111 Comments

"Because one thing’s for certain, judging by the tepid backlash against the institutionalized cretins who carried out the largest biowarfare attack in history, there are not enough true anti-establishment fighters, nor the consensus of the willing to build a critical mass strong enough to upend the system and break its resistant matrices of control." Where is Mitch Rapp?

Expand full comment

He died suddenly of myocarditis unless the author is a covidiot and then it was long covid

Expand full comment

The original author died of cancer long before Covid came about. May Vince be resting in peace. He was a good man.

Expand full comment

It was joke...🤔

Expand full comment

I know. I just wanted to give Vince a shout out. I loved his books.

And yes, it was a funny joke!

Expand full comment

You lose all credibility with posts like these.

The reality of what happened is simple and completely different from the conspiracy theories that are gaining traction now.

1) The world is vastly overpopulated and increasingly encroaching on wildlife, meaning that the rate of zoonotic transfer of novel pathogens from what was previously isolated wildlife populations (such as bats in caves in China) has greatly increased in recent decades. This is a simple ecological fact. If it leaked from a lab, that is a second-order manifestation of the same phenomenon -- these viruses were studied because we had SARS-1 in 2003 and it was known this is a major threat.

2) It was inevitable that we would eventually get a serious pandemic. There were many close calls, SARS-1 in 2003 being a notable example, but those were contained because proper protocol was followed. It is also inevitable that we will get more pandemics in the future, because the underlying factors -- an overpopulated, globalized world in which a novel pathogen can hop from continent to continent in mere hours -- remain the same.

3) In the course of the 20th century, one of the major civilizational achievements of humanity was getting rid of dangerous infectious disease. In the West we basically forgot about that as a problem, it only remained one in what we dismissively referred to as the "Third world". That was achieved by following proper public health protocol, which involved mandatory vaccinations, and harsh NPIs when needed (Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions). The last time smallpox appeared in Europe was in 1972 in Yugoslavia, and the country was under Wuhan-style lockdown for several months until it was contained (in fact the Wuhan lockdown was quite obviously modeled after the Yugoslavia one).

4) The problem is that you can't follow proper public health protocol under neoliberalism. It means shutting down parts of the economy, and that hurts profits. In this case China should have been isolated from the rest of the world in mid-January 2020, while everyone with travel connections to China should have been hunted down and quarantined, but that was vetoed by the travel and tourist industries, which ensured global spread.

5) Their plan after that was to just shrug it off and let people die -- remember that as late as the first week of March 2020 the NYC mayor was telling people to go out and have fun -- but the brutal reality of collapsed healthcare systems and the threat of having uncollected corpses lying in the streets forced them into shutting things down (in the end they only had corpses in the streets in places like Guayaquil in Ecuador).

Because if they had told everyone "keep going to work and sending your kids to school regardless" while people are dropping dead like flies, that would have threatened the system by revealing its absolute inhumane monstrosity to everyone in no uncertain terms. The infection fatality rate in the US in March 2020, before there was any worked out treatment protocol, was 1.5%. That means 4-5M people dead in a few months under such policies. So they got scared and did "lockdowns" (really nothing of the sort was ever done in the US, only "mockdowns", but it was advertised as such).

6) From then on the choices were either to finally follow proper protocol and lock down hard until elimination, which is what they did in China, or abandon it prematurely and then gaslight the public into believing that the virus is no big deal (yeah, a virus that reinfects every couple years and leaves people with serious internal organ damage every time is no big deal; sure). They chose the latter because under neoliberalism it is impossible to have a sustained public health response -- it would have meant paying people to stay home for half a year, canceling or at least freezing various debt obligations, giving people free healthcare, etc.

Even as a one-time measure that was unacceptable -- it sets a very dangerous precedent (e.g. if people are given a taste of free healthcare, they might demand it permanently).

Some countries did the right thing, but the one that matters the most -- the US -- refused to do it because of its utter internal dysfunction, and it forced endemic COVID onto the rest of the world (good luck banning travel from the US to your country if you are a US colony ruled directly from the local US embassy).

7) Vaccines were pushed as the only solution (even though everyone knowledgeable about the situation knew they will fail -- and not because they are dangerous, but because coronaviruses had defeated all previous vaccine development efforts and there was no reason to think it would be different this time) in order to take quarantine, testing and tracing off the list of measures to apply.

8) Then eventually they officially turned around and started openly promoting uncontrolled infection, which is what they wanted to do from the start. Again, go back to the first three months of 2020 and look at their statements. Boris Johnson was openly talking about "taking it on the chin", and upholding Britain's place as the bastion of free-market virtues that will never bow down to public heath tyranny in the first weeks of February 2020. Does that look like someone who planned to keep everyone locked down forever? What kind of direction did subsequent policy take?

By promoting such nonsense, you are working for the mass murdering psychopaths who caused all this needless suffering. Some 25M people have died worldwide (the real, not the official count), and it is only starting from here.

It is a giant defeat for the ordinary man, who enjoyed an uninterrupted upwards trajectory in his overall health and life expectancy from the late 19th to the early 21st century. Which has now ended for good.

And the next time a new pathogen emerges, it will be just encouraged to spread by default, no matter the consequences. The precedent has been established. And emerge it will.

If there is a conspiracy theory here, it is that "they" might have seen in COVID a good way to reduce life expectancy and solve the entitlement problem that way. Which is an absolutely monstrous thing to do, and there should be a revolution with guillotines and heads rolling in roadside ditches if people actually understood what happened. But they don't. And you are helping to steer them away from that understanding...

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
April 25, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

That the world is vastly overpopulated is not a value judgement, but an empirical biophysical fact,

As is that you are a scientifically illiterate ignoramus.

Expand full comment

GM, kindly define "Overpopulated" and get back to us in the morning.

Expand full comment

OH MY SCIENCE! How dare anyone question the EXPERTS who give us the Truth™ through their EMPIRICAL and PEER REVIEWED research? Could you imagine not having your every opinion regurgitated into your mouth after having been processed, refined, and masticated by hegemonic institutions? Wow imagine trying to do your own research instead of trusting the experts who would never lie to us for financial gain. Remember: SCIENCE IS A PROCESS AND NOT AN IDEOLOGY!

Expand full comment

Corrigendum: Science once WAS an epistemological process or method — now it is funded (i.e. bought and paid for).

Expand full comment
founding

Thank you, ET. I never thought I would encounter a Malthusian pro-lockdown depopulation Covidian on Simplicius's posts, but here we are.

In company, whenever someone tells me the world is overpopulated my answer is always the same - "You first". These people are disgusting.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
April 25, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Discourse which adds flavor is valued. So over linear thinking. This is a RARE forum, kind of like the VOS.

Expand full comment

Only complete imbeciles can believe that infinite growth is a possibility.

Expand full comment

Well, any forest grows (almost) infinitely (until the next ice age or when the Sun becomes a red giant). Just the growing is accompanied by dying of the old trees. Therefore, a capitalist society with need to grow needs war as an integral part of itself.

As for population growth - with mechanized agriculture and fertilizers the size of possible pax size increased. More CO2 gives even better harvests. It seems to be a trend that developed countries in peace time have fewer kids and start to shrink (Japan, Germany). Whereas war torn countries, despite many killed people, still have a fast growing population - e.g. Syria, Palestine or Iraq. So to stop population growth, end the wars and create a decent living standard.

Expand full comment

Pure idiocy.

Our current global footprint is only maintained by pumping out fossil fuels and degrading ecosystems.

Guess what -- fossil fuels are a finite and rapidly diminishing resource, and those ecosystems are actually vital for our survival.

That is the very definition of unsustainability.

There is no viable sustainable future with more than few hundred million people in the planet.

Anyone who seriously thinks the planet can support billions belongs at best in the asylum, but is safer for humanity if it's a shallow unmarked mass grave instead. Because such lunatics threaten our collective survival -- once this civilization collapses, there will not be another rising from the ashes, as there will be nothing to build it with (we will have dissipated all the concentrated resources).

And it will collapse precisely through the four horsemen.

P.S. Why do you think we have a war now? It is precisely because the fight to the death for the dwindling resources of the planet has started. Russia happens to sit on the largest chunk of them, and also on the best position when extreme global warming really hits agricultural land.

That is why we are playing with nuclear war now -- things are that desperate.

Oh, and it isn't just me saying it, several Russian generals mentioned this as the real reason for the war on a few ocasisons since the war started.

Expand full comment

"sustainable", "global warming"

at which time in history there was no war?

Expand full comment

> There is no viable sustainable future with more than few hundred million people in the planet.

This is conjecture. Allow me to widen your horizons. :)

Breeder nuclear reactors can run for a few thousand years before Uranium and Thorium runs out - enough time to build a Dyson sphere around the Sun. We don't need to master fusion reactors if we can coopt stars. Thus humanity *has* the ability to provide practically limitless energy for itself. On to food now. The current base of human food supply is starchy plants but there is no reason these can't be replaced with chemically produced nutrients that get fed to animals, that humans eat. Obviously, you produce the energy for this abiotic base in nuclear reactors. Then you produce some simple organic compounds (maybe even sugars, if you can get that far) and feed these to molds and similar. Then feed the mold to chickens and fish. Then eat the chickens and fish.

It's not impossible to feed a trillion people. It's just a question of balls and organization. The TRUE carrying capacity of Earth is limited by it's heat-dissipation capabilities, not it's biosphere.

Expand full comment

The Earth reaches boiling point with 2% economic growth in a couple hundred years just from the waste heat.

And no, you can't support a trillion people, we are already hogging a substantial fraction of primary productivity.

Also, it is always the resource in least abundance relative to requirements that gets you first, and it's a very long list of resources we depend on

Expand full comment

Nuclear fission supplies only ~5% of global energy demand.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix#energy-mix-what-sources-do-we-get-our-energy-from

You can't mine uranium with electricity, you need liquid hydrocarbon fuels in remote locations. Same for building Dyson spheres would require impossibly large quantities of materials meaning ALL proposed future space futures for humans is thermodynamically IMPOSSIBLE starting from the bottom of this gravity well.

Uranium supply down here is VERY limited. The world's conventional identified uranium resources amounted to 8,070,400 tonnes of uranium metal (tU) as of 1 January 2019. Depending on developments in the nuclear energy sector, reactor-related uranium requirements could range from 56,640 tU/yr in a low demand scenario to 100,224 tU/yr in a high demand scenario by 2040 i.e. from ~80 to ~160 years @ 5% of global energy supply. At 100% of supply uranium will run out in a decade or so.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report

Read the links in this article for further background on the limits to growth.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/04/07/Rising-Chorus-Renewable-Energy-Skeptics/

Expand full comment

(EDIT: Post edited to add a note about energy use vs. energy production and also to correct a prefix in a few numbers; the calculations aren't affected by the bad prefix because I did the calculations on the computer in base units and only coverted into prefixed units for writing my reply.)

Natasha, thanks for coming at me with numbers.

I read some of the Tyee article and skimed some. It doesn't have as much numbers as I was hoping for. But IEAE does so I'll now try to show I'm not (completely) crazy when I write what I write. In the numbers below there may be rounding errors but the gist should be replicable.

First I'll estimate the total energy requirements for keeping Humanty at the current level. The world usage of energy is high, but it's not evenly spread. Instead of taking totals for the entire world, I took energy ~~usage~~ EDIT: I accidentally used energy production - but no biggie, Russia produces more energy than it spends END EDIT of Russia - supposedly an autarkic economy - and scaled it to the world. Russia uses about 17.6 GWh of energy per year, according to Wikipedia (the number is probably correct). However it also has 150 million people so it's energy spend is about 116.3 MWh per person per year. That's about 13 kW. Considering the usual energy spend of a European household, 13 kW total consumption (household, industry, transportation) for average Russian sounds about right. 13 kW is a nice energy budget. Notice this also includes energy production overhead.

Now, let's assume 100% of that energy is supplied by nuclear. I'm pulling numbers from this website I found using DuckDuckGo: https://whatisnuclear.com/energy-density.html It says there is about 8 Mt of Uranium metal (the number meshes with your number from IAEA). It further gives important considerations about energy recoverable from fuel (about 1%) and also mentions enrichment (discards 95% of mined metal). Taking these inefficiencies into account, it later states "[Fuel pellet] would have 8.8 grams of heavy metal in it (the rest is oxygen), so it contains 35,000 MJ in a typical reactor and at least 700,000 MJ in a breeder reactor." Now we calculate: in non-breeder reactors, that's about 4 TJ of recoverable energy from 1 kg of uranium, so an average Russian needs to burn 30 mg of the stuff per year to have his needs met. In a non-breeder reactor. 30 milligrams. One year.

But let's now scale this to the entire world. Let's assume the world of the future hovers around 10 billion people. Seems like a decent number. Well, those 10 billion people will need ~300 metric tons of uranium per year to meet 100% of their needs in non-breeder reactors. This compares to (as I read and make sense of it) "100 - 224 tU/yr in a high demand scenario" from IAEA. While it's possible IAEA predicted 100224 tU/y but spelled it out with a space in between, I think this is an unrealistic reading of the text becuase (1) It's not common to split large numbers with spaces in English language and (2) I have no idea how they managed to get that number (I double-checked my calculations and found that I have already taken into account low recovery of energy from nuclear fuel - so that can't be the problem). Therefore, I estimate we will need more nuclear fuel - when using non-breeder reactors - than IAEA does. I think I can't be accused of painting a rosy picture. :) Assuming 8 Mt of reserves, that works out to ~27 years of supply. Clearly, you are right - on the surface of the matter. :)

But when I wrote my comment, I specifically and deliberately mentioned breeder reactors. Recall that breeder reactors can extract at least 700 TJ from a fuel pellet, as compared to paltry 35 TJ in a non-breeder. So pluggin THAT number, we get 1.5 microgram per Russian per year, 14.6 SI tons of uranium per year for 10 billion people at Russian energy spending levels, and finally our planetary reserves will last about 550 years at that level. :)

Now you can't reasonably convince me that several billion non-doomers won't be able to collonize space (and unlock even more uranium) over 5 centuries with Russian-level energy spend. :)

And all of this is completely ignoring thorium, which I presume would give at least another 5 centuries and maybe even more. Add in energy savings and optimization and more efficient industry and trains instead of cars and just general solarpunk goodness and you'll realistically be able to get over 2 millenia out of those 8 megatons of uranium + whatever thorium there is. :)

As for high-density hidrocarbons: Sabatier process paired with gas-to-liquids technology will see to it that you have liquid fuels whereever you go. There is no need to go EV.

But doing all of this will take BALLS and ORGANIZATION.

Expand full comment

I accept my estimates were only for uranium, and I didn't include thorium or breeder reactors for simplicities sake.

But your energy input calculations completely miss ALL the other inputs necessary to run the Earth's global human civilisation DOWN here at the bottom of THIS gravity well TODAY – e.g. helium to make microchips, building sand and cement, a dozen or so rare metals needed to make the components of nuclear reactors, and all the other necessary infrastructure and inputs like fertilizer and land, that civilisations need, etc. etc. are ALL in critical short supply, and will run out in decades not the ~550 years you estimate for humans to begin living and mining off this planet in space.

That's why I gave the Tyree link, as it nicely sums up with links to sources, exposing that those other indispensable inputs will run out in a hand full of decades.

Further, ALL mining construction and transport activity can't be done with electricity as it vastly too inefficient, thus it REQUIRES HIGH energy density fossil fuels. And we are half way through that resource. Then there is process heat with electricity, anyone seen how impossible / inefficient that is? And have you ever seen an electric rocket engine take a payload into orbit yet?

In other words we haven't enough energy or materials to build a long term “550 years” nuclear future, and synthetic fuel manufacture isn't going to happen because its far too terribly inefficient DOWN here at the bottom of THIS gravity well TODAY.

Reality is that global population has followed the fossil fuel extraction and use curve, rising exponentially from under 2 billion since we first started burning it ~ 250 years ago, doubling in the last 50 years, to over 8billion today. We're now half way through our one time fossil fuel bonanza, and the down curve of ALL resource extraction activity is ALWAYS MUCH faster, likely pushing global populations back to same as before the fossil fuel age of under ~ 2 billion by end of this century.

However, I fully support nuclear energy - uranium thorium and breeders - which should all be scaled up as fast as possible, but only because it will soften this inevitable collapse.

http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv18n05page20.html

https://djprisss.github.io/Limits-to-Renewable-Energy/

https://archive.org/details/atomichumanismthecasefornuclearpowerv1/mode/2up

Read Simon Michaux, Tom Murphy, Alice Friedemann, etc. etc. who will hammer home the point that the road to Dyson spheres is laughably blocked before such ideas even jumped off the pages of a Toms Swift book or the TV screens of a Start Trek episode, when as an 8 year old in the 1960s I too believed they were honest maps of the future for humans.

https://www.gtk.fi/en/current/there-are-bottlenecks-in-raw-materials-supply-chain-a-glimpse-of-the-systemic-overview-is-here-discussion-and-the-development-of-the-solutions-have-started/

https://mcusercontent.com/72459de8ffe7657f347608c49/files/be87ecb0-46b0-9c31-886a-6202ba5a9b63/Assessment_to_phase_out_fossil_fuels_Summary.pdf

https://energyskeptic.com/2021/solar-pv-cells-using-rare-elements-unlikely-to-scale-up-enough-to-replace-fossil-fuels/

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-05-19/helium-is-a-finite-resource-who-knew/

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/10/10/20904213/climate-change-steel-cement-industrial-heat-hydrogen-ccs

Meanwhile, waving your magic wand by suggesting all we need is "just general solarpunk goodness" and then labelling those who present resource limits facts (as above) as the work of “doomers” simply exposes how your own cognitive dissonance has blinded you to reality, preferring to grip onto fairy “colonizing space” stories instead of facing up to reality.

Expand full comment

I am certainly not new to limits. I've done my part in trying to convince people you can't have infinite growth on a non-increasing planet. However I think we can't allow ourselves the luxury of forgetting there is more than one way of doing things.

The list of minerals that are apparently running out is extensive and I have seen these graphs before. Not only that but there are historical cases where people have ran out of important resources, like obsidian (back in the stone age), or the utter fiasco of cutting down all trees on Easter Island (how were they planning to build ships without trees?).

Yet I can't imagine these are irreplaceable in general principle. Modern electronics require bizzare elements, but what about older electronics? Integrated circuits could be made with phosphorus and aluminium. They might not support multi-gigahertz clock rates, but even 100 MHz is very respectable of a CPU. Copper might run out but 8% of Earth's crust is aluminium. Yeah, there's the catch that aluminium is the most energy-intensive element to smelt. However - and I've done the calculations - there are ways to recycle that waste energy back into smelting. No laws of physics are broken, *especially* not the Second law of thermodynamics. One day soon I'll write a post about it over on my blog, https://becomingbelte.rs/ .

In my view, modern humans see their industry and think these awesomly advanced processes are the best or only way of achievieng those results. They never seem to think laterally: in what other ways, using what other technologies can I achieve the same effect?

Example: people look at photovoltaics and say that is unsustainable because it requires rare earths. But do they then despair or instead think of photothermals? Using photothermal panels and multi-stage Stirling engines it's possible to construct a complete solar electricity system that even has greater efficiency (power per surface area) than the best photovoltaics, all of that without needing anything more advanced than iron age - strike that, bronze age - technology. No need for rare earths. Infinite sustainability! \o/ And I WOULD be selling these things and making a killing it's just that I first have to design appropriate engines (turns out, nobody sells 1-5 kW Stirling engines - I checked) and I'm currently busy designing and building a free-and-open-source-hardware computer. BTW, design's CPU frequency: 125 MHz. After I'm done with the computer, I might switch over to photothermals, or I might do some other project related to going into space. It all depends - the business idea for photothermal electric generation is now out and if somebody else starts this before me - I'll be happy.

> Further, ALL mining construction and transport activity can't be done with electricity as it vastly too inefficient, thus it REQUIRES HIGH energy density fossil fuels. And we are half way through that resource.

I mentioned Sabatier process. It's a chemical reaction that converts carbon dioxide and hydrogen into methane and water in presence of iron catalyst at elevated temperature (400 degC) and pressures (30 bar). You get hydrogen from electrolysis of water. Thus the entire cycle together converts carbon dioxide into methane and oxygen. The hydrocarbons are therefore provided. There is also an already developed set of technologies for liquifying methane, so you can even be provided with liquid fuels. Previously I just mentioned this, this time I elaborated somewhat on it.

It's just that it seems to me that in relation to modern industry and the modern way of life people seem to have this tunnel vision that "it's either this way or no way". As if 20th century was the eternal apex of human technology and nothing in the future will ever beat it. And as if the only alternative is to go medieval.

I'll take a risk with what I'm about to write. You know that ancient Greeks invented steam power, right? There was this guy in Alexandria in Egypt in 2nd century that invented a steam turbine. He fucking sat on an industrial revolution 2000 years ago! And did something come out of it? No! Because they had slaves, and because they also suffered from tunnel vision where slavery is the apex of humanity and therefore machine work is irrelevant. To be fair, ancient Greeks may have also had a fuel problem unlike 19th century UK which invented the steam engine to better drain coal mines. Yes, coal mines came first, the coal was used for smelting iron because they previously ran out of wood. :) Anyway, Greeks were industrious (Antikythera mechanism) and already back then naphta was available plus the Chinese of were already drilling for oil in the 4th century so I'm going to judge the ancients would have come up with a solution to their fuel problem. If only they broke free from the mental shackels limiting their imagination and explored industrial applications of steam turbines.

Speaking very seriously and candidly - I fear we as humanity have another "ancient Alexandrian steam turbine" moment. Except this time the stakes are higher than in 2nd century because those fossil fuels we're burning aren't coming back for 100 million years. I fear if we blow this chance and fail to achieve socio-techno-ecological liftoff, we're fucked.

Expand full comment

Wow, a covidiot vaxtard and a climate changetard. EWhy do the two seem to go together like peaches and cream?

"several Russian generals mentioned this as the real reason for the war on a few ocasisons since the war started."

Immediately post links to back up your lie, oh wait you can't, 'cos they don't exist.

Expand full comment

Fun fact: the biotic oil theory has never once been proven, as no one has been able to turn the organic slag in fossil layers into any kind of petrochemical. In fact, all known synthesis formulas for all petrochemicals exclusively use abiotic chemicals as reactants with catalyzing heat and pressure being comparable to conditions found in the Earth's lower crust and mantle, suggesting that oil is abiotic and simply bubbles up to the surface from deep below the Earth's crust. Also, the various once thought empty oil deposits that suddenly started spewing out oil again with seemingly no explanation supports the notion that oil is both abiotic and infinite.

The only person here who believes in "Science" ideology is you.

Expand full comment

> as no one has been able to turn the organic slag in fossil layers into any kind of petrochemical

False.

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

Conversion of living matter to petroleum has been known since at least the 18th (or 17th?) century when some empoverished Scottish nobleman tried to get rich by producing tar by distilling wood. What is tar but heavy fraction of petroleum? And even before that - what exactly is charcoal if not coal? In addition, while I can't find the name of the company right now, there used to be little business that would process slaughterhouse waste into oil. Obviously, Big Oil tried to run them out of business but they eventually flopped when the slaughterhouses started charging money for their waste they were shipping to this company. I can't find the name of the company right now, I read about it 10 years ago.

Expand full comment

Tar and charcoal are not gasoline, and ethanols and other hydrocarbons synthesized from organic matter are very different from the gasoline that's pumped out of the ground, hence why they have to be mixed with either normal gasoline or normal diesel to used by normal engines.

Also, it's Big Oil that's currently funding all this "renewables" and "alternative fuels" BS in order to secure their monopoly on energy. They gave up on slaughterhouse oil because they didn't believe in its viability for some reason (most likely because it's no-where near as efficient as gasoline and because it's gross and therefore not the best PR pitch). The only energy source that ever challenged Big Oil was nuclear, and now nuclear's reputation has been so thoroughly destroyed by sensational coverage of a few severe incidents that it's now no longer politically viable.

Expand full comment

You are an ignorant troll. Fuck off. I wish we were in a pub 'cos I'd smash you in the face.

Expand full comment

I don't agree with this ad hominem attack on this poster. He does make some good points worth pondering, even if one disagrees with him.

Expand full comment
author

Not even worth replying to such a risible post. I can only hope for your sake it's some sort of satire.

Expand full comment

As I said, you lose all credibility with such posts, and now you erase all doubt about it with such replies.

Again, it is in the interest of the common man to be free of disease and it is the job of the state to ensure that. It is a big part of what makes a civilized society. Otherwise we go back to the Middle Ages, or to Sub-Saharan Africa today.

That means redistribution, but we don't do downwards redistribution under neoliberalism, so instead people had to pay for it with their lives (and will be paying for it with their lives for a very long time, if it ever stops).

How is anyone to take your socioeconomic or war analyses seriously when you can't even see the obvious basic problem of political economy that pandemic containment presents?

Expand full comment

Well it’s very hard to get rid of a virus if you use a non sterilizing ‘vaccine' that doesn’t come close to being a vaccine and instead is defined as gene therapy. Plus these so called vaccines were never tested for efficacy nor safety which Pfizer admitted back in 2020. And if you can’t see how the elite have structured this whole scam for their benefit you haven’t been paying attention. Sad though since it was just laid out here and you still miss their goals. He's talking about you when he says that people will fall for the next scam that comes along. Wake up dude.

Expand full comment

It's not gene therapy.

And It should never have been the only option.

That is the whole point -- this was not going to be solved with vaccines, so they had to do a hard prolonged lockdown plus mass testing. The way that China did it, and which is the only proven way to stop it.

They didn't want to do that because the associated supportive measures that were required to make that work would come too dangerously close to socialism, and that is completely unacceptable. So instead they lied about vaccines being 100% effective and normalized mass infection through that.

It is true that the elites used the crisis to engineer another upwards transfer of wealth but that doesn't mean that they engineered it for that purpose. They didn't want to do lockdowns at all. Again, go back to early 2020 when initial containment wasn't even tried. They were forced to do lockdowns by the circumstances, and then they looked at ways to gain from that.

But the more important story is that they refused to do proper lockdowns because that would have hurt them. People here have very short memories but some of us to remember the endless procession of talking heads and op-ed writers screeching about how we can't pay people not to work. That wasn't because we can't "afford it", we can print money and then gift it to the oligarchy in larger amounts and don't even blink. But because it would undermine the system.

It's not a scam, many millions died. I have relatives that died, and it is quite likely you do too.

I am also the educated scientist in this conversation who knows the field. Sarbecoviruses are a real thing, and were a real thing long before the pandemic. It was a matter of when, not if.

How it should have gone down once initial containment failed (or rather, it wasn't even tried):

1) Hard lockdown and closed borders until zero cases

2) This is helped by mass testing, for which purposes all qualified labor is mobilized on a wartime basis

3) Centralized controlled quarantine for the infected

4) Keep testing and isolating until elimination

5) Keep the countries that refuse to do that under a cordon sanitaire, while offering to help them with money and reagents and manpower for mass testing.

6) Economic support measures to make that workable:

6.1) everyone who does not need to work gets paid not to work and stay home for the duration

6.2) debt payments are frozen in order to not collapse the financial system

6.3) healthcare and isolation are free so that people are not afraid to come forward if they have symptoms

6.4) wartime mobilization for things like mask production, everyone who does need to work to maintain critical support systems is fully kitted out with proper PPE

If that had been done, we would have wiped it out before any vaccines were even approved -- by October 2020.

And that was in everyone's interest -- we do that, we celebrate victory over the virus in late 2020, life goes back to normal and everyone is safe and free from serious disease.

The problem is that in the US it would have required to spend around 4 trillion on that effort and to then recoup it through taxes on the wealthy. The wealthy didn't want to hear any of that so they vetoed it in that crucial moment in March-April 2020. What happened instead was that the US printed more than 10 trillion, handed out 2 trillion of that to the masses to keep them placated and the other 8 trillion to the oligarchy. While condemning the world to endemic COVID.

That action is what tricks the not very bright and knowledgeable observers into thinking the virus itself was a scam, but it wasn't, it is very real and very dangerous.

Expand full comment

But then when China fully opened again everyone got infected anyway. But the point stands that the vaccines would never work because the coronavirus constantly mutates which was well known for decades and besides Fauci recently admitted that because they can’t stop infection through the bloodstream. He says that only mucosal vaccines could do that. One pharma exec is on tape saying that they are gene therapy, but if people were told that they would never have taken them. You are wasting lots of time trying to get people to agree with your false claims. Try reading the essay again and see if you can pick up what you’ve missed.

Btw I know of no one who has even gotten sick and most people died in hospitals because of the deadly protocols of remdisiver and ventilators instead of receiving early treatment with drugs that even the WHO recommended. I do know plenty of people who died from the protocols.

Expand full comment

But in the end, everyone everywhere got infected anyway, whether vaccinated or not. The initial push for lockdowns was to "flatten the curve" in hospitalizations. Turned out the 'treatments' were more deadly than the disease... And there was never much focus on actual effective treatments, those were obviously anathema. Way more people died than needed to, and the vaccinations certainly didn't help lower the death count, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Expand full comment

That is absolute nonsense.

There is an extremely strong anti-correlation between vaccination rates and how many people died.

And there was nothing inevitable in everyone getting infected.

There is a double tragedy here -- "they" first got everyone infected, then tricked people into thinking that was in their best interest, when in fact it was the largest single act of genocide and crime against humanity in history. But nobody revolted because of how well the propaganda woked.

Expand full comment

The main problem here is that COVID-19 is not a once-off affair. You don't get infected once only, you can get reinfected. And since every infection brings the potential for death and disability, you'd really want to get infected as rarely as possible.

I understand that's not what the Expertocracy was saying, and I understand you probably never even thought of diseases before 2020, so me saying this is going to come across as moving the goalpost. But! I never put the goal post where the Expertocracy put it, and in fact you can go back to the beginning and rethink the entire thing on your own. If you did so, you'd get an understanding that isn't equal to the "messaging", but is similar enough that you won't be able to convice people you're not an Expert.

Anyway, COVID-19 is playing out the WORST scenario it could possibly be playing out - a global endemic disease. It's probably going to reduce the global life expectancy by over 10 years if it doesn't die out quickly and also produce mass IQ reductions and other disabilities. Could it have been avoided? That's an interesting question.

Oh, and when Wuhan ran out of hospitals back in Februrary 2020, the lethality shot through the roof. Medicine saved people's lives. Like COVID-19 in 2020, colera also has 3% lethality when treated. ;)

Expand full comment

Oh, and one more thing -- the failure of most 5D Chess blogger analysts to properly cover the war and their failure to comprehend the pandemic are directly related, as are the failures of Russia's COVID response and the failures of the Russian state to properly fight the war.

Very directly related indeed.

Russia lost over 1.3M people to COVID (but covered up most of them and officially only acknowledged 400,000).

It could have done a big ZeroCOVID bubble with China when China was still doing containment, which would have properly fit with the new spirit of eternal friendship, and together led the world towards an actually better, founded on proper scientific and humanitarian principles future. But no, it just let 1.3M Russian die and covered it up.

And it also didn't bother with a centralized response -- it left it to the regions. Just as it left them to equip the mobilized a few months ago, which is the very definition of a job for the central authorities.

Why? Because it is the same oligarchic neoliberal state as the West, and the Russians oligarchs didn't want to pay for containment just as their Western counterparts didn't want to pay for it there.

So mass slaughter for the common man it was. And in Russia's case not even only the common man -- e.g. Zhirinovsky died of COVID too. Which is a rather big loss right now.

Putin himself, however, was extremely cautious even two years into the pandemic, and probably still is (we never see what kind of screening the people who interact with him undergo, and there are accurate nucleic acid tests that return results in half an hour now -- I can easily imagine there is an Accula machine at the entrance and they carry one with him everywhere).

Now would you expect from such a rotten structure to be able to fight a war the way the USSR did? Of course not.

And would you expect from rulers who just sacrificed 1.3M of their own citizens to the altar of oligarch's wealth to care about civilians in the Donbass? Of course not. Donetsk shelling can be stopped literally in a day with a firm threat for decapitation strikes in Kiev, then actually following through with it if the message does not go through. But it's not done.

Because the lives of Budanov, Zaluzhny, and co. are more valuable than those of many thousands of Donbass civilians. Because those are elites, and the cardinal rule is that elites are not to be touched. Civilians can eat a regular diet of tungsten shrapnel though, just as they are to be freely exposed to COVID.

But it's much easier to spin elaborate tales about the strategic genius of the Russian oligarchy. That gets clicks and revenue. Telling the bitter harsh truth does not.

Expand full comment

Why is this lying sack of shit allowed here to spread his disinfo?

"Russia lost over 1.3M people to COVID (but covered up most of them and officially only acknowledged 400,000). "

Post links to date to back up this laughable claim.

Expand full comment

Excess mortality in Russia is 1.3M.

And even the authorities acknowledged the official counts is a significant undercount. Here is the deputy prime minister stating it:

https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4975

Expand full comment

Really? That spurious website is the best you have?

Any official Corona virus "deaths" are rebranded flu deaths.

We are not children here so do not insult our intelligence.

Expand full comment

“Why? Because it is the same oligarchic neoliberal state as the West“.

Ouch!

Now you’re on fire comrade 👏👏👏✊

And the thing about the shelling of Donetsk…food for thought.

Expand full comment
founding

You should strive to never have credibility with someone like this

Expand full comment

> Again, go back to the first three months of 2020 and look at their statements. Boris Johnson was openly talking about "taking it on the chin"

Ah, OK. I'm not the only one who remembers. There are others.

> yeah, a virus that reinfects every couple years and leaves people with serious internal organ damage every time is no big deal; sure

YES! Finally! Somebody else who understands COVID-19 isn't a one-time thing! \o/ You don't get infected once and then you're either dead or not. You get infected again, and again, and again. I did a little simulation using data from South Korea from Spring 2020. I combined it with the USA actuarial tables and I calculated that get infected once (or twice?) per year with COVID-19 is going to reduce your life expectancy by **TEN** years! TEN YEARS! Just by getting "the sniffles" every year. That's because that lethality, small as it may be during mid-age, compounds. But my analysis actually underestimates the damage from the disease. That's because I didn't take into account the destruction of functional bodily reserve wrought by COVID-19. Every time COVID-19 hits, it leaves sequelle. Every time it weakens you, makes you more susceptible to it's next pass. So for all I know, it may be reducing life expectancy by twenty years on average, and also the last ten years are spent in disability.

If COVID-19 doesn't mutate into oblivion SOON, the Boomers will be the longest living generation in generations. Their children would have their lives cut much shorter by reinfections of COVID-19.

Expand full comment

Yes, exactly, reinfections compound.

And again, endemic COVID is a triumph of neoliberalism and a tremendous disaster for ordinary people.

Personally I knew the consequences from the start (because professionally I am in these fields, was aware of SARS1, and was also able to review the literature very quickly).

I also happen to understand the political economy aspect of it and connect the dots.

So it is really devastating when whatever little "opposition" to our neoliberal masters remains is carrying water for them on such an important issues. If it is real opposition, of course.

COVID is the litmus test -- if you are not militantly against endemic COVID, you are not working for a better future, and you are not a friend of the common man out there.

P.S. Practical real-life example from the last few days -- the Mexican president. Who didn't lift a finger to stop COVID, 700,000 people died, then he had it in early 2021, then again in early 2022, and now yet again, for the third time. And rumor is this time he had a heart attack. He denies it, claiming it is "minor", but apparently he did indeed collapse, whether it is a heart attack, or just regular COVID exhaustion. He will survive this time too, but next year he will get it again, until the inevitable happens.

And these are the bozos that will defeat the West...

At least Putin has his long table and testing to meet him.

Expand full comment

So in your little attempt at disinfo "covid" causes a shortend life as people keep getting infected. LOL you don't address the elephant in the room, the mRNA bio weapon. You are worse than a fool GM, you a liar, and a charlatan. Probably a Phizer or CIA gronk.

The only people continually becoming ill are the vaxtards, of which I sincerely hope you are one.

Expand full comment

GM: You. Are. Ignorant and deluded. Now fuck off and get you 8th booster LOL

Expand full comment

It is important to note that THEY ARE FAILING. Increasingly onerous attempts to maintain control and socially engineer their way out of inevitable collapse simply betrays their weakness and desperation.

The US is an empire of lies. We have seen that, when push comes to shove, US power has become a mirage, and comes up empty-handed every time their bluff is called. A faithful global oligarchy was cultivated, bought off, and bought in, using the fake money the US exported in massive trade imbalances, allowing the US to buy influence across the world. The world's most powerful players became heavily invested in, dependent upon, and loyal to, the dollar system. Fear of losing their massive stake in the Ponzi scheme is the sole anchor maintaining the façade of unity among so-called US "allies." Over-reliance on central bank rescues, bribery, assassinations, inciting ethnic/cultural divisions and conflicts, color revolutions, economic sanctions, etc., which almost always fail, are sure signs of a massive decline in US power.

They are flailing! In the competition between skill at mass manipulation/control and collapse of an inherently increasingly unstable system...the latter will always win.

Expand full comment

The mind boggles mate. And the American-centrism of these theories is mind boggling too. I’ve got a folder where I bookmark articles like this one for fun. I call it “Extreme American navel gazing”. I’m adding this one and deleting all others, they simply don’t come near it! 😂

Your points 4 to 6 perfectly encapsulate the attitude of governments and the real development of events. In Britain, people started avoiding social contact even before Johnson gave in, due to the clamour. What most amazes me is that writers like this one aspire to be anti elites while doing a lot of the leg work for power. The west is incapable of saving itself.

Expand full comment
founding

I heard a pretty good explanation about how Covid broke people's brains. It went a bit like this:

If you measure anxiety on a scale of 1-10, you and I may walk around on any given day with a base level of 1-3 or so, and when Covid hit, we may have had moments when we went to 5 or 6, but then came back down to our usual level and were able to think straight

However, there are a lot of people out there who's baseline is high, who are anxious by default, and who barely keep it together on a good day - the 6's and 7's -and when covid came they went to 10+ and never came back

I accept this explanation. Lot of people have high trait neuroticism and covid put them over the edge and they will never come back. You see them now mainly at airports - and you can really tell; the weirdos wearing N95's but under their noses, who only put their masks on AFTER security, who put their masks on only when the plane is in the air (but not on the ground), who still mask their kids. Overwhelmingly these are younger people. I am speaking from 1st hand experience now. The contrast could not be more stark on Sunday when I flew out of Barcelona and was waiting in the lounge - an elderly British couple, clearly at least in their 70's, having a beer, smiling, chatting, making conversation with me and others, and this odd German couple, maybe in their 30's, FFP2 masks glued to their faces, eyes darting around, that vague look of panic... hard to explain.

I am in general agreement with Eugyppius, that we are more victims of human cowardice, stupidity, and banality than some super genius evil masterminds bent on taking over the world.

Expand full comment

In my personal experience living in a libshit town, the maskers tend to occupy the extremes of the age spectrum with the very old (>75) and the young (<35) pretty much exclusively wearing masks and wearing them often. I also find that uglier young people tend to wear masks because they're insecure about their appearance rather than whatever they think about the virus.

Expand full comment

"We can only watch and wait, with the hope that some coming oblique global geopolitical event will scatter the pieces on the chessboard, derailing the control mechanisms of the elites, or giving us a chance at a true ‘reset’"

I think this is the only situation that will break this cycle. Though China has its own foggy totalitarian schemes for its people, Orthodox Russia and the rest of the non-aligned are practical societies and not worshipping satanists like the combined West. They're not going to go along with the globalist BS. It will be an entirely different world order than the one that WEF wants. Much of the insanity we are currently experiencing will float away as our societies self- destruct. TPTB are still going to double down and create more misery during this process, but it will be transitory.

At least that's where I'm placing my bets and resting my weary head. I'm off the worry train and it feels great.

Expand full comment

Many aren't brave enough 'to go there' Simplicius. Glad you did. Great article.

Expand full comment

Hello Sir, welcome in the rabbit hole!!! :) :) :)

Two humble suggestions: two books to read, Dr. Mary's Monkey and Dissolving Illusions.

One video I wish You could see and comment: American Moon by Massimo Mazzucco

Expand full comment

Hi Simplicius! o/ I'm a long-time reader (from post #1), but only now did I subscribe monetarily. You deserve the money.

Your post is cute but you - just like everybody else - allowed *one* extremely important thing to get memory-holed. The "Infodemic". Remember? February 2020? The awesome onslaught of Expertdom convincing everyone that COVID-19 is a mild and harmless disease that nobody has anything to worry about? You forgot that? Am I the only one who remembers? The absolutely incessant parroting of low CFR (case fatality rate) at a time that number would have been vastly underrepresenting the actual lethality of COVID? :)

And then March or April 2020 came about and the story flipped. Whereas just two months prior Experts were telling people the disease is harmless, now they were telling people the disease is deadly. Everybody seems to have forgotten this flip. Apparently I'm the only keeper of this knowledge in the entire world. :)

Second thing: there are actually many vaccines against COVID-19 and many (most by doses?) have nothing to do with mRNA. Those other vaccines - like the Sinopharm vaccine I got - have vastly different profiles compared to the Western mRNA products. In particular, the Sinopharm vaccine is an old-fashioned inactivated-virus vaccine. You grow a virus (on cultured money kidney cells), **YOU ISOLATE THE VIRUS**, you kill the virus (probably with detergent) and then you inject the concoction into people. This is a well-tested, proven technology that has been in use for a century. Inactivated-virus vaccines have saved more people than can be counted. Inactivated-virus vaccines, while they have lower effectiveness compared to mRNA vaccines, also have vastly less side effects. Vaccine injury is much, much rarer.

Now, since I actually have a biomedical background I can even speculate on the cause of this difference between inactivated-virus vaccines and mRNA vaccines. I suspect the difference comes from the way mRNA vaccines are optimized. The actual human antibodies only react to a tiny part of viral protein, so the mRNA can (and presumably is) made to be tiny and reproduce only a part of viral protein. I base this on occational talk about vaccinal epitopes and new variants' ability to "bypass immunity". An epitope is that tiny part of the protein that antibodies target. And if vaccines "carry epitopes", then the rational explanation is that vaccines only carry mRNA for a part of the protein. So now the question is which part of the protein to select for inclusion. Well, I propose the Western vaccine makers decided to try different parts of the protein and selected those parts that produce the most violent in-vitro response. You have to have violent response because **there is no immunity without inflammation**. Every vaccine, every, always causes inflammation because the body won't generate antibodies otherwise. They even intentionally add inflammatory agents into the vaccine to make sure there is enough inflammation to produce immunity. Well, in the case of designing mRNA vaccines, their rationale must have been to maximize the conferred immunity, which in turn required strong inflammation, which was tied with selecting the most inflammatory epitopes. However this backfired because - I speculate - the same parts of the viral protein that produce the strongest immunity ALSO produce the most sideeffects. I speculate this is what happened with mRNA vaccines and this is the reason they have similar or even worse adverse effects in young patients than COVID-19 has in young patients. Because older patients aren't as much at risk of this kind of sequellae from vaccines or COVID-19.

And finally: the pandemic isn't over yet. ;) People are still dying from COVID-19, and it's still spreading around. ;) Just because USA called off the epidemic because they'll otherwise go bankrupt doesn't yet mean the epidemic ceased to exist. ;)

Expand full comment

Another delude fear mongering vaxtard. Get you 8th booster dickhead.,

Expand full comment

Until now this blog's comments space has been a good place to post and discuss opinions without gratuitous insults and ad hominems. Please let's keep this space for genuine exchange of ideas and information and refrain from such zero-content insults.

Expand full comment

Right. While I am a bit dull, post spinal cord injury…I come here, hear, for an education. Thanks Simplicitus; and friends.

Expand full comment

"place to post and discuss opinions"

Yeah, fair enough. However in the case of the GM creature, he's not stating opinions, he is using this blog to further the fake narrative of the CV 19 planners.

Liars and trolls like him trigger me, it is a weakness I admit.

Expand full comment

You can’t give exactly those people you rightfully despise any power over your emotional life.

Expand full comment

Let me add a small footnote to the 'Operation Dark Winter' you referred to. In that same year, in February 2001, the Uk 'experienced' an outbreak of 'foot-and-mouth disease which led to the mass culling of cattle and flocks of sheep, even those who were semi-feral. The countryside, from farms to whole areas criss-crossed by right-of-way footpaths beloved by British ramblers, was closed, access forbidden.

There were huge fires across the country where the culled corpses were burned. I cannot begin to describe the smell, and the utterly depressing effect of driving along pastures without the customary flocks of ewes with their newborn lambs. The desolation is beyond words.

However- this 'event' allowed the then PM, a certain Tony Blair, to postpone his GE for another years, which he won because a year later, all this had conveniently been memory-holed. Is it too far-fetched to wonder if this event and the government 'experiences', had played a role in 'Operation Dark Winter'? If it even had influenced the lockdowns imposed on the people?

Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak

Expand full comment

I am just not sure. I had fallen into a rabbit hole with the SMO in Ukraine, when I could not find any critique of what the West was doing....but I am not sure how far I can travel. Ok, your argument sounds plausible. The similar argument was proposed by Fabio Vighi in Aug 2021:

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-self-fulfilling-prophecy-systemic-collapse-and-pandemic-simulation/

My question is where the outbreak in Iran fits into your theory?

Expand full comment

Excellent article. If anyone wishes to delve further into the chronology of banking, finance and regulation of the Covid Bailout, I recommend Fabio Vighi who details and explains the mechanics of the 'how' and by 'whom'.

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-self-fulfilling-prophecy-systemic-collapse-and-pandemic-simulation/

Expand full comment

have a look at this site, MK documents the history of virus and cancer resesrch in the US.

https://sites.google.com/a/housatonicits.com/home/

Expand full comment

You never fail to bring clarity and point to the weave in the fabric. Marvellous !

Expand full comment

They've already gamed the next one: Catastrophic Contagion; Severe Epidemic Enteroteric Respiratory Syndrome (SEERS)To up the fear level, it targets the young. 1st identified outbreak is in S America, '25, so expect release in '24.

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/2022-catastrophic-contagion/

Expand full comment

allow me to simplify your essay which i by the way find truthful and useful.

the essence of what we see today in various western government machinations is about 2 things.

1. staggering amounts of now unpayable national debt no longer able to even be serviced

2. the historic unwillingness by those in power to give up even a milligram of power and control even though their policies have crashed the system they run

ALL their solutions are about finding the money or resetting the board which allows those who fucked up the current system to remain in control of what follows. what these elites may not have figured this is .... there are no millions of people under their control who will not life a finger THIS time to help them out when things south and many will even actively work against them

EVERYTHING else, every policy, plan, event is predicated on points 1 and 2 OR as george carlin more eloquently said long ago................it's a club and you ain't in it................. and thens of millions of people now know this to be true

Expand full comment

Excellent analysis. I certainly agree that the timing of the release of the virus and the subsequent scamdemic measures was motivated by the imperative to provide cover for the financial unraveling, and to put into place some of the mechanisms necessary to install CBDCs at the heart of the new planned social operating system.

Whether they will be successful with this is another question. There are many people raising the alarm about CBDCs; when they're rolled out, I suspect there will be stiff opposition and a concerted, distributed push to provide alternatives. While many people were sucked much deeper into the hypnotic trance of NPCdom over the last few years, many others were shocked into a new alertness, and now see this pathocratic structure for what it is. Every time the WEF types make a move, a few more people get shaken awake, creating a ratchet effect.

Then there's the ongoing, rapid collapse of the American empire, which I don't think was planned. Their financial controls are diminishing at the exact time they need them the most. So they're racing against the decline of their geopolitical power base, and against the great human awakening ... They must move rapidly, but the faster and more boldly they move, the more opposition they generate....

Expand full comment
author

Agreed! Thanks for the comment. I"m a fan of your writing and am slowly trying to work through your articles from the beginning

Expand full comment

Cheers!

Expand full comment

One significant objection, your honor! The controlled demolition of the global West is, IMHO, part of the plan. Here’s what makes me think so …

One of the megalomaniacs who initiated the monstrous "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change" scam was Soros crony and billionaire Maurice Strong, who died in China in 2015. He was also one of the founders of the "Morgenthau Group" in 1968, which later formed the Malthusian "Club of Rome" as its public front – notorious for the 1972 fear-porn doomsday report "The Limits to Growth". 

Maurice Strong had very close ties to the power-hungry globalists/collectivists at the top of the UN, even serving as personal advisor to then UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. As chairman of the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit, Maurice Strong said the following in an interview:

«What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?».

This is the phase we are in right now: controlled demolition of all western industrialized nations. That is the one job of the Biden/Obama 2.0 regime and their hapless European vassals – and so far they’re successful. In their war games and strategic papers the globalists call the period from 2020 to 2025 “The Killing Years”. Meanwhile, the leaders of China and Russia seem to have other plans for their nations that don’t involve economic suicide and mass starvation. Their nations have been there, done these collectivist experiments before and don’t seem too eager to repeat the same mistakes.

Expand full comment

Oh, this has been planned for some time - no doubt about that. Maurice Strong is one of worst of them, too. But as you say, Eurasia bucking the plan was not according to their plan.

Expand full comment

The info on the US strategy of setting up bio-labs in or close to their enemies is detailed and persuasive. However, the problem with this grand theory integrating COVID, money printing, election theft, etc is that one needs to assume a VERY smart, intelligent person or small cabal at the head, directing this, making it happen. It strains credulity that one person could be so smart AND have so much power. I have found this maxim to be universally true: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. In this case the stupidity of the crowds. Can you name even one person (or their job title, eg CEO of Pfizer) who might belong to the secret cabal that orchestrates this whole series of events?

Consider evolution and the parable of the blind watchmaker. When people look at a complex piece of machinery such as a watch, they naturally assume that it had a maker, an intelligent mind which designed and made it. Then they look at the human eye, and note how complex and wonderfully designed the eye is. They jump to the same conclusion. There must be a designer, a maker who creates human beings and every other living thing according to a grand design. i.e. a God. We now know beyond doubt that all living beings have evolved to their present state of complexity by nothing more than a random series of adaptations to the environment. Although hard to accept it, I would place more weight on the theory of a random series of events rather than an intelligent mind/cabal orchestrating everything. At a micro, human level, one person taking some action seems purposeful, but looking at the body of humanity on earth from a high level macro organism point of view, each person's action is just a random event. Random events are given a push here and there by evil people to further their own short-term ends. This is easier to believe than the overarching superior intelligence of the dark forces.

Expand full comment

“Because one thing’s for certain, judging by the tepid backlash against the institutionalized cretins who carried out the largest biowarfare attack in history, there are not enough true anti-establishment fighters, nor the consensus of the willing to build a critical mass strong enough to upend the system and break its resistant matrices of control.”

I’m gonna wax bold to say there is enough to create a critical mass strong enough to upend the matrices of control.

If not enough to entirely destroy certainly enough to cripple it.

What is need is a rallying call that clearly unites and identifies the movement also needed a way to communicate and connect it.

Powerful leaders and a well defined plan is all that is lacking.

There are millions who are ready many of which aren’t aware they are.

Expand full comment

100 % we need a rallying call to start a counter revolution. We need leaders who can carry the movement forward. It will end badly if we just wait and hope passively.

Simplicius you are so gifted in presenting the information and insights, critical for a call to action. You could provide needed leadership through your writings. Just wondering if you could share more about your background experience.

Expand full comment

I had that the same thought we knew some good critical analytical thinkers who are sharp as a tack and know the deal

Another I can name is Sundance over at the conservative treehouse.com.

Expand full comment

Lots of conservatives on Stack. Need link.

Expand full comment
Error