Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

About once a year something (like this thread) prompts me to go back and read the Nixon obituary Thompson wrote to remind me how powerful journalism can be when done right.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/07/he-was-a-crook/308699/

"dooky.  Not even Spiro Agnew was that dumb."   Belly laugh.  He just goes on and on an on.  Like going around a bear hide nailing it to the side of a barn.  Magnificent.

[W. Niederhut]

52 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

"dooky.  Not even Spiro Agnew was that dumb."   Belly laugh.  He just goes on and on an on.  Like going around a bear hide nailing it to the side of a barn.  Magnificent.

I've always enjoyed reading Hunter S. Thompson's prose.  There's nothing quite like it.

At his funeral up in Aspen some years ago, they blasted his ashes out of a cannon.  🤪

[Guest]

On 2/21/2021 at 3:30 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - that is quite an essay. Thank you for sharing it. I was sitting here thinking about all that is going on in the world and trying to fit the pieces together. There are so many conspiracy theories floating around now - it’s become a business. A friend sent me a link today, saying for one day only I could access all the conspiracy stuff on the website for free. Golly gee, you mean you are paying to watch 2 hour videos by experts telling you what to believe? The worst part of what is going on now is the deep rift being hammered into the heart of what we call the Left. Surely that is intentional, and though not new it is today especially pervasive. I find myself unable to talk sensibly with good liberal friends. The NY Times is their truth if they are ‘sensible’, and if not they are buying the propaganda coming from thousands of internet sites of unknown pedigree and from thousands of credentialed ‘experts’ who no one has ever heard of. 
I find Russell Brand to be like a voice crying out in the wilderness. His videos are short and they address all the wacky stuff without censure, looking for common ground between artificially created factions. An example - wacky ‘right wingers’ believing all kinds of hooey like QAnon and storming the Capitol are seen at least as rightfully pissed off. Of course they are - aren’t most of us too? Another example - Bill Gates isn’t trying to inject us all with microchips. But he is wielding enormous clout with his billions, and his intent is far from clear. We could perhaps believe that Monsanto is doing is all a huge favor by feeding the world, monopolizing our seed heritage and creating better strains of food crops, but did they ask the people of India whether that was ok with them? No, for sure not. Cable News from the ‘liberal’ side isn’t news at all, it’s politics and propaganda. I can’t even watch Fox, but I’m damned sick of my well meaning friends thinking that Rachel Maddow and MSNBC is worth watching. We simply don’t see what is actually going on globally unless we search hard and long, and even then we have to filter everything. Can all this be explained simply by saying that Capitalism is running amok and self interest is the root cause? I’m beginning to question that long held belief in these days of Covid, where, in my opinion, the cure is worse than the disease. We are not asking the right questions. Why is Africa better off? Why India? Didn’t we all expect that they would be in the throes of unspeakable horror by now? Well, they are not. And what about all the homeless encampments on the West Coast? Wouldn’t we have thought they would be ravaged by Covid? So who is being hurt? Why, the poor service workers, mostly non white, taking care of our daily business while we hold up in our safety pods. Is that a good thing? We don’t know for certain whether this virus was created in a lab or not. We don’t know what long range effects the new vaccines will have on our species. But we do know that the rich are getting richer off this. If any of you have young children or grandchildren you will know that doctors are now pushing for all of us to get booster vaccines for all the childhood diseases, to take the new two shot shingles vaccines, and who knows what else. I can tell you as a performing musician I see no chance that the performing arts will ever return to normal. For all of time we have lived with risk. We live with it every day. Germs can kill you, cars can kill you, guns can kill you, Big Macs can kill you, cigarettes can kill you. But now living our lives normally has to come to a screeching halt because this virus can make you sick, and if you are weak or old or poor it might even kill you. I’m not buying it any more, not because I believe in UN conspiracies but because I don’t trust our authorities and our media. And in truth I never have, so why was this decision so difficult? 
 

Hey Paul,

As I have stressed before on here, my background is in PR and marketing. Still, the godfather of the industry is Edward Bernays and his "Propaganda". Most people do not understand why they buy things, in fact, they never even think about it. It's deeply psychological, applying science and methods that are subliminal (mostly). Why wouldn't ideas be marketed the same way? They have been in the past, why wouldn't they be in the present and future? To me, regardless of the organisation, you are running, you use whatever the most effective tools are at that time. The concept that propaganda is ok, or that it is acceptable in wartime isn't alien to the public. It's completely illogical to assume it isn't present in peacetime. What would be the grounds for not using it? Honesty or integrity? Has what we've learned on the JFK matter, Nixon, Bush 1/2, Trump etc indicated that governments or politics are honest endeavours? If you look at the 2008 crash, do we think some of the USA or the worlds leading financial institutions were acting honestly and with the public interests in mind? Looking at the history of pharmaceutical corporations, and the mistakes made and attempt to sweep them under the rug, do we think they act honestly or with integrity? We know different, we've seen it and anybody who isn't skimming the surface of the history that we know can see the public being deceived. To me, if something on the scale of 9/11 can happen, followed up by a Warren Commission style setup (originally headed up by Henry Kissinger) which didn't even nearly get to the truth can happen, then anything can. If that doesn't shatter the illusion of democracy, then nothing ever will. 

The biggest issue I see is that nobody can think for themselves anymore, critical thinking is almost dead. That has come about because of laziness and the strength and effectiveness of Mr Bernays work. If this was 1985 and you had a debate with somebody, contesting a fact or situation, you'd think about it deeply before sourcing a book from a library on the matter and checking your position. Whilst the book in the library could have been propagandising you, there still would have been that period in between getting the book, when you thought things through for yourself, using the best of your logic. That doesn't happen now, because you use a google search and are fed an answer. Your critical thinking doesn't happen, you just trust the google, wiki or MSM to feed you, which may or may not be honest. I recognise that not everyone has an analytical mind and sees patterns and correlations easily. Very few now are well-read. Also, we have an absence of an ability to reason through discussions and reach a logical outcome. Social media is full of that, it creeps in here and we are all guilty of ego getting in the way. Part of that is the impersonal contact, people can get away with a malevolence that they'd never dream of in person, as it would lead to a physical confrontation (generally). So you have an internet full of ego and topics that never really get discussion and MSM links are the ammunition. This involves almost zero critical thinking and most people aren't looking for the right answer, they are only looking to win or bolster their position/status. So, we might question why political parties and MSM are so intent on dividing us in every which way, and constantly having populations somewhere near a civil war. Then you might look at the techniques of the British empire and more recently the foreign policy of the USA in the second half of the 20th century. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

I am mostly playing to the gallery here, Paul, as I am sure you understand most of this and see it with your own eyes. Should anyone be open-minded enough to look at this thread and consider the concepts, they can ponder it vs what is actually going on in the world. 

I have tried very hard not to discuss the Cov19 topic as I know the world population is destabilised, neurotic, fearful and emotional, and who could blame them?! The recipe above makes it a really bad time to have a rational or logical conversation on this topic. What caught my attention was the way MSM had orchestrated itself last March/April. What made me start looking into the situation was purely because the logic didn't fit and I felt MSM and governments were selling us ideas. I am in a position of leadership at present, I have led people in some capacity since captaining my schools at various sports. When you have a very tough situation, a crisis, or just a difficult time, your reaction should be to steady the ship, not rock the boat. What you don't do is fan the flames and create hysteria.  Did we in WW1 / WW2 print news every day saying "We are all going to die?", no we didn't. But we create an environment of fear and terror in the aftermath of 9/11, despite vending machines having been statistically responsible for more deaths than terrorism up until that point in modern history. With 9/11 the first 10 pages of newspapers every day for months were about these really sophisticated guys living in caves, who don't use the internet, that is smarter than the Pentagon. Combined with psychological stuff driving it home, like queues in airports of disgruntled civilians being touched up by security. All of the civilians interviewed seemed to have the same message and demeanour: anxiety, anger toward Al Quaeda and words like "They've changed our way of life, I am not happy about this overbearing security but, I understand why it's necessary". One of the most deeply patriotic countries on the planet had their subconscious tapped into and consent was manufactured for a host of invasions of middle eastern and Asian countries, searching for a phantom. Some of these Al Quaeda leaders had multiple deaths, usually coinciding with elections or some other military move. All of this was at the tax-payers expense, accumulating debt while private corporations profits soared exponentially. These same corporations that fund both the Democratic and Republican party every election. Where is the intelligence that Bush & Blair had? Classified. 

https://time.com/24735/here-are-the-5-companies-making-a-killing-off-wars-around-the-world/

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=D&Bkdn=DemRep&cycle=2020

So, I thought; this recent media campaign mirrors the techniques I'd seen for the war on terror. I began reading. I also talked to Dr's at the private hospital who were treating a pretty nasty bacteria i'd picked up from a hotel meal in India. When I asked the Indian Dr's about Covid and the threat they explained to me that it was 90% asymptomatic and the people in the quarantine ward of the hospitals were mostly elderly or immunodeficient people. Two separate Dr's told me the same thing, on different visits. The same knowledge only seemed to really hit the UK back in August or September and throughout that period I began to wonder why there was such an absence of discussion on that topic. The news seemed more intent on broadcasting that Covid is killing lots of young people too. But, being logical, the word lots or many, isn't how you define the deadly rate, you need percentages. To the best of my knowledge and from those in the medical profession and then promptly censored, it seemed like a death rate of 0.03% - 0.07%. For argument's sake, let's say less than 1%.
I began to think, and wonder what percentage of the world populations are immunocompromised, people with heart conditions, stroke victims, current or former cancer sufferers. diabetics and just about anything that could mean you would be more likely to die from influenza or a virus. I also considered and looked at how many old age deaths happen each day, regardless of whether it was a Covid year or a non-Covid year. In the UK that was about 1400 per day (population 67m but, likely higher). I began to wonder why, if we are presenting a factual analysis of the danger, why there are no comparisons or discussion in the MSM about people who would expire anyway vs people expiring of Covid. Next, I looked at how Covid was being diagnosed, originally the criteria were very loose, if you came in with chest pains, difficulty breathing etc, you were classed as a Covid19 death. In fact in some countries like Germany, if you had a covid diagnosis 27 days ago and today you went running and had a heart attack and died, you were still marked down as a Covid death. Seemed a very loose way of diagnosing something, not previously used in recent history. Then there is the PCR test, the inventor of the test, Kary Mullis specifically said long before Covid that his test wasn't be used to detect infectious virus' as it will produce false-positive results. 
I did read in the latter half of 2020 that fewer people had died in the USA in the first 6 months of 2020, than in the first 6 months of 2019. Immediately you think how can this be when we have this deadly virus wiping everyone out? So, you use logic and think with lockdowns there are probably fewer people driving, fewer people shooting each other etc. Then you have other considerations; like how many people are scared to go to the hospital with diagnosed or undiagnosed conditions, for fear of catching Covid? What are the suicides like with people stuck home alone, unable to interact with people? After all, depression and mental health is a big thing. You have all of these variables that have an impact that are not being discussed in the context of Covid and people dying. 
Another issue is the lack of fuss about Pneumonia & common Flu deaths having practically vanished in the UK during the pandemic, one media outlet even tried to put a positive spin on the Office of Nationa Statistics publishing of data, as opposed to pointing out that a proportion of Covid deaths may have been misdiagnosed with this lax process. We have 360k cancer cases diagnosed each year, in excess of 1k per day, that leaves a hell of a lot of people with weakened immune systems due to treatments.
It's also worth me mentioning that the significant rise in cases during winter 20/21 can be given greater context, we did almost zero testings during the initial lockdowns and now we are testing as many of possible, so, all those people that stayed at home in spring 20, or were asymptomatic, were not tested or diagnosed, so of course you see a huge rise when comparing the data from the initial lockdown vs winter 20/21, if you add that to the PCR testing accuracy issues, you get a very different picture. 

Another thing that seems so curious is this half in, half out policy everywhere. Britain is threatening the public with fines and all sorts, the authoritarian state flexing its powers and then, on the other hand, the London Underground is packed every day and our major airports, Gatwick & Heathrow (up until recently) just had people passing in and out as they please with no checks for the virus. I flew back into the UK from India in October, after having 4 checks done on me in Mumbai International Airport, and Heathrow was wide open. Even the shopping centres (malls) in India required a temperature check and soaping before entering each individual shop premises. Back in the UK nothing of the sort was going on. So I would question how serious the government are about stopping the spread? You have the best academics in the world available and your policy is somewhere between herd immunity and containment. And once again, we must believe it is politicians doing their best but, making lots of mistakes as they are only human. 

Let's look at the whole origins of Covid19 as it's another enigma. At face value, you originally had the spread from a dirty wet market selling bats as the main cause, despite some conspiracy theorists (some in the medical profession) pointing out that there is no way the virus could have jumped from humans to bats in its short life-span, there had to be a laboratory involved.  A year forward and the Wuhan laboratory seems to be the most accepted theory, with investigations finally happening. The Chinese government fingered the USA military for the spread and, coincidentally the US military did attend the 2019 Military World Games in late October 2019. You might ask which date they departed and which date the first case popped up, as it seems now that Covid was present, even in Europe much sooner than people thought. Another question which conflicts with some popular theories is; did interests in the USA provide millions of dollars of funding to that Wuhan laboratory? I'd need to look up the details of that, it was April or May that I read it. We're told it was an accident, if so and if the labs are that sloppy, we should feel very fortunate that some of the biological warfare weapons haven't leaked from such labs in the US, Britain, Russia and China. You can read about those in Annie Jacobsen's Pullitzer Prize-winning, "The Pentagon's Brain". If lab security is that poor, we're lucky we aren't all dead already. Of all the things that do escape, its something that kills less than 1%. 

The whole 5G conspiracy theory nonsense that ensued at the start of the pandemic was very convenient, it was easily disproved as nonsense and it silenced the public from any other Covid related theories that differed from the government and MSM narrative. In actual fact it killed two birds with one stone, because now nobody dares question the safety of 5G, in terms of it potentially causing cancers in people. Was the testing period long enough? No, it was rushed out as it improved the capabilities of big tech and the government security apparatus. 

What is decidedly interesting is that this whole pandemic scenario was war-gamed (simulated) out, an event hosted by Bill & Melinda Gates, called Event 201. Can we think of another major event that was war-gamed out beforehand? 9/11 or 7/7 perhaps? But, let's just put all of that down to pure coincidence and coincidences do happen, mathematics and probability will tell you the odds. A lot is being discussed about Bill Gates amongst conspiracy theorists (and concerned citizens globally) and I am just going to try to stick to logical observations. He was warning of a pandemic long before the pandemic, doing the media talk show and news circuit. He gave away half his wealth in 2010, which changed his public persona from a prickly greedy sourpuss to the worlds most generous philanthropist and all round great guy (the JD Rockefeller tactic in a different uniform, giving dimes away to the poor in front of reporters). I think he gave away around $50bn, which he has more than doubled since then, he is a very clever guy. He has moved from the desktop computer software business to monopolising a new industry, which happens to be heavily involved in vaccines. His Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are not just heavily funding medical research, they are heavily contributing to MSM outlets, you can find evidence of this with a quick google search. During this philanthropic global push to cure infectious diseases with vaccines, he has mucked up in India with Polio, causing new outbreaks and causing 490k people to be paralysed (NPAFP). This has mostly been covered up and not reported by the MSM but, it's there in The International Journal of Environmental & Public Health. We now sort of think of Bill Gates as the vaccine guy, with our best interests at heart, we should remember he is not a Dr, a virologist, an immunologist or any kind of infectious disease specialist, he is a businessman, a very effective one. Can I understand why conspiracy theorists are surrounding Bill Gates at present? I certainly can see why people are suspicious, particularly if they use the "Cui bono" logic. I think the jury is out but, if I look at it using a marketing/business structure, it fits. 

As for vaccines in general, there is this anti-Vaxxer stuff flying about and any talk against the official narrative is being censored. I can look logically and say; if we are facing an existential threat from a virus, it isn't a good thing to have people spreading things that are seemingly against our end goal, which is to be free of Covid19. So, you must then ask yourself if the criticism of the Covid vaccines is warranted and in the public interest. If we are a democracy then this should be part of the public discourse, if we are an authoritarian state, then the government will keep things from us and do whatever they deem as right or in their best interests. Do you guys believe in body autonomy? Which is a human beings' right to decide if they want medical treatment or not. Or if they want a vaccine or not. In the aftermath of WW2 nations got together and put in place international laws on this, stipulating that no state could experiment on its people or give treatments they do not consent to. An exception is in place for mental health patients. The reason for these laws was because of what the German Third Reich did to the Jews during WW2, experimenting on human beings. It made all of that illegal, so that we could not see a repeat of those heinous acts which are a stain on civilisation. There are politicians in many countries now pushing for the Covid shots to be mandatory. Should that be the case? Bear in mind this is the first time in history that RNA vaccines have been used on human beings. They work a different way to traditional vaccines or inoculations and may not be considered a vaccine at all in some respects (gene therapy). So, in short, there is no med or long term data regarding the effects of these vaccines on human beings. Effectively, we are all guinea pigs or test dummies for this treatment that the MSM and governments are advocating. Do they know if this is safe? No. 
I think this might be something that the individual might want to decide on themselves. Have vaccine manufacturers screwed up before? Absolutely. Even ignoring the aforementioned Polio debacle in India, we can look at Baxter a few years back giving vaccine recipients avian flu by mistake (apparently), which is hard to believe. We can look at the late 1940's, early 1950's Polio jab in the USA, which a host of countries refused (including Sweden & Norway) because there wasn't enough evidence that it was safe. Those Polio jabs caused over 100k people to get cancers, which were passed on to their children and their children's children. This Polio jab was stopped but, it wasn't so great for the people who had it. I don't need to get into the New Orleans cancer labs, Oswald, Ruby, Ferry, Dr Oschner and co etc or any wild theories, we just know the jab was harmful longterm and improperly tested. Without any far fetched thoughts, we have a very real reason to question the efficacy and safety of any vaccine being put into our bodies, and any perceived risk should be weighed up against the risk of the virus (ie the cure shouldn't be worse than the virus). 
As the RFK being banned from social media recently was discussed on a rather unsavoury thread, I thought I would shed some light on his argument here. Robert F. Kennedy Jr isn't anti-vaccine, he is pro-vaccine safety. Although you wouldn't gage that with a quick google search. He, Del Bigtree and others made an argument regarding autism which the state claim has been debunked, it hasn't at all. For a long time, the MMR vaccine was suspected of causing autism after it was combined. All sorts of theories and allegations have been made, one of them being that mercury present in some vaccines is causing autism. I have seen the back and forth on this and it's way beyond my medical knowledge but, there are a few things that peaked my attention. One of them is that the front page of the CDC says in big bold letters that "VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM". Yet, in the pamphlet, you are given containing risks and disclaimers before having your shots or your children having them, it lists autism as a potential side effect. It didn't have it originally as a side effect but, it does now. Can anybody see that this is a direct contradiction from the CDC? You tell the public something is safe and then warn them in small print that it might not be? My understanding is that as long as it's listed as a side effect, then the company making it cannot be sued for compensation or negligence. As a business, of course, you protect yourselves legally but, in the interests of public safety, should that be common knowledge, so the individual or parents can make an informed decision? I have seen a few disclaimers like this at the hospital and in the heat of the moment, with the trusted Dr you don't read the whole thing and even if you do, you generally consent, as its usually minutes before a procedure for you or a loved one. It's perhaps a decision you might like to think over?! As for RFK Jr. and co, their argument is very interesting and simple. There is a percentage of US citizens, claimed as high as 30% who do not consent to vaccines, meaning 70%+ are vaccinated. They have asked the US government to release the data showing those vaccinated vs those unvaccinated. As they will show the significant presence of autism in both camps (if the CDC are correct), or it will be just in one camp if RFK and co are correct. You don't need 70% vs 30% as a sample, much less will do. It completely kills the argument, it's in the governments' interests to do it if vaccines are indeed safe. 
People should understand the origins of vaccines too, and I am not talking about people in east Asia blowing ground down smallpox scabs up nostrils to build resistance in people to the deadly virus. I am talking about the history of vaccines and the military. Essentially, vaccines have exemptions in law because the military needed to work quickly to find cures or immunity against enemy biological agents. In such a situation there may be zero testings carried out, and they'd be administered to a soldier instantly. That makes sense to me, and as a result, they have immunity or limited liability in law (depending on the country). Big pharmaceutical companies cottoned on to this exemption in the mid 1980's and instead of medicines needed years and years of testing, they could make vaccines and bring them to market quickly. mid-1980's. Vaccines are a very profitable industry, taxpayer grants and funding are administered for the research and a private corporation takes the profits, an example of another racket that can be milked or exploited. The beauty is they have immunity from prosecution if they get things wrong. Does the public think they have any recourse if they get things wrong? Not really. 

There are so many things that the public are questioning, it's very hard to keep up. The advertising campaign in the MSM for vaccines is interesting too. They are advertising 90%+ rates of efficacy and protection. Considering cases are 90% asymptomatic, it's not exactly outstanding, if you had a shot glass of water it would yield the same success rate. Perhaps if you did everything in increase your immune system naturally via sleep, sunlight, diet and exercise, you might have 100% immunity.
Another interesting point was the shutting of EU ports to the UK just after Christmas, it was claimed by EU states that the reason was the UK's virulent new strain which might be more lethal and is much more transmissible. This strain had been about since September but, by some miracle, even with all ports and airports open, free movement of people, no cases had made it to mainland Europe. The odds were probably incalculable but, as soon as the Brexit deal was signed, much of the things closed were back open. Manipulation of the public of the highest order.

I also note the UK government bought 367m vaccines, spread across 7 brands. It seems to have been noted that Oxford-Astra Zeneca might be best, however, we still ordered all the other brands. Is that because they don't have a clue which is safe or best for human consumption? Or are they over-ordering as Smedley Butler highlights about the military in WW1, in his book, "War is a racket". 

Another question I might ask is why the message in the MSM and for the government isn't to boost your immune system? According to the 'experts' if your immune system is strong, then you are much more unlikely to end up in an intensive care unite with Covid. That means eating healthy, exercising, getting vitamin D etc. It seems like that would be a good message to save lives, but, it might involve pointing out to the population that a sedentary lifestyle, with a diet largely based on corn fructose syrup, probably isn't the secret to longevity and eternal life. You may want to question why we have so much corn fructose syrup in our foods now (it replaced cane sugar). There is no absence of medical data indicating that this is leading to obesity, cancers, strokes and diabetes. It dramatically reduces life expectancies. Perhaps we should question how many people that is killing vs the deadly Covid19? Corn fructose syrup undoubtedly wins that battle, looking at the death tolls of heart attacks, strokes and cancers linked to diet and lifestyle. Where is the media outrage about feeding the nation this garbage that's reducing peoples life spans? Are 5-10% of adult deaths in the west thought to be due to alcohol abuse-related complications, it's another that beats Covid and again the outrage is absent in the media. This double standard relating to compassion and covid seems to play out time and time again. We want to save everybody but, not from certain things that are even more harmful. In India my Dr told me that the country has the highest rate of carcinogens in food, in the world. I said: "Why, eugenics?". He just shrugged and kept his own views to himself as he was at work. We are repeatedly told by nature activists like David Attenborough and elites like Laurence Rockefeller that population is the biggest threat to the planet, some like Jordan Peterson cite stats that the world population will top out at about 9bn and then decline rapidly. That theory I think uses the supposition that because of rising wealth that people will have fewer children or none at all.  However, we may want to consider the methods that have historically reduced populations substantially; which are things like war, famine, & disease. We may also consider the ever rising cancer rates and the drop in fertility rates and what their likely causes are. Interestingly in 1968 in the Rockefeller Foundation annual meeting, was talking about the need for immunological methods for reducing fertility. This was followed up in the 1988 annual meeting, discussing the progress that had been made and Norplant. In 1972 you have organisations like the Population Council talking about a WHO task force fertility control through vaccines. In 1995 an anti-HCG vaccine had been developed which prevented women from carrying a baby to term. Are we right to be suspicious? 

Almost everything I have said here has been attacked by MSM, although it's often unconvincing in terms of logic and often trying to distort what is originally said. I really hope I am wrong, I am happy to be so, and I sincerely hope that these vaccines work and keep people healthy, as it means the world is a better place than I think it is. Back in April 2020 I made the following observations, they haven't changed one bit, despite how this mess has unfolded. 

1) Every time there is a global crisis, the poor and middle class are wiped out or, barely survive and the very wealthy significantly increase their net worth. The advantage of being well-networked means you get crucial information faster than the average Joe. You have the capital to buy the assets of others at fire-sale prices when people are desperate to sell and on the verge of bankruptcy. The banks are all over people like vultures offering lending under the guise of being kind, the reality is we'll be paying them back for decades. If we can't pay them back they'll take our assets, there is almost zero risk for them. Even moving a home loan payment seems a helpful gesture but, we don't understand compound interest and by extending the term of our loan, that we'll owe them more. 
"Never let a good crisis go to waste".
Price Waterhouse Coopers and others have done surveys on the worlds' billionaires since the pandemic began and even at a conservative estimate they have added to their fortunes by more than 25% in the first 6 months or so of Covid19. 

2) Governments globally have fast-tracked emergency laws through their respective parliaments or a congress, perhaps things that never would have been voted through when not in a crisis and that will unlikely be repealed when the pandemic has subsided. We veer increasingly toward authoritarian, "we know best" governance by the political elite, as opposed to a healthy functioning democracy. Cov19 may well be the final nail in the coffin for cash, giving government and financial institutions more control of citizens. Everybody on electronic payments, which to stop tax evasion is probably useful but, it also changes our future dynamic. For example; in China they have two state connected payment Apps which everybody uses, and I heard recently they are using face recognition and tracking apps to catch people J walking, what happens is the person gets an SMS in real-time saying a fine has been taken from their payment App and to appeal they'll need to take the state to court. Would we be happy with that? I can see some drawbacks, particularly if the only payment method is electronic and a state can switch your money off. I would have a think about where that path may lead. 

3) The vaccine industry was worth about $60BN in 2018, it will undoubtedly create a boom period for large pharmaceutical/immunology centric interests, will the revenue double or more? Particularly if it's decided a succession of vaccines are needed to prevent further pandemics that could be caused by any virus that the WHO says could appear in the future. There will no doubt be boom periods for other security-related instruments used for tracking and other virus-related needs. 

4) Anybody who challenges a government directive now is labelled a 'nut' or a 'conspiracy theorist', which results in less public discourse. Tech firms and social media platforms are either removing content that is questing things or downgrading search listings so that it can't be found. If you watch US news networks the word democracy is used about as frequently as you'll hear anything but, there is nothing democratic about the censorship of free speech. Through debate society regulates itself, and yet in the past decade, we are being ruled in an authoritarian fashion, with governance and news networks alike espousing a "we know best" attitude. The word 'democracy' roughly means "rule by the people, for the people". We have to ask ourselves, are we democratic? As I can't see too many similarities between this and the Athenian lawmaker Solon's notion of the idea. For society to work best, governments should welcome criticism and debate in a free and open society, we elected them to listen to us. 

5) Trump has used the pandemic as a stick to beat China with, and damage their economic rise, which looked like a rebalancing may happen. Of course the world has Biden now.

Whether these are all accidental consequences or not, they should be noted. It's often a good process to work backwards from the outcome to try and get a clearer picture of the truth. 

Chris

PS.
Regarding chips in vaccines, I can see how that has been distorted in the public domain. in 2014 you have Microchips Biotech Inc announcing that they have an injectable microchip that can provide birth control, which is controlled remotely. This idea came from Gates and an MIT professor in 2012, and Gates provided $20m funding. You also have the GAVI (Gates funded) push for biometric identities for children. 
Reading this didn't surprise me as I have listened to Elon Musk talk about Neurolink, his company that is developing chips to enhance cognitive function in the brain. Initially, this is for people with debilitating conditions like Motor Neurone disease but, eventually, it looks everyone will have this. The concept is that everything we can now do on a mobile phone/computer, can be done without a mobile phone. There will be a synergy between the brain and computers. It looks as if those Sci-Fi movies of the 80's and 90's that we rolled our eyes at will someday come true. If you think the computer in the iPhone 7 is more powerful than the computer in the first rocket that went to the moon, we are moving at an astonishing technological pace. Elon Musk has raised his concerns about the potential for misuse of things like Artificial Intelligence. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

It’s interesting that so few of us here question today’s news. Conspiracy theory seems to be the province of the fringes, both left and more so right. Some of that is explainable I think, and we can thank people like James Fetzer for parlaying his success in the JFK community into success in the Alex Jones camp. Clearly false theories like his regarding moon landings and Sandy Hook have the INTENDED consequence of marginalizing all conspiracy theory. When the loonies jump on the bandwagon - such as with 5G or microprocessors in Vaccines - the result is that we, and I mean smart people, take our eyes off the ball. From there on we can’t even discuss viruses and vaccines rationally. A friend of mine, an old liberal like myself, recently went into a tirade about RFK jr, and I’m quite certain he never bothered to take a close look. So basically I think your posts are spot on. We need to keep questioning authority while not succumbing to propaganda tactics. 

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

It’s interesting that so few of us here question today’s news. Conspiracy theory seems to be the province of the fringes, both left and more so right. Some of that is explainable I think, and we can thank people like James Fetzer for parlaying his success in the JFK community into success in the Alex Jones camp. Clearly false theories like his regarding moon landings and Sandy Hook have the INTENDED consequence of marginalizing all conspiracy theory. When the loonies jump on the bandwagon - such as with 5G or microprocessors in Vaccines - the result is that we, and I mean smart people, take our eyes off the ball. From there on we can’t even discuss viruses and vaccines rationally. A friend of mine, an old liberal like myself, recently went into a tirade about RFK jr, and I’m quite certain he never bothered to take a close look. So basically I think your posts are spot on. We need to keep questioning authority while not succumbing to propaganda tactics. 

If you add to the mix that we've spent a year locked down, unable to have those social gatherings with friends and family or even the bar talk in the local pub, the only format for social discourse that we've really had is digitally. And digital formats are the one place where your words live forever, if you make a mistake. In psychology there is an explanation why we have this anxiety type feeling whilst in debate online (often referred to as butterflies in our stomach before a public speech) it is the fear that our actions will result in us being excommunicated by the tribe. In caveman times, this likely meant you would perish without the tribe, survival would be near impossible. In modern times we fear this on social media (well, people who have something to lose do). This construct of social media, where social status can be tracked in "likes" & "followers", we have this trepidation in questioning widely accepted narratives, for fear of losing respect and status. It really amounts to us either being willing to throw ourselves on our swords, risking it all, as our conviction is so strong, or we stay silent. The conditions are just not there to have a free and open discussion. I cherish some of these podcasts now that exist where a couple of intellectuals sit for 3 hours and talk about the world. Even these tread a very fine line when it comes to be demonetised or de-platformed. It's very much like free speech is in a noose that is every increasingly being tightened. Another consideration is time, young people might be surfing social media for 5-6 hours per day, middle aged people are busy working and seeking comfort in their free time. Who really has time to be reading and pondering all this stuff? People don't even read articles anymore, they read headlines. The public doesn't watch full video interviews, they watch 30sec - 3minute clips. Our reliance on being spoon fed everything is to our detriment. 

I have just finished Yasha Levine's book "Surveillance Valley" after the recommendation from another member on here. The author illustrates how DARPA and other government agencies are in bed with the big tech firms and social media platforms. The writer also highlights how he has come under attack for his research and he has even had retractions from mainstream media outlets. The way he is being attacked, not on facts but, using smears is akin to the way Garrison or anyone trying to shed light on the JFKA was defamed or diluted in the public domain. There is a modus operandi with all of this stuff, you see correlations or patterns emerge. I fully appreciate the way in which most people think isn't looking at a broader picture, only single events in isolation. 

I am repeating myself here but, I keep getting back to these RFK warnings in South Africa: 

"First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills – against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"If Athens shall appear great to you," said Pericles, "consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty." That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our own time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs – that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities – no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort."

 

[Dennis Berube]

Thank you for the contribution Chris and well written. Like yourself, I have been amazed at just how little critical thought has taken place in the last year. It is so bad now that most people will usually end up saying "I don't want to talk about it" before the conversation even really begins. The web of propaganda regarding this covid event is far beyond anything we have ever seen, even including historical cliches like Russia or North Korea. Unfortunately, the public has completely lost their minds and have been unable to link the Biofascists together. Tuberculosis killed over 1.4 million people in 2019 yet most people don't seem to know what it is, a lung disease spread through the air, even the Gates funded fact checkers have a hard time explaining this away. 

If one examines the current situation in Israel, basically the infant stages of a dual society where those who are "good" aka get the gene therapy, can do as they please and those who do not lose all civil rights. This should be universally rejected, instead, Democrats seem to be leading the charge away from the Constitution under the guise of safety. Once upon a time, a good leader said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, now we must fear freedom apparently if you ask Biden or 99% of all Democrats.

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

Thank you for the contribution Chris and well written. Like yourself, I have been amazed at just how little critical thought has taken place in the last year. It is so bad now that most people will usually end up saying "I don't want to talk about it" before the conversation even really begins. The web of propaganda regarding this covid event is far beyond anything we have ever seen, even including historical cliches like Russia or North Korea. Unfortunately, the public has completely lost their minds and have been unable to link the Biofascists together. Tuberculosis killed over 1.4 million people in 2019 yet most people don't seem to know what it is, a lung disease spread through the air, even the Gates funded fact checkers have a hard time explaining this away. 

If one examines the current situation in Israel, basically the infant stages of a dual society where those who are "good" aka get the gene therapy, can do as they please and those who do not lose all civil rights. This should be universally rejected, instead, Democrats seem to be leading the charge away from the Constitution under the guise of safety. Once upon a time, a good leader said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, now we must fear freedom apparently if you ask Biden or 99% of all Democrats.

 

Fear of what freedom?  The freedom to poison other people because you're too vain to wear a mask?

Covid killed 2.6 million people globally in the past year.  If the guy you are so loathe to criticize had been the least bit competent there would have been several hundred thousand fewer deaths in the U.S.  The last time there were more than 600 deaths due to TB in the U.S. was 2006.

https://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/2019/table1.htm

Ramping up vaccinations is leading the charge against the Constitution?

The Republicans are making an all-out push to make it harder for tens of millions of people to vote -- but it's the Democrats leading a charge against the Constitution??

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/29/stacking-the-deck-how-the-gop-works-to-suppress-minority-voting/

The Democrats just passed a 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus that directly or indirectly goes to the poor and middle class.  Is that leading the charge against the Constitution, Dennis?

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Fear of what freedom?  The freedom to poison other people because you're too vain to wear a mask?

Covid killed 2.6 million people globally in the past year.  If the guy you are so loathe to criticize had been the least bit competent there would have been several hundred thousand fewer deaths in the U.S.  The last time there were more than 600 deaths due to TB in the U.S. was 2006.

https://www.cdc.gov/tb/statistics/reports/2019/table1.htm

Ramping up vaccinations is leading the charge against the Constitution?

The Republicans are making an all-out push to make it harder for tens of millions of people to vote -- but it's the Democrats leading a charge against the Constitution??

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/09/29/stacking-the-deck-how-the-gop-works-to-suppress-minority-voting/

The Democrats just passed a 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus that directly or indirectly goes to the poor and middle class.  Is that leading the charge against the Constitution, Dennis?

 

As usual Cliff you are spot on - but through a well defined lens that you have created and which is impenetrable. One question for you - where is the debate, in media or otherwise - about the methodology behind the Covid vaccine efficacy? Reminder - I’m talking debates. This is not like climate change, where quoting scientists questioning the validity of man made causality is searching for needles in the media haystack. This is a genuine lack of debate, which all of us should be concerned about. Forget left right paradigms. Just look at the marginalization of RFK Jr. He is not an anti-vaxxer. He is a humanist, sensitive to the Big Brother takeover of honest debate. Are you getting, or have you already gotten the vaccine? What are your thoughts, as a well educated citizen, on which one? When and how did you go from a disbeliever in official stories to one who doesn’t even question the popular narrative? That question goes for all of us.  I don’t have a position, but I am concerned with the divisive nature of the debate. 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

As usual Cliff you are spot on - but through a well defined lens that you have created and which is impenetrable.

Hi Paul, thanks for responding.

I was a poker dealer for 25 years.  I have the utmost respect for percentages.  What are the odds that Pfizer and Moderna are a Bill Gates plot to microchip the world?  Or that Big Pharma just fkd up?

Looks to me like I'm holding Ace-King of Diamonds in a Texas Hold'em game and the flop comes A A 3 of Diamonds.  Evil Pharma has 7/5 of Diamonds.  Only thing that can beat me is a runner-runner gut-shot straight flush.  Can it happen?  Sure, around 1000 to 1.

I've had a few months to see what the Covid vaxx can do and I haven't seen anything to make me think it's not 99.9% safe.

Quote

One question for you - where is the debate, in media or otherwise - about the methodology behind the Covid vaccine efficacy?

I think the correct debate is over the vaccines given to kids.  Make a case against vaccines in general, but leave small pox, polio and covid vaxx out of the beef.

Quote

Reminder - I’m talking debates. This is not like climate change, where quoting scientists questioning the validity of man made causality is searching for needles in the media haystack. This is a genuine lack of debate, which all of us should be concerned about.

I'm more concerned with the virus mutating into variants the existing vaccines don't prevent, and then we go thru the whole lock down thing again.  The sooner we all get vaxxed the sooner life can go back to normal.

I'll take Ace-King suited every time.

Quote

Forget left right paradigms. Just look at the marginalization of RFK Jr. He is not an anti-vaxxer. He is a humanist, sensitive to the Big Brother takeover of honest debate. 

And how long should this debate go on?  The more vaxx-hesitence there is the longer the debate, right?

Would the photogenic Kennedy and the imp-like Fauci barnstorm the States debating the hell outta the covid vaxx while generating so much vaxx-hesitancy that who knows what mutates from our collective delay? 

Quote

Are you getting, or have you already gotten the vaccine?

Yep.  First jab last Monday.

Quote

What are your thoughts, as a well educated citizen, on which one?

Pfizer appears effective against UK, So African, and Brazilian variants. 

Quote

When and how did you go from a disbeliever in official stories to one who doesn’t even question the popular narrative?  

Heh heh.  Very funny.  Paul, you have no idea...

I was born with skin allergies.  Couldn't drink milk or eat eggs until I was two.  When I was five a doc punched 400 little round ditches in my back to test for other allergies.  I had to go in and have a fish-hook like thing treat my arms like a fishie's mouth, seven hook jabs in one arm, eight in the other.  Pain like I'd never known.  Doc told my folks I needed to use a corticosteroid ointment on my arm rash, and get three shots a week. My folks trusted the science.   After ten years it was apparent that the ointment worked pretty well, but the shots were useless.  I had 1500 shots over ten years, then we quit it.  Fast forward 18 years and I came across a nearly used up tube of an ointment called Lydex.  After six applications my arm rash went away and never came back.  That was 33 years ago.  I called a dermatologist for the hell of it one day and asked about Lydex.  "Don't use that," the doc said, "It's like bombing your body."  

No sht Dr. Sherlock.

Suffice it to say I've been deeply ambivalent about Western medicine since the age of five.

Quote

That question goes for all of us.  I don’t have a position, but I am concerned with the divisive nature of the debate. 

We need to take a hard look at the vaccines given kids. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Cliff Varnell

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

As usual Cliff you are spot on - but through a well defined lens that you have created and which is impenetrable. One question for you - where is the debate, in media or otherwise - about the methodology behind the Covid vaccine efficacy? Reminder - I’m talking debates. This is not like climate change, where quoting scientists questioning the validity of man made causality is searching for needles in the media haystack. This is a genuine lack of debate, which all of us should be concerned about. Forget left right paradigms. Just look at the marginalization of RFK Jr. He is not an anti-vaxxer. He is a humanist, sensitive to the Big Brother takeover of honest debate. Are you getting, or have you already gotten the vaccine? What are your thoughts, as a well educated citizen, on which one? When and how did you go from a disbeliever in official stories to one who doesn’t even question the popular narrative? That question goes for all of us.  I don’t have a position, but I am concerned with the divisive nature of the debate. 

Paul,

     I've been reading medical research papers fairly regularly for the past 40 years.  In my opinion, the efficacy (and risks) of any medical treatment is not accurately established through public debate, per se, but through properly controlled clinical trials.  Can we trust them?

    I have been a public critic of Big Pharma during my medical career, and I do believe that pharmaceutical companies sometimes fudge and/or suppress data to promote their products.  Over the years, I have also observed the introduction of some FDA-approved drugs to the "market" which have later been taken off of the market because of previously unrecognized toxicity.  Could that happen with the COVID vaccines?  Possibly.

   In the case of the commercially approved COVID vaccines, the randomized, controlled sample sizes have been large enough to generate highly significant statistics on efficacy and toxicity, and more data is on the way.  The efficacy of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines has been truly impressive in the trials, and we are now also seeing a dramatic decline in death rates in vaccinated populations-- e.g., nursing home residents.  Toxicity, to date, has been rare, with the exception of the Astra Zeneca vaccine.

   Some people have been concerned about the novel approach of using mRNA derived from viral genome sequences in vaccines.  My opinion is that the fear is overblown.  What Pfizer and Moderna did was to reproduce the COVID genomic sequence for the COVID Spike protein.  By injecting this mRNA fragment into our cells, our cells generate the Spike protein, triggering an immune response to the Spike protein.  The difference with traditional vaccination technology is that Pfizer and Moderna aren't injecting attenuated components of the actual virus.

   Ultimately, it comes down to a risk/benefit analysis.  Compare the known risks and benefits of treatment (vaccination) with no treatment.  COVID causes a significant incidence of death and can also cause irreversible damage to lung, heart, kidney, and brain tissue.   

Edited March 12, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Cliff Varnell]

Let’s say for the sake of argument there is an active faction within the American Deep State devoted to a eugenicist vision of culling the human herd.

The dream is to unleash a global virus that mutates faster than medical science can mitigate it.  A Plandemic.

There are two obstacles in the way of this vision: other factions in the Deep State dedicated to containing pandemic outbreaks; the prospect of the swift development of a safe and effective vaccine.

No professional politician wants their legacy sullied with a mass death pandemic.  A pandemic would have been right in Hillary Clinton's technocratic wheelhouse.

But a charismatic amateur in the White House who’s entirely self-absorbed might do everything possible to make it worse. 
 
There would need to be a robust anti-vaccination movement to slow down community immunity, allowing the virus to spin off variants that might not get knocked out by vaxx.

This isn’t to say there are not reasons to be vaxx hesitant -- the better the anti-vaxx argument in general the easier to demonize the covid vaxx in particular.

Of course, this virus would have to disproportionately effect older people and non-whites.

Some people might say that’s exactly what’s happened.

It’s probably all a coincidence. 

[Paul Brancato]

The predicted efficacy of these vaccines comes from labs. It’s illegal to subject test subjects to live virus to see what happens. Certainly this type of prediction is not the normal one, and explains how vaccines could be brought to market in months not years. I don’t argue with the idea that vaccines have been useful. The risk of individuals having adverse reactions is minor by comparison. We are asked to take a minor risk for the good of all. Are you so certain that this time will be the same? Is the deadliness of this virus worth the risk of unknown long range effects of a new vaccine technology? We’ll find out. My point was that open public debate is necessary. Do you all think that vaccine manufacturers should be protected against future lawsuits for possible problems? 

[Cliff Varnell]

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Is the deadliness of this virus worth the risk of unknown long range effects of a new vaccine technology?

How can we possibly know?  Do you propose we stop vaccinations until we see the "long range effects"?

[Guest]

On 3/11/2021 at 11:45 AM, Dennis Berube said:

Thank you for the contribution Chris and well written. Like yourself, I have been amazed at just how little critical thought has taken place in the last year. It is so bad now that most people will usually end up saying "I don't want to talk about it" before the conversation even really begins. The web of propaganda regarding this covid event is far beyond anything we have ever seen, even including historical cliches like Russia or North Korea. Unfortunately, the public has completely lost their minds and have been unable to link the Biofascists together. Tuberculosis killed over 1.4 million people in 2019 yet most people don't seem to know what it is, a lung disease spread through the air, even the Gates funded fact checkers have a hard time explaining this away. 

If one examines the current situation in Israel, basically the infant stages of a dual society where those who are "good" aka get the gene therapy, can do as they please and those who do not lose all civil rights. This should be universally rejected, instead, Democrats seem to be leading the charge away from the Constitution under the guise of safety. Once upon a time, a good leader said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, now we must fear freedom apparently if you ask Biden or 99% of all Democrats.

 

 

 

Thanks Dennis, it was rather rattled out, it could have been better organised. The ones not wanting to talk about it, it can be because the media on it has reached saturation point and it's exhausting them but, I think in large part their opinion is made up of headlines, repeated time and time again, cemented in their thoughts. What we are seeing is the result of that. It very much sounds like 'Operant Conditioning', rewards for supporting the compassion themed narrative that elevate status and if you question it, you're on the road to being an outcast, 'persona non grata'. I can't help but think about the early 90's film "Demolition Man" where most of society live in this authoritarian, highly regulated and controlled environment and the ones that didn't agree live in the sewers on rat burgers. We may look at the Stalin's USSR or Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and so on, where bright people questioned the system and ended up executed or in hard labour camps, akin to prison. In the 21st century, the ostracising of a person or group can be done softly, looking as if it's something else. I wonder how the emergence of communism and the tyranny is covered in modern day academia, as the youth of today seem to be unaware of the 50-100m who died in the 20th century at the hands of those regimes. They also seem very switched on when it comes to the Third Reich and the risk of right-wing regimes. Before anyone takes me out of context, the threat can come from the right or the left, equally, if the right circumstances are present. I am keen not to make this discussion about red or blue, conservative or labour, or what every the Pepsi and Coke is labelled in the said country, I'd rather just observe trends and compare them to the cyclical human history. 
Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with this, it is not democracy. It's something else entirely. 

[Jeff Carter]

Fortunately, we do not (at least yet) have a “one-world government” and so are able to review differing circumstances and realities in other countries. It is fairly easy to observe that the covid pandemic is a real event and a public health crisis, capable of creating severe and longstanding havoc if simply ignored or downplayed. The “freedom” people are wrong and in denial on this fact, and notably are a vocal minority only in the western bloc of countries. Disparate places such as China, Vietnam, and New Zealand have been successful in applying a strict but short-lived lockdown strategy followed by a contact tracing regime which has essentially eliminated the health crisis and allowed a general return to “normality”. The Atlantic provinces in Canada have managed to achieve comparatively very low case numbers through sharp restrictions in travel to the region. The development of vaccines as a public health strategy is common across the globe, so it is hard to argue they represent solely a malign agenda - although certain products may be more or less effective or later reveal side effects. Cuba has apparently vaccinated its entire population with products its own medical system has developed.  An inability to form a global front and combine best practices from all regions and countries is unfortunate, but that is where we are at as a species. Self-serving agendas are surely at play as well, but applying totalizing frameworks featuring either absolute malignant intent or absolute altruism do not help. Packing forty-thousand people into a baseball stadium while the pandemic continues to rage, as apparently is planned in Texas, is absolute folly which should be entirely obvious after this past year - but again that is where we are at. The Atlantic provinces are positioned to return to something like normal - like New Zealand - but can’t as long as the pandemic continues all around it (i.e. they will have to continue to restrict travel into the region). We will have to live with the consequences of what has been, effectively, a "herd immunity" strategy in our western capitalist countries.