10 Steps to Turn a Pandemic into the Brave New Normal
May 21, 2020
Now, dear reader, I know you’re not a member of an institutionally sociopath elite caste, trying to extend your power back to the good old days of supreme monarchs ordained by God himself.
But imagine you were.
Imagine you were one of the richest people to ever exist, and your vast network of wealth and influence was based on some imaginary money and the widely cultivated belief that “there is no alternative”.
Now imagine the lies which secure your position are suddenly and violently challenged. Imagine Yellow Vested protests in the streets of Paris, an independence referendum in Catalonia. Anti-globalists, on the left and right, surging in popularity all around the world.
Imagine Brexit and Bitcoin and PirateBay and the myriad tiny ways people won’t do what they’re told.
What you’re suffering from is a loss of control of the narrative. What you need, really, is a new story. Something to instil everyone with a sense of common purpose. To frighten them, and distract them and keep them busy.
You need a threat, something that will make everyone “come together”. To put aside “divisions” and “hate” and all work together to face a “common enemy”
And enemies, like cakes and lemonade, are always far more satisfying when you make them yourself.
Here are the 10 steps you should employ, if you want to turn an nonthreatening virus into a global power grab.
Start with a poorly defined virus, add an inaccurate test for it, and encourage as many terminally or critically ill people as possible to be repeat tested until they test positive.
Create a ‘response’ to the ‘crisis’ that rolls out a vast network of authoritarian measures, some of which have been in planning for a long while, and only a minority of which have any possible application to pandemic-prevention. (Make sure to cancel elections until further notice and to hugely increase police powers of arrest and surveillance)
Shut down your hospitals to all but ‘covid cases’. Cancel elective surgeries, kidney dialysis, cancer treatments, normal GP consultations and all “non-emergency healthcare”. Thus inevitably increasing all-cause mortality.
In case some attending medics are reluctant to go along with this, change the law to allow a single MD, who may never even have seen the patient in question, to diagnose covid19 at his/her own discretion.
Report the startling numbers of ‘new cases’ you find as a result of these various manipulations, as evidence for how essential the new authoritarian measures are for ‘saving lives’.
What has the orthodox story brought, in the same time frame?
The claim for this being a unique pathology requiring unique levels of intervention is being made every day, in virtually every mainstream outlets, many alt news outlets and by virtually every major government and health-related NGO.
It’s a deafening cacophony, a 24/7 bullhorn of fear and certitude, a fog of headlines and speculation and ‘what ifs’ and ‘some experts claim’ and forests of unsourced or unexplained numbers.
But what is it based on? What data, what statistics, what observations are forming the basis of this narrative?
Is there anything solid behind the noise?
Despite the atmosphere of panic being generated, and despite frequent usage of epithets like ‘deadly virus’ in the popular press, no one is claiming covid19 kills a lot of people.
In fact quite the opposite, as we pointed out recently. The very same sources that are promoting the need for unique action over this virus will tell you in the next breath that there is nothing uniquely dangerous about it at all.
So, what, in actual real-world terms, is being claimed? If the problem isn’t that this virus kills a lot of people, what is the problem?
The only response to that is to talk about health services being overrun due to the ‘R0’. As if you can take that number in isolation and have it mean something.
It’s nonsense. A high R0 is not concerning if the virus is harmless to most people who encounter it. The common cold has an R0 of between 2-3, pretty much the same as SARSCOV2. It also can kill vulnerable people, sometimes in large numbers.
So, if this argument makes sense we should be locked down permanently for fear of catching a sniffle.
The R0 argument used to get additional cred from referring to the Imperial model and its prediction that the health service would be overrun if some kind of lockdown was not enforced.
But this is more than problematic. The Imperial model has now been widely discredited, and its author, Neil Ferguson, exposed as a serial incompetent, or serial data-fudger for the govt or the Gates Foundation. It can no longer be used to support either the claim for uniqueness or the argument for lockdown. There is nothing to show it does either very well if at all.