The Mother of all Psy-Ops

As the dust settles, it becomes more and more apparent that none of this was ever what it seemed

There are many inconsistencies in pretty much every version of the Covid narrative that are troubling, some more so than others. A few of the glaring inconsistencies and limited hangouts in the broadly-defined “freedom” community just have never added up to me: the ivermectin wars and early treatment fiasco, the many faces of lab leak, the twitter files, etc. The center simply does not hold if you follow any one story to its logical conclusion. So many things seem like complete distractions, and I think that’s because they very likely are.

Some recent work from Jessica Hockett, Denis Rancourt, and Jonathan Engler among others has helped me understand at least some of what I have been missing. This is some dog-that-didn’t-bark-in-the-nighttime kind of stuff. There are some debates among this group, but the general top-line theme here is: there was no pandemic, certainly not in the way we think of it. There was a pandemic of fear and overtreatment, to be sure. But both the zoonotic narrative and the bioweapon/lab-leak narrative ultimately serve the same purpose: to focus attention on rogue deadly pathogens in order to drum up the same kind of panic and justify the same set of measures again, on-demand, as needed by the regime. Consider the most recent authoritarian fantasies of gormless twatwaffle Sam Harris: “We just don’t tolerate a diversity of opinion in an emergency.” If the media drumbeat is loud enough—if Sam Harris decides the situation meets his definition of an emergency—he’s happy to erase your autonomy and he really doesn’t see the issue with that. “No one gets to make that choice anymore. The cops literally come in and vaccinate you. All of us would agree to that.” (He literally says this.)

Harris is a useful idiot, a fluffer for the regime. Because continually stoking fear of super-scary mega-virulence, whether it’s created in a lab or a zoonoitic “leap” from a wet market—is the only goal. It’s the only lever that matters if you want to control a population. Or, more precisely, you want to subject a population to a controlled demolition. Which is exactly what I believe is happening. Or at least, a lot of someone(s) intend for it to be controlled, in ways that benefit them. They fail to understand that chaos, once set into motion, consumes everything indiscriminately. Ah, the hubris of someone who hasn’t read their Greek mythology (or watched House of Cards.)

It is the cure, not the disease, that destabilizes institutions and destroys social trust and kills vulnerable individuals—whether those remedies are subjecting people and businesses to isolation and socioeconomic destruction, iatrogenic “care” like ventilators and remdesivir, or compulsory gene modifications that poison, maim, and sterilize. This point was of course made by many but possibly none earlier or more presciently than in a now-infamous piece by John Iaonnidis on March 17: “We don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health. Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric.”

Whatever actually happened in New York City in March of 2020—an intense and panic-infused psy-op that was critically and strategically leveraged to phase-shift the country into a completely different paradigm—it wasn’t a virus that was killing people. It was, primarily, fear.

Former physics professor and now canceled academic Denis Rancourt summarizes the essentials of this line of thinking well in a recent post. He writes (echoing conclusions he had come to as early as June of 2020!):

“The invisible virus… never kills until governments impose socio-economic and care-structure transformations on vulnerable groups within the domestic population. If there had been no pandemic propaganda or coercion, and governments and the medical establishment had simply gone on with business as usual, then there would not have been any excess mortality. There was no pandemic causing excess mortality. It is the measures (and vaccination) that caused excess mortality.”

He goes on to reframe the true nature of Covid as a bioweapon:

“If anything about COVID is close to being a bioweapon, it is the military capacity to massively, and repeatedly, roll out individual injections, which are physical vectors for whichever substances the regime wishes to selectively inject into chosen populations, while imposing complete compliance down to one’s own body, under the cover of protecting public health.”

Jessica Hockett (aka “Emma Woodhouse” on Twitter) has also been pulling on these loose threads, particularly as they apply to the very strange and singular case of New York City during that pivotal week in March that terrified the west into making its Faucian bargain. Starting around minute 22 in this remarkable discussion, Hockett and biologist JJ Couey begin digging into the “bomb going off” excess death data in NYC. There is no excess mortality in NYC data until the second week of March, even though there is much evidence to suggest the virus had been spreading in the US as early as September 2019 (some suggest even as early as the spring of 2019.) There are in fact no excess deaths from this supposedly super-virulent, silently-spreading pathogen until BOOM, all at once, and right when the emergency is declared.

The sharp increase in death also does not correspond to actual hospital admissions—Hockett actually secured admissions data for New York hospitals and shows that hospital occupancy was comparatively low during the weeks in question, even though deaths were exceptionally high. All during a period of time that was so buffered by frenzy and panic that, perhaps very intentionally, no one was allowed in to the hospitals (or care homes) to see for themselves what was going on, and many people were being put on protocols that almost no one survived. (One particularly heart-wrenching account details how a woman with Down Syndrome was killed by these protocols, and kept isolated from anyone who could advocate for her—when I was searching for that video, I found she wasn’t the only one.)

Medical and legal scholar and former big Pharma reseracher Jonathan Engler, too, unpacks the illusion. He points out that the lab leak narrative, just as effectively as the zoonotic narrative, more than anything else “preserves the fear. It preserves the pandemic preparedness industry. There’s a whole complex around the preparedness industry. We’ve seen the transfer of trillions of dollars into a very very narrow elite over the past 3 years. They want that to carry on. … this whole industry involves biosecurity surveillance, constant testing, the threat of restrictions … the danger is that people accept that there we need to ‘stop it happening again.’”

Engler describes a perfect storm that superficially resembled a deadly viral pandemic: people were completely terrorized by the media; they were wearing wet, damp cloths on their faces 24/7—a perfect growth medium for the development of pathogenic bacteria and fungi; they were not being administered antibiotics which would normally be par for the course for respiratory illness especially in elderly populations (most people who die of respiratory illness don’t die from the virus itself, but from secondary bacterial infection); and they’re being told not to seek medical care at all unless they basically can’t breathe and are turning blue. He suggests a thought experiment: even if there was no virus at all, these social and medical measures alone would be enough to increase deaths in a short window of time, particularly among elderly and more fragile people.

None of this means that there isn’t a huge money laundering machine called public health that includes gain of function research and seeks to develop targeted bioweapons and all the rest—that clearly is a reality. And none of it denies that the suppression of early treatment and attendant censorship-industrial-complex was (and continues to be) a sophisticated criminal enterprise. But it brings attention back to where I believe it belongs: the prime directive is to keep us afraid (of something invisible that can be deployed against us at any time) and divided against one another about what to do about it. Once that is accomplished—which it was, quite easily, in one week in March of 2020—everything else becomes possible.