sponsors, and politicians, who use the emotional state of people for their 'marketability.'
Well, I've blathered on too much... You folks take it from here.
MM
Mind you, I'm not saying it's at all unreasonable to be.
There is not a lot in the way of expansion of the topic that I can offer. So instead, I will simply make a few comments which I hope you can welcome, or at least tolerate.
First off, I will self-identify...
I am one of those people who is often incapable of suppressing a particular response to a particular phrase relating to this topic ... which phrase?
"The COVID outbreak really damaged the world/country/[insert etc. here]"
That is a problematic and fundamentally flawed position. One often repeated by the media, political aspirants, cloistered experts, and the willfully ignorant. COVID did no such thing. What COVID did was to infect some people. The easiest correction which is undeniably valid was ...
"Our leaders' chosen response to the COVID outbreak really damaged the world/country/[insert etc. herein.] "
Now we could speculate about "plans to exploit the 'crisis;' or the 'objectives' of those policymakers who played along, or even the machinations of a mega corps' marketing campaign intending to 'stoke the fires of fear and angst' are just that (for the time being) - speculation. There are tentatively appealing sets of evidence and even rumors which inform the post-analysis; but I would say that the efforts of any analysis should not have a "stop-point,' (at least, not yet.)
Having exposed that aspect of my position, I would like to add a few wrinkles to your thread.
One: "Instead, we got a vaccine..." you offered...; I disagree.
We didn't get a vaccine. What we got was an experimental concoction that did nothing to 'vaccinate' as we defined it at the time. So evident was this fact, that they subsequently word-wrangled the definition of 'vaccine.' Suddenly, this untried MRNA manipulation technique was recharacterized as a "form of vaccination."
It was never a vaccine. It was a reprogramming of the life processes native to the immune response. Which could have been acceptable... had it worked.
It did not. No one was rendered "immune" nor incapable of harboring the COVID virus, nor were they even made incapable of transmitting the illness a COVID infection might cause. Suddenly, everything was a "COVID" infection, our medical databases now are devoid of any data regarding other infections like influenza or their ilk during that time period. Official "causes of death" were suddenly peppered with nonsensical data about the proliferation of infectious disease. Never mind the impact it had on treatments... how many suffered from that 'decision' will never be pursued by those who simply accepted the financial incentives and social currency offered for "reporting on COVID." Science itself was damaged... largely by cloistered politically influenced scientists and their leadership.
Two: What you seek to characterize seems to me to be categorized as "social engineering."
The media consumeristic nature of the most strongly supported mediums were coopted... (sadly, as many predicted) to suppress reality, in favor of the "appearances" about a new "global pandemic" which didn't in fact exists. It was anticipated... but it did not really come to pass.
The COVID outbreak was an example of what happens when a moderately serous viral infection spreads throughout the population. It wasn't the "wildfire" the mouthpieces wanted to heroically posture themselves as "dealing with." They simply "marketed" it as such.
I don't want to belabor the dozens of 'efforts' to create the illusion that we were all doomed without their "plans and policies." But somewhere down the line there will be shame and recrimination for the missteps many leaders plainly "allowed" to happen.
I have real concerns about the manner this "novel" virus (notice how I didn't say 'engineered?') was set loose in the world. I am dismayed at the base and callous nature of the exploitation that it engendered, and how 'ready' certain entities were to exploit it... but that really only begs more questions. There are too many people posturing themselves to 'gain' something from the event... including critics hungry for notoriety, and implants seeking to obfuscate reality for the benefit of their sponsors, and politicians, who use the emotional state of people for their 'marketability.'
Well, I've blathered on too much... You folks take it from here.
MM
