A Digital Coup d’Etat
There was a time. What seemed to be unfolding was a huge intellectual error for the history books. A new virus had come along and everyone was freaking out and smashing all normal social functioning.
The excuse turns out just to be the cover story. Still, it bears examination.
Even though plenty of outside commentators said the pathogen should be handled in the normal way – with known treatment and calm while those most susceptible stayed cautious until endemicity – some people on the inside fell prey to a great fallacy. They had come to believe computer models over known realities. They thought that you could separate everyone, drive down infections, and then the virus would die out.
This was never a plausible scenario, as anyone who knew something about the history of pandemics would report. All known experience stood against this cockmamie scheme. The science was very clear and widely available: lockdowns do not work. Physical interventions in general achieve nothing.
But, hey, they said it was an experiment born of new thinking. They would give it a whirl.
When it became clear that the lockdowners had gained sway over policy, many of us thought, truly, how long can this really last? A week, maybe two. Then we would be done. But then something strange happened. The money began to flow. And flow. The states thought that was awesome so they kept it up. The money printers got to work. And general chaos broke out: social, cultural, educational, economic, and political.
It all happened so fast. The months rolled on with no break in the narrative. It became crazy after a time. There were so few critics. We didn’t know it but they were being silenced by a new machinery that had already been constructed for this purpose.
Among that which was censored was criticism of the inoculation potion that was being rolled out and which would eventually be forced on populations all over the world. They said it was 95 percent effective, but it wasn’t clear what that could mean. No coronavirus had ever been controlled by any vaccination. How could this be true? It wasn’t true. Nor did the shot stop the spread.
Many people said this at the time. But we couldn’t hear them. Their voices were muffled or silenced. The social media companies had already been taken over by government-connected interests working on behalf of intelligence agencies. We had believed that these tools were designed to increase our connections with others and enable free speech. Now they were being used to broadcast a preset regime narrative.
Strange industrial shifts took place. Gas cars were deprecated in favor of a new experiment in electric vehicles, thanks to intense consumer demand caused by shortages owing to supply chain breakages. Digital learning platforms got a huge boost because physical classrooms were closed. Online ordering and doorstep delivery became the rage because people were told not to leave their homes and small businesses were forcibly closed.
The pharma companies were riding high of course, gradually acculturating the population to a subscription model. There were attempts to convert whole countries to a health passport system. New York City tried this, along with actual physical segregation of the entire city, with the vaccinated considered clean while the unvaccinated were not allowed into restaurants, libraries, or theaters. The digital app didn’t work however, so that plan fell apart quickly.
All of this happened in less than one year. What began as an intellectual error in public health ended up looking like a digital coup d’etat.
Coups of the past featured rebel armies from the hills storming the cities and joined by the military as they invaded the palace and the leader and his family fled in a carriage or helicopter depending on the epoch.
This was different. It was organized and planned by intelligence agencies within the structure of the global state, a great reset to reject the forms of the past and replace them all with a new dystopia.
Initially, the people who said this was a great reset were derided as crazed conspiracy theorists. But then it turned out that the head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, had written a book by the very title that you could buy from Amazon. It turns out to be HG Wells’s The Open Conspiracy updated for the 21st-century technology.
There turns out to be much more than that. There was an angle to all of this that impacts the mechanisms we use for democratic control of societies. Buried in the flurry of bills shoved through in March 2020 was a liberalization of balloting and voting that would never have been tolerated before. In the name of social distancing, mail-in ballots would become the norm, along with the known irregularities they introduce.
Implausibly, this too was part of the plan.
Researching and realizing all of this in real time has been a bit much. It has shattered the old ideological paradigms. The old theories no longer explain the world as it is unfolding. It causes all of us to revisit our priors, at least those with minds adaptable enough to pay attention. For vast swaths of the intellectual class, this is not possible.
Looking back, we should have known something was up at the outset. There were too many anomalies. Were the people in charge really so stupid as to believe that you can make a virus go away by making everyone stay home? It’s absurd. You cannot control the microbial kingdom this way, and surely everyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this.
Another clue: there never was an exit plan. What exactly was fourteen days of frozen activity going to achieve? What was the benchmark of success? We were never told. Instead, the elites in media and government simply encouraged fear. And then met that fear with ridiculous protocols like dousing ourselves with sanitizer, masking while walking, and presuming every other person is a disease vector.
This was psychological warfare. To what end and how ambitious are these hidden plans for us?
Only four years later, we are grasping the fullness of what was going down.
For those of us schooled in the persistent incompetence of government to get anything right, much less deploy a plan with anything like precision, elaborate conspiracy theories of plots and schemes always seem implausible. We just don’t believe them.
This is why it took us so long to see the fullness of what was deployed in March 2020, a scheme that combined a plethora of seemingly disparate governmental/industrial ambitions including:
1) rollout of subscription/platform model of Pharma distribution,
2) mass censorship,
3) election management/rigging,
4) universal basic income,
5) industrial subsidies to digital platforms,
6) mass population surveillance,
7) cartelization of industry,
8) shift in income distribution and entrenchment of administrative state power,
9) crushing of ‘populist’ movements worldwide, and
10) the centralization of power generally speaking.
To top it off, all these efforts were global in scope. This whole model truly stretches the bounds of plausibility. And yet all the evidence points to exactly the above. It just goes to show that even if you don’t believe in conspiracies, conspiracies believe in you. It was a digital-age coup d’etat unlike anything humanity has ever experienced.
How long will it take us to process this reality? We seem to be only at the early stages of understanding, much less resisting.
Biden ‘Too Old’ for Presidency – Poll
US voters have again expressed concerns about Joe Biden’s age, according to the findings of a recent poll; nevertheless, the incumbent president maintains a narrow advantage over his presumptive challenger in November’s election, Donald Trump.
The Quinnipiac University poll of 1,421 registered voters conducted between February 15 and 19 and published on Wednesday found that 49% of respondents favored Biden in a hypothetical presidential rematch with Trump – a four-point advantage over the likely Republican candidate, who was backed by 45%.
However, 67% of voters said that the 81-year-old Biden is “too old to effectively serve another four-year term in the White House”; 57% held the same opinion of 77-year-old Trump.
Just over a third of respondents – 34% – said that Biden is mentally fit for the presidency, while 48% said they believed Trump to be cognitively capable of holding office.
Both presidential candidates have dismissed recent concerns over their advancing age.
Biden responded angrily to special counsel Robert Hur’s report earlier this month over his alleged mishandling of classified documents, which said he is a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory,” telling reporters in the White House that “I know what the hell I’m doing.”
Earlier this month, former White House physician and current Texas Republican Representative Ronny Jackson, along with 83 other GOP lawmakers, expressed “grave concerns” over Biden’s mental abilities. The group called upon the US leader to prove his mental acuity by taking a cognitive exam.
Trump, meanwhile, has made several verbal gaffes on the campaign trail – including appearing to confuse his GOP rival Nikki Haley with former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He has also seemed to mix up Biden with former US president Barack Obama on at least seven occasions in recent months, according to a report by Forbes.
Brushing off concerns, Trump responded to Haley’s jabs over his age last month by saying he felt “about 35 years old.” He added that “some people have great genes.”
Additionally, when the presidential matchup was expanded to the include Green Party and independent candidates, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the poll had Biden leading Trump by a single percentage point (38% to 37%).
A prior survey, held in January, showed Biden with a six-point lead over Trump.
Elsewhere in the same Quinnipiac University poll, respondents generally supported the continuance of US aid to Ukraine despite Congress’ ongoing deadlock over the matter. 56% were in favor of Washington continuing to back Kiev militarily; 44% were against it.
Alex Jones reveals that taking the COVID-19 injection may make your blood useless to the Red Cross.
WATCH: University Black History Month Speaker Goes on Unhinged, Racist Rant: ‘Whites Are Psychopaths’
The University of California, San Francisco recently invited a speaker to deliver a lecture during Black History Month that featured several racially charged statements.
On Feb. 8, author and critical theorist Dante King delivered a talk at UCSF titled: “Diagnosing Whiteness and Anti-Blackness: White Psychopathology, Collective Psychosis and Trauma in America,” which focused on “the development, construction, and functionality of race and racism as psychopathology, psychopathy, and sociopathy,” said the event page.
.@UCSF invited Dante King to speak on “Diagnosing Whiteness.”
— YAF (@yaf) February 9, 2024
He claims that “whites are psychopaths” and that white people “have it written in the law you can rape black women.” He also makes excuses for black teenagers who commit violent crimes.
This is the modern university. pic.twitter.com/EzVlliZPR9
A compilation of clips from the lecture, posted to X by Young America’s Foundation, showcases several of King’s comments, including his statement that “Whites are psychopaths, and their behavior represents an underlying biologically transmittable proclivity with roots deep in their evolutionary history.”
King continued, asking the audience to demonstrate by show of hands “how many of you could see the proclivity that evolved deep within the evolutionary history of whiteness?” King went on to claim that those who didn’t raise their hands were in “denial.”
He later added “I think Whites are psychopathic. I think there are many lies. The level of lying that White people do that has started since colonialism. We’re just used to it.”
King also said that “rape culture in America is a legal, economic, and moral institution” and claimed that “we have it written in the law: You can rape black women.”
King continued by attacking Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his work against Critical Race Theory, alleging that the governor is using Florida taxpayer dollars to promote “hat[ing] black people.”
The lecturer seemed to justify certain acts of violence, saying: “Teenagers, young people that are going out and committing . . . home invasion and hitting people, women over the head with . . . objects, and stealing their purses, I want you to just say, ‘that’s just human nature,’” and continued later: “If you’re sitting here, you’re going, ‘wow, he sounds pretty pro-black,’ I am, I am. And for all you white people who are unwilling to admit that you’re pro-white, you’re just not saying it.”
The X video concluded with the moderator asking how King would answer potential accusations that he is guilty of “reverse racism,” to which King responded: “I don’t make room for that.”
According to his website bio, King is the executive director of “Blackademics,” a non-profit “focused on educating students and families across race, about the legacy and persistence of White supremacy and Anti-Blackness in America, as well as worldwide.”
King has previously taught classes for Stanford Medical School, Johns Hopkins, UCSF, and the Mayo Clinic, as seen on his website.
The website also states that King is now working on his third book, which shares the same title as his UCSF lecture, and which was also a subject of discussion at the same event.
King is also the author of “The 400-Year Holocaust: White America’s Legal, Psychopathic, and Sociopathic Black Genocide – and the Revolt Against Critical Race Theory,” which “examines and discusses the relationships between the legal history of anti-blackness and Whiteness through colonialism and the United States, and its impacts on present-day America” and posits that racism is a “disease/illness (i.e., psychosis, psychopathy, sociopathy, etc.),” as featured on his website.
King is scheduled to speak again at UCSF in early March at a webinar titled “Understanding the Roots of Racism and Bias: Anti-Blackness, and Its Links to Whiteness, White Racism, Privilege, and Power,” which is a “multi-day intensive group workshop focused on disrupting racism and racial bias, increasing awareness of perpetual, systematic racial inequities through the lens of race, sex, and gender,” the course page advertises.
King’s comments attracted broad outrage and opprobrium, drawing accusations of racism, wroteBNN Breaking.
Campus Reform has previously reported on UCSF’s plans to “award over $100,000 for anti-racist biomedical research projects.”
Alex Jones reveals that taking the COVID-19 injection may make your blood useless to the Red Cross.
IMF Close to Unlocking Funds for Ukraine – Report
The International Monetary Fund could agree to unlock $900 million for Ukraine as soon as Thursday, Bloomberg has reported, citing officials with knowledge of the talks.
The disbursement would be part of a four-year $15.6 billion loan that the Washington-based institution approved for Ukraine last year, and would come as a $60 billion US aid package remains stalled in Congress.
Staff at the IMF have assessed whether Ukraine has met the conditions for the payment, and are expected to wrap up their work and make a statement in Washington on Thursday, Bloomberg wrote, citing the officials.
The reported agreement would follow two weeks of discussions on how the Ukrainian government will be able to continue to function if the US funding does not come through, Bloomberg wrote. Tax hikes, spending cuts, and increased domestic bond sales are reportedly among the measures designed to convince the IMF that Ukraine will be able to service the loan if the US fails to provide aid.
Members of the US House of Representatives have so far refused to refused to pass a bill requested by US President Joe Biden, which includes a new aid package for Kiev worth $60 billion, most of which is earmarked for weapons.
In December, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry estimated Kiev’s fiscal needs for 2024 at $37.3 billion, after more than $42 billion in foreign aid was received in 2023.
RIA Novosti news agency reported on Wednesday that an IMF representative had denied that the fund and Kiev were close to an agreement. A dedicated team is still reviewing the funding programme and studying whether Kiev has fulfilled the conditions for receiving the tranche, RIA Novosti wrote.
Alex Jones reveals that taking the COVID-19 injection may make your blood useless to the Red Cross.
NYC’s Non-Citizen Voting Law Struck Down By Appeals Court
New York City’s law that lets non-citizens vote in local elections hit a brick wall on Wednesday, as a state appeals court ruled it violates the state’s constitution.
Approved in Dec. 2021 by a 33-14 city council vote, the controversial law had not yet been put into practice, owing to an injunction imposed in 2022 by a lower court on Staten Island.
“We determine that this local law was enacted in violation of the New York State Constitution and Municipal Home Rule Law, and thus, must be declared null and void,” wrote Appellate Judge Paul Wooten in the 43-page ruling.
The measure would have allowed approximately 800,000 non-citizens to vote in city elections. The law limited that new privilege to permanent legal residents of the United States, and those with federal work authorization. Republican party officials quickly sued, arguing the city was acting beyond its authority. On Wednesday, the New York appeals court upheld the 2022 ruling.
“I won baby, I won,” Staten Island Republican and NY City Council GOP Leader Joe Borelli told Politico in an interview from Israel, where he and other officials are surveying the damage from the Oct 7 Hamas invasion (that may be irrelevant to the needs of Staten Islanders, but treating Israel like America’s 51st state is highly relevant to his aspirations for higher office.) “This was an easy case. All they had to do was read the state constitution and municipal law.”
Indeed, the New York State Constitution says:
“Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people . . . provided that such citizen is eighteen years of age or over and shall have been a resident of this state, and of the county, city, or village for thirty days next preceding an election”
The appeals court, which ruled in Republicans’ favor by a 3-1 margin, said the constitution’s “plain language” provides voting rights “exclusively to ‘citizen[s],’ as there is no reference to non-citizens.” It also said that New York’s Municipal Home Rule Law requires that such a change to election law requires a voter referendum, not a local council vote.
As mayor-elect, Eric Adams had expressed his own doubts about whether city council had the power to change voting eligibility. His administration has nonetheless attempted to defend the case, but is now 0-2. As yet, there’s been no comment on the question of whether the city will throw more taxpayer money out the window by appealing the case to New York’s supreme court.
A group that promotes non-citizen voting quickly condemned the decision. “The lawsuit remains another shameful attempt by xenophobic Republicans who would disenfranchise residents rather than promote a more inclusive and participatory democracy,” said New York Immigration Council Executive Director Murad Awawdeh.
However, a growing number of non-Republicans also find non-citizen voting unsettling, like this Chicago man…
“Are you aware that there are immigrant advocates at State Houses all over this country who are advocating for non-citizen voting?”
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) February 17, 2024
“This is an effort to destroy our neighborhoods and silence our voices even further.”pic.twitter.com/Pp0OfNg48o
Washington DC and Burlington, Vermont are just a few other cities that have authorized non-citizens to vote in local elections. San Francisco allows them to vote in school board races and, last week, appointed a non-citizen to the city commission that oversees elections. In 2020, a referendum enabled non-citizens to serve on the city’s boards and commissions.
Whether New York City appeals Wednesday’s ruling or not, expect the push for non-citizen voting to continue, in New York and all across the country.
Alex Jones reveals that taking the COVID-19 injection may make your blood useless to the Red Cross.
Flashback: Infowars Has Been Warning Of ‘Cyber Pandemic’ For Decades
With Thursday’s cellular service outages in America leaving many wondering if a cyberattack took place, let’s look back at the past years of Infowars exposing the fact that the global elite are TELLING YOU a “Cyber Pandemic” is coming.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, globalist WEF founder Klaus Schwab warned the world the 2020-21 lockdowns and forced mRNA jabs will look like a walk in the park once the major cyber attacks begin.
“Pay insufficient attention, to the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack, which would bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyber attack,” Schwab eerily predicted.
He made the remarks at the 2021 Cyber Polygon event where the WEF and Russia took part in a simulation where cyberattacks targeted the financial industry, an event that would pave the way for a “Great Reset” of the global economy.
Watch this February 2022 Infowars report to hear Schwab’s words:
Alex Jones has been constantly trying to warn his countrymen over the past few years that the elite will go through with this plan, saying, “Their next move will be cyberattacks and power outages. The globalists are going to cut our power off and say the Russians did it.”
He has also suggested the Deep State could claim Trump supporters attacked the power grid to further divide the nation and set up their political opponents.
Jones has been urging Americans to prepare for potential cyberattacks since the 1990s!
And don’t forget, a recent Netflix movie created with the help of Barack Obama portrayed a society suffering through a massive cyberattack in what many called an example of predictive programming.
In the event of an actual massive cyberattack on the American power grid or water supply, people would quickly resort to barbaric means in order to feed themselves and their families.
Jones recently broke down a conversation between podcast host Joe Rogan and NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers about this exact hypothetical situation.
Related: