23 November 2021 - 3:43 pm
We can often theorise about intentions. Sometimes there seems to be at the very least circumstantial evidence to support those theories. That evidence might come in the form of a person or group that has a stated goal, then engineering the means to achieve that goal, and the goal then being achieved. There are numerous examples of this throughout history, and often they are orchestrated by Governments, or groups connected with Global Governance.
The usage and difference between the words “Government” and “Governance” is purely for PR reasons. The would-be rulers of the world, running a single World Government know that most people don’t like the idea of a One World Government, simply because they understand two basic principles. The first is that it is not possible to have any kind of representative democracy at that level. Even for those that believe in the notion of national Government, democracy and representation within that understand to varying degrees that it is another failed god, and the idea of taking something that is obviously not working scaling that up to a global level cannot hope to improve matters. The second is that people also understand that in some ways it is still possible to up-sticks, leave a country and go somewhere else if the national Government and the environment they create is not to your taste. It’s a big step and not many people do it, but it is an option which obviously would not exist if there was a single Government ruling the world.
Even if people don’t express those principles outwardly, we inherently know them to be the case. There are obviously many other very good reasons to be against the idea of a One World Government, but those two basic principles are likely to be near the top of most people’s lists of why they’d not be in favour if they were pressed on the matter. The wannabe rulers of the world know this, and so a simple trick they use is to describe what they do as Governance, not Government. It’s just advising on multilateral policy-making. It’s just leveraging the think-tanks and private sector to solve global issues. It’s just “non-profit” foundations and philanthropists making the world a better place. Right?
At the start of this article I talked about groups with stated goals, the means to engineer situations where those goals appear to be the solutions to problems, and then the implementation of those plans thus fulfilling the goals. These are sometimes referred to as Problem > Reaction > Solution methods or false flag events, and is inspired by Hegel’s Dialectics which we have mentioned before.
The phrase “false flag” comes from a maritime trick that was used back in the days where wars were often fought at sea. A ship would fly the flags of their enemy in order to disguise themselves and their intentions. Sometimes a ship would attack one of it’s own, dressed in the flags of the enemy in full sight of witnesses who would then testify that “an enemy ship had attacked them”. This apparent act of war would then justify the side that is pretending to be a victim to then go on the offensive, all in the name of defence, or retaliation. These days false flag events are mostly not literal ships with literal flags, but the phrase remains in use as the principal method is the same. Looking at many of the so-called “terrorist” attacks that have been used to justify never-ending wars, increases in surveillance, spending on weapons and the erosion of freedoms generally, these have been exposed as false flag events, if only because the official story is so preposterously and demonstrably false there can be no other explanation. The 9/11 incident is a good example of this, as is the Skripal/Novichok debacle in the UK. We won’t likely know the full truth behind these incidents but the official stories are so pathetically debunkable and contradictory they are clearly lies and mask what is likely a State sponsored event to achieve a goal, that being the huge increase in military spending, the bio-security industry springing to life and the general fear and division these events cause which is Government Tactics 101. A fearful populous looks to “leaders” to save them, this is well known human behaviour at a general level and we know just how much Governments are interested in studying and influencing public behaviours.
“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. Obviously any disagreement before discussion involves opposing sides and the argument will naturally involve contradictory processes. The trouble is that some arguments are not empirical, they are subjective and this complicates matters. There are many things that are a simple matter of true or false. Philosophical debate and the scientific method are ways of establishing the truth in such matters. True philosophical arguments rely on logic. A conclusion needs to coherently and logically follow from the preceding premise. Proofs rely on the evidence of the hypothesis evidentially leading to the outcome expected and predicted by the theory. One of the earliest recognised examples of dialectics is Socrates and his back-and-forth conversations with those he challenged. Plato then more formally structured this process which can be thought of as a gradual refinement of ideas, each more complex and/or closer to the truth than before as a result of the dialectical process.
The refactoring of this relatively simple process by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel who lived in the 1700s into a contrived, self-contradictory tool that was eventually embraced by Karl Marx to revise history into a purely materialistic world-view culminating in the formation of Communism was certainly not a highlight of German intellectualism. Hegel took the basic idea of contradiction and the means by which differences can be resolved and turned it into something unfathomably detached from reality. One example is this statement:
Something moves, not because now it is here and there at another now, but because in one and the same now it is here and not here, because in this here, it is and is not at the same time.Georg Hegel
This was Hegel’s interpretation of motion, and this he declared, proved that motion is an “existent contradiction”.
If this doesn’t make any sense to you, the world’s intellectuals would like you to believe it’s because you’re too stupid. Indeed one suspects Hegel and any of his fans would assert the same. This is a classic Emperor’s New Clothes moment, where the reality is, like in the story the Emperor was naked, this is patently absurd. Why are we talking about this ridiculousness? Well this is a good example of what George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm said, which is:
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them”
The title of this article is “The Plan to Push mRNA”, and you might be wondering what false flags, naked Emperors and Hegel’s drivel has to do with that.
There was a meeting on the 29th October 2019 that was held by the Milken Institute, which is listed as (like many of these organisations are) “an independent economic think tank” that “publishes research and hosts conferences that apply market-based principles and financial innovations to social issues in the US and internationally” and is naturally listed as a “501 nonprofit organization”.
The main theme of this meeting was a “Universal Flu Vaccine” and among the attendees and contributors to the discussion were:
- Rick Bright – Director of Department of Health and Human Services at Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (also known as BARDA)
- Anthony Fauci – Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
- Bruce Gellin – President of the Sabin Vaccine Institute
- Margaret Hamburg – Foreign Secretary at the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine, and also former FDA Commissioner under the Obama Administration from 2009-2015
- Michael Specter – Staff Writer at the New Yorker Magazine
- Casey Wright – Chief Executive Officer of Flu Lab
The full video of this meeting is on C-SPAN here, dated and annotated. Just bear in mind this short sequence of events and their dates as you watch the video clips and/or read the transcripts from this meeting…
- January-August 2019 the US Government conducted a joint exercise called Crimson Contagion that “numerous national, state and local, private and public organizations in the US participated, in order to test the capacity of the federal government and twelve states to respond to a severe pandemic of influenza originating in China.”
- 18th October 2019 saw the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation host Event 201, a “a high-level pandemic exercise”.
- 29th October 2019 the Milken Institute holds their annual meeting, this time to discuss a “Universal Flu Vaccine” where they discuss using “disruption” to bring new vaccines to the world.
- It is now being reported that the “first case of COVID-19” was “most likely” some time in November 2019.
- Bill Gates and the big pharmaceuticals get the green light and billions of dollars/pounds from Governments to fund and push a brand new kind of “vaccine”, and the media turns into a 24/7 ad campaign for the likes of Pfizer and Moderna.
Here is the first clip from the video, and then a transcript:
Michael Specter: Why don’t we blow the system up? I mean, obviously, we can’t just turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say, Hey, everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we’ve not even given to anyone yet. But there must be some way that we grow vaccines, mostly in eggs, the way we did in 1947. We live in a world where I can download whatever song I want on to my phone at command, and we grow vaccines the way we did 70 years ago. What is going on with that?https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845-1/universal-flu-vaccine
Margaret Hamburg: It really is the case that we are behind where we have to be in terms of the urgency of this threat and how we’re harnessing advances in science and technology and how we’re mobilizing as a society to recognize the magnitude and scale of the problem before us. Clearly disruption comes with uncertainty and it comes with uncertainty on many levels, uncertainty within the scientific community on how we do science, regulatory uncertainty which I know something about and also uncertainty about adoption and access and all of that . I think one of the things is, and I think hopefully one of the metrics we can have on this panel is it’s time to stop talking. It’s time and we talked about these issues for a long time and that has taken the place of action sometimes I think but in terms of why we’re still growing it’s mainly in eggs, I think a part of it is that it’s just the way we’ve always done it. It’s the way we know we will get some kind of vaccine out into the marketplace and there’s always that in the meantime other work will be going on and it will have a breakthrough and the ah-ha moment when we have a universal vaccine. Clearly that is not going to happen. I think it’s also that we haven’t had this sense of urgency.
Michael Specter: Do we need to have lots of people die for that sense of urgency to occur?
Margaret Hamburg: The incredible thing is lots of people do die, every year and yet we aren’t mobilising. I would have to say to be more positive that I can’t really answer the question of why is it taking us so long because I think it shouldn’t have. And you know, there really is not a good excuse. The science has had to move forward. Gaps in the science still persist including our understandings about immune protection in addition to understanding the nature of this particular virus which has its complexities, certainly part of the problem have been that it’s much safer for a company to keep doing what it’s doing than to try to do something new but it’s also I think, we haven’t funded all the work that needs to be done on an optimistic note, there’s a lot going on now and Tony is leading efforts and there are other efforts, the Gates Foundation, the European Union Research Horizon 2020, many other entities as well. But we’re also not good at collaboration and I think that needs to be addressed area we need to start sharing knowledge, we need a roadmap for research that really we follow, we identify what do we know where the gaps, how can we fill those gaps. We need to identify what are the ruts that were stuck in that we have to get out of and how are we going to use all the capabilities in science and technology today and the energy of our society and the scientific community to get the job done.
So Michael Specter is apparently dissatisfied that he can download songs to his phone, but they haven’t cured influenza with a universal vaccine. We are supposed to presume he is some kind of expert in this field, and the level of false equivalency is stunning. As if somehow the science of downloading digital data and the advances there are, or should be in his mind, the same as advances in the infinitely complex human condition of health, immunity and “vaccines”. Not only that, he seems upset that vaccine creation methods are the same as they were 70 years ago.
I am not making a case for or against the traditional methods and mechanisms of vaccines, but this idea that if something hasn’t changed for a long time it is somehow not good enough is just ridiculous. It’s not science, it’s not about progress necessarily, and there is much to complain about when it comes to the continued use of certain technology when better options exist but are unavailable due to corporate interests. But this is not the case here. Specter is arguing something akin to “you haven’t cured death, this is a failure and you must do better because people were dying 70 years ago and still are”.
Margaret Hamburg then waffles on about a lack of a sense of urgency, plus the complaint that there’s been lots of talk and no action. She later admits there are “gaps in the science” regarding such minor issues as “understandings of immune protection” and “the nature of this particular virus” which you would think would need to be solved before blowing the system up. But no, action is required now. Hilariously she then simultaneously complains there’s not enough collaboration and then in the same breath mentions Anthony Fauci and the billions of dollars he spends every year on funding this stuff, the Gates Foundation which does the same and the European Union, to name just a fraction of the multi-billion dollar hundreds of global health institutes, NGOs and huge parts of the United Nations dedicated to this cause. But there’s not enough collaboration… right. She’s on board with the disruption idea though, of course.
Next we have a clip from that meeting of Anthony Fauci, who is answering further the question posed by Michael Specter about this antiquated method of producing vaccines…
Here is a transcript of that clip…
Anthony Fauci: In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true, egg growing, which we know gives us results that can be, you know, beneficial, I mean, we’ve done well with that, to something that has to be much better. You have to prove that this works. And then you’ve got to go through all of the clinical trials, phase one, phase two, phase three, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade.https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845-1/universal-flu-vaccine
Wow, that sounds like a real problem. The troublesome nature of needing to prove it works, go through trials and ensure they are safe, and demonstrate that it has some long-term benefits too, how awful. A whole decade? Pffft who wants to wait that long? Fortunately that’s the problem think-tanks like the Milken Institute and their illustrious guests are here to solve.
Here is the next clip, this is Rick Bright from the US Government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority…
Rick Bright: There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845-1/universal-flu-vaccine
Rick is also disappointed that there just isn’t enough excitement around pursuing a universal flu vaccine. It isn’t “sexy” enough according to him, and he draws the comparison with the hype and (naturally) funding available for HIV vaccine research which you’d think would be considered another massive failure by the likes of Michael Specter seeing as we’re told HIV has been plaguing humanity for over 40 years now with no apparent progress whatsoever in producing a vaccine or a cure. Obviously this isn’t really about finding a cure for anything, just pushing new technologies on the public in the name of “public health responsibility” and milking the funding system.
Rick Bright also agrees with the idea of disruption. Of course he does, that’s why he’s here. He seems especially keen on it being something that is so out of the ordinary that usual processes and expectations can be simply bypassed.
The final clip we shall look at is of Anthony Fauci and then Rick Bright again…
Anthony Fauci: So we really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza, and it’s going to be very difficult to change that, unless you do it from within and say, I don’t care what your perception is, we’re going to address the problem in a disruptive way and in an iterative way because you do need both.https://www.c-span.org/video/?465845-1/universal-flu-vaccine
Rick Bright: The technologies are out there. We haven’t demonstrated their true effectiveness or their ability for vaccine, but it is not too crazy to think that the outbreak of novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere, we could get the RNA sequence from that. Beam it to a number of regional centres, if not local, if not even in your home at some point and print those vaccines on a patch and self administer.
So here we have Anthony Fauci again reiterating the problem they have, that the world’s perception of influenza is not where they’d like it to be, and he understands that to change that is going to require them to not care about people’s perception and just “address the problem”, with the now popularised word “disruption”.
Rick Bright then admits that the mRNA technologies which is what is being referred to here when they are all talking about the new way, the next iteration and the disruptive system detonation, he admits that they haven’t demonstrated their true effectiveness or their ability for a vaccine, he just talks about the fact that mRNA technology exists.
Never mind it hasn’t been shown to work, to be effective or even work as a vaccine, this is next level tech and these people are obsessed with finding a way to push it on the public, and their stated solution is to “blow up the system”, and use an “entity of excitement” to bypass all the usual “strings and processes”.
So is this evidence that they deliberately released a deadly pathogen?
Is it evidence that they had a stated goal, and the means to engineer things to make it appear that their goal, that being the use of mRNA technology on the public, be the only option thus bypassing the decade of evidence gathering and trials Fauci was moaning about?
Is it evidence that only several months before the world was bombarded by propaganda about a fake pandemic coming out of China, the thing that is being forced on people now as the cure, was declared by the guy who runs the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority as unproven as effective or useful as a vaccine but could be used if a novel virus outbreak happened in China?
Feel free to make up your own mind on this. To me it seems pretty clear, and certainly worthy of a fuller investigation, if that would ever happen. It appears the false flag of a novel virus coming out of China, as suggested by Rick Bright in October 2019 as a method of disrupting things to then push mRNA is exactly what has happened. Lots of supposedly smart people have fallen for this, hook line and sinker. Some are just opportunists of course, seeing the funding Bright spoke of as yet another gravy train to ride. Some are just smitten by the new religion and it has given their shallow, empty lives some sense of meaning, and some are, as Orwell described, the intellectuals that are the only ones stupid enough to believe.