“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell
Can we agree that there are two types of Covid-19?
The first type, is Covid-19 ,”The Virus”, which is a fairly mild infection that most people don’t even realize they’ve contracted. They remain either asymptomatic or have slight flu-like symptoms that go away after a week or so.
A tiny sliver of the population – that are mainly-older, vulnerable people with underlying health conditions – can develop complications, become seriously ill and die.
But, according to most analysis, the chances of dying from Covid are roughly between 1 in every 200 to 1 in every 1,000 people (CDC-IFR- 0.26%).
In other words, Covid is not the Spanish Flu, not the Black Plague and the Genocidal Planetary Killer Virus it was cracked up to be.
It kills more people than the annual influenza, but not significantly more.
The second type of Covid-19, is Covid “The Political Contrivance” or, rather, CODENAME: Operation Virus Identification 20 19.
This iteration of the Covid phenom relates to the manner in which a modestly-lethal respiratory pathogen has been inflated into a perennial public health crisis in order to implement economic and societal changes that would otherwise be impossible.
This is the political side of Covid, which is much more difficult to define since it relates to the ambiguous agenda of powerful elites who are using the infection to conceal their real intentions.
Many critics believe that Covid is a vehicle the Davos Crowd is using to launch their authoritarian New World Order.
Others think it has more to do with Climate Change, that is, rather than build consensus among the world leaders for mandatory carbon reductions, global mandarins have simply imposed lockdowns that sharply reduce economic activity across-the-board.
This, in fact, has lowered emissions significantly, but at great cost to most of humanity. Covid restrictions have triggered a sharp uptick in suicides, clinical depression, child abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse.
The list goes on and on. Also, it has left economies everywhere in a shambles, increasing unemployment and homelessness exponentially, while setting the stage for massive famines in undeveloped countries around the world.
Even so, key players in the Covid crisis – like mastermind Bill Gates – continue to marvel at impact these onerous restrictions have had on emissions. Take a look at this excerpt from a recent post at the Microsoft founder’s blog:
“You may have seen projections that, because economic activity has slowed down so much, the world will emit fewer greenhouse gases this year than last year. Although these projections are certainly true, their importance for the fight against climate change has been overstated.
Analysts disagree about how much emissions will go down this year, but the International Energy Agency puts the reduction around 8 percent.
In real terms, that means we will release the equivalent of around 47 billion tons of carbon, instead of 51 billion.
That’s a meaningful reduction, and we would be in great shape if we could continue that rate of decrease every year. Unfortunately, we can’t.
Consider what it’s taking to achieve this 8 percent reduction. More than 600,000 people have died, and tens of millions are out of work.
This April, car traffic was half what it was in April 2019. For months, air traffic virtually came to a halt.
To put it mildly, this is not a situation that anyone would want to continue. And yet we are still on track to emit 92 percent as much carbon as we did last year.
What’s remarkable is not how much emissions will go down because of the pandemic, but how little.
In addition, these reductions are being achieved at, literally, the greatest possible cost.
To see why, let’s look at what it costs to avert a single ton of greenhouse gases. This figure—the cost per ton of carbon averted—is a tool that economists use to compare the expense of different carbon-reduction strategies.
For example, if you have a technology that costs $1 million, and using it lets you avert the release of 10,000 tons of gas, you’re paying $100 per ton of carbon averted.
In reality, $100 per ton would still be pretty expensive. But many economists think this price reflects the true cost of greenhouse gases to society, and it also happens to be a memorable round number that makes a good benchmark for discussions.
Now let’s treat the shutdown caused by COVID-19 as if it were a carbon-reduction strategy. Has closing off major parts of the economy avoided emissions at anything close to $100 per ton?
No. In the United States, according to data from the Rhodium Group, it comes to between $3,200 and $5,400 per ton. In the European Union, it’s roughly the same amount.
In other words, the shutdown is reducing emissions at a cost between 32 and 54 times the $100 per ton that economists consider a reasonable price.
If you want to understand the kind of damage that climate change will inflict, look at COVID-19 and spread the pain out over a much longer period of time.
The loss of life and economic misery caused by this pandemic are on par with what will happen regularly if we do not eliminate the world’s carbon emissions.” (“COVID-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse“, Gates Notes)
Isn’t it curious that Gates has spent so much time calculating the impact lockdowns have had on carbon emissions? And look at how precise his calculations are.
These are not “back of the envelop” type computations, but a serious bit of number-crunching.
He even takes the number of people who have died of Covid worldwide (600,000) and painstakingly compares it to the projected “global mortality rates” (“on an annualized basis”) of people who will die from “increases in global temperatures”.
Does it seem to you that Gates might have more than a passing interest in these estimations? Does it look like he might be more than just a neutral observer impartially perusing the data?
Let me pose a theory here: In my opinion, Gates’ interest in these matters is not merely speculative curiosity. He and his fellow elites are conducting an elaborate science experiment in which we – mere mortals – are the lab rats.
They are deliberately using the Covid-scare to conceal their real objective which is to prove beyond a doubt that curtailing emissions by shutting down vast swathes of the global economy will NOT stave off catastrophic climate change.
So, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that I’m right. Let’s assume that other elites read Gates report and agree with its conclusions. Then what?
This is where it gets interesting, because Gates doesn’t really answer that question, but his silence gives him away.
Let me explain: Gates says,
“The relatively small decline in emissions this year makes one thing clear: We cannot get to zero emissions simply — or even mostly — by flying and driving less.”
Okay, so we cannot stop climate change by doing what we are doing now.
Then Gates says:
“Let science and innovation lead the way…. Any comprehensive response to climate change will have to tap into many different disciplines…. we’ll need biology, chemistry, physics, political science, economics, engineering, and other sciences.”
Right again, we’ll follow the science.
Gates then says: “It will take decades to develop and deploy all the clean-energy inventions we need.”
Okay, so we have to move fast to avoid tragedy.
Finally, Gates says:
“Health advocates said for years that a pandemic was virtually inevitable. The world did not do enough to prepare, and now we are trying to make up for lost time. This is a cautionary tale for climate change, and it points us toward a better approach.”
Got that? So, on the one hand, Gates is saying ‘We must act fast and follow the science’, and on the other he is saying, ‘Shutting down the economy alone isn’t going to work.’
WTF? If it’s not going to work, then why bother? Why is Gates sending a mixed message?
Ahh, but there’s the rub. It’s not a mixed message and it is not a contradiction.
What Gates is doing is leading the reader to draw the same conclusion that he has, (wink, wink) that is, if reducing economic activity isn’t going to work, then we have to find an entirely different solution, like reducing the size of the population.
Isn’t that the only logical conclusion?
Yes, it is. So, the Great Lab Experiment of 2020 (Covid) has alot to do with population control; thinning the herd so our exalted Davos Overlords can ensure their blue-blooded offspring will have mild temps when they winter-over on their private islands in the Caribbean.
But population control is just a small part of a much more ambitious plan to restructure the global economy, vaccinate everyone on the planet and dispose of those niggling civil liberties to which Americans have become so attached.
The elitist strategy has been dubbed the “Great Reset” which refers to the World Economic Forum’s Covid Action Platform, a program that aims at restructuring “economic and social foundations” in a way that best suits the interests of “stakeholder” capitalists.
Here’s a clip from their press release:
“COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying.
“There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.
To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.
Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism…
The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream.
In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles.
Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office….
Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need.
That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones.
And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.” (“The World Economic Forum’s Covid Action Platform“, WEF)
If it sounds like our illustrious leaders want to remake society from the ground-up, it’s because that’s exactly what they have in mind. And they’re not even trying to hide their real intentions.
They say quite bluntly: “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
That sounds alot like marching orders to me and, indeed, that’s exactly what they are; orders.
But how do they intend to affect these dramatic and revolutionary changes?
Why Covid, of course.
They’re going to use Covid to make fundamental changes to the existing system, including accelerating privatization (“stakeholder capitalism”), merging governments into a unified global regime, intensifying the elements of social control (via mass electronic surveillance, intrusive contact tracing, security checkpoints, lockdowns, internal passports, biometric IDs etc) and taking whatever steps are required to introduce a tyrannical Brave New World.
It’s all there in black and white, they’re not even trying to hide it. In their own words, the “Great Reset” depends on the Covid Action Platform, right?
In order to “build a better society” we need to “make radical changes to our lifestyles” including reductions in “frequent air travel to working in an office”.
So just forget that trip to Italy next year Mr. and Mrs. WorkerBee. Ain’t gonna happen. Bill Gates says, “No.”
And get used to working from home, too, because we don’t want your dog-eared Capri spewing carbon into our pristine-blue skies.
The statement also makes clear that the obliteration of millions of jobs and small businesses was not an accidental casualty of the Covid lockdowns, but the planned demolition of business and workers these Mucky-mucks consider ‘non-essential’.
And as far as who will participate in this new blueprint for Capitalist Valhalla? Well, everyone of course.
According to the authors:
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”
There it is from the horse’s mouth: The glorious Biosecurity Slave State is emerging right before our very eyes and we just thought we were in another Great Depression rounded off with a pandemic.
So, when we talk about Covid the “Political Contrivance”, we’re actually referring to the vehicle that elites have settled on to transition the country from its present condition to a full-blown “lock-down” police state.
Covid is the smokescreen that’s being used to conceal the maneuverings of filthy-rich powerbrokers who want to implement their Grand Plan for humanity.
Rockefeller Foundation’s Operation Lockstep: ‘Under The Guise Of A Pandemic, We Will Create A Prison State’
So, if everything feels chaotic and upside-down at the present time, don’t be alarmed; it’s all by design.
The more muddled and turbulent the world becomes, the easier it is to get people to submit to moronic activities like wearing a diaper on your mouth every time you leave the house or standing 6 feet apart at the grocery store so invisible pathogens don’t climb up your pant-leg and bite you.
Psychologists know that –in a topsy-turvy world where uncertainty prevails — people are more apt to follow the directives of affable blockheads, like Tony Fauci, even though they may be abandoning their last-claim to personal freedom in the process.
Looking back to April of 2020, we probably should have anticipated where all this was headed, after all, Mr. NWO himself, Henry Kissinger, announced what to expect in an op-ed he posted in the Wall Street Journal. Here’s what he said:
“The reality is the world will never be the same after the coronavirus. To argue now about the past only makes it harder to do what has to be done…” (NOTE – Is Kissinger clairvoyant? How did he know the “world would never be the same again”?)
“Enlightenment thinkers (argued) that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people… Individuals cannot secure these things on their own.
“The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.” (NOTE – In other words: Globalism is good, Nationalism is bad. The same refrain we’ve heard for the last 30 years.)
While the assault on human health (from Covid) will—hopefully—be temporary, the political and economic upheaval it has unleashed could last for generations. (NOTE– Another peek into Henry’s crystal ball, eh?)
No country, not even the U.S., can in a purely national effort overcome the virus. Addressing the necessities of the moment must ultimately be coupled with a global collaborative vision and program.” (“The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Forever Alter the World Order”, Wall Street Journal)
As Kissinger clearly states, globalization is still alive and well among the Davos heavyweights who now see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put their plan into action.
Everywhere in the western world, freedom is collapsing faster than a corrugated lean-to in a Kansas tornado.
Meanwhile in panic-stricken America, fainthearted proles continue to hide behind their sofas waiting for the faux-plague to pass.
Do they even see the train-wreck just ahead?
Author Gary D. Barnett summed it up like this:
“At this moment in time we are standing on a precipice with the state attempting to push us over the edge. Once over that edge, there will be no coming back.
“This is why if the people fight back in mass, and withhold all support from the governing demons, we can awaken from this nightmare, and regain normalcy.” (“The State’s Covid Response Is a Cancer for the Freedom of Humanity”, Gary D. Barnett, Lew Rockwell)
Bravo, Mr. Barnett! That says it all.
By Mike Whitney, Guest writer