During the early stages of the phony pandemic, I was sitting by a canal waiting. There is a small park across the water from the place where I had an appointment, and I was quietly biding my time when a young guy in his thirties came along with a puppy who was soon playing. This guy said something in German. I don't speak German, so he switched immediately into English and we got onto the topic of Covid. It turns out that this guy is a chauffer and he has chauffered Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda in the past. He told me that Gates had an appointment with Jens Spahn, the new German Federal Minister of Health in the first week of Spahn's appointment to his office. Gates was there right away to "advise" the new top health official in Germany on healthy policy. The chauffer also drove Melinda Gates on other occasions. He said that she was the hardest person that he's ever met. This driver and I discussed the Gates plan to vaccinate the world, and he said there was no way he was ever getting a Covid shot. This was in the summer between the introduction of Covid-19 and the rollout of the vaccines in the winter. He was skeptical and suspicious, having seen Gates and his ex-wife in person working on their agenda. They did not inspire his confidence.
Dec 31, 2022·edited Dec 31, 2022Liked by Graham Seibert
OK, here is what the Russian Government put out about biolabs, etc: https://russiaun.ru/en/news/271022_nb I've tried to find the 310 page document to no avail. My bet is that the Russians know the full details, because the biolabs were Soviet Union-created, DTRA just took them over and apparently continued their operation, instead of removing them...
I still think that it's a convenient pretext, because of the sequence of events predicted by this 2004 article, referencing Foundations of Geopolitlcs, a 1997 work by A. Dugin, which has been followed, bit by bit, with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, Georgia, Donetsk/Lugansk/Crimea - and now the southern oblasts of Ukraine - https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics
You follow this stuff closely so https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/discussion-with-sam-dube-and-lara will be of interest. Sasha has her own SStack now and we might expect more from her research. Digging through the contract files allows some assumptions but those can be quite poor inferences. Wonder if it's really true that the manufacturers were only doing a "demonstration" of capability that gave us this huge world experiment for the mRNA platform. Ukraine gets tied in, of course and then we have Biden at work.
I've been into this Covid thing since 2019. I have a site: covidhonesty.com where I've collected some 2000 URLS to pertinent information.
We lost the battle and the freedoms have gone never to return: restrictions and insane impositions are enshrined in law now, to be introduced on authoritarian whim.
I am now at where I simply advocate for 'choice', freedom to choose.
No more arguing the merits or logic of this or that. The need, the efficacy, the validity of trials, the honesty of claims..
Nope.
Just let them go. Can't stop them.
Try to get the public onside with respect to this one simple thing: freedom to choose.
Not a given that they'll support it.
Not at all.
They are so insane, so irrational, that they swallowed and totally accepted, didn't reject and spew out again, the proposition that you had to be forcibly vaccinated in order to protect me who's already been forcibly vaccinated in order to protect me against the virus, guaranteed and 'the only way'.
Madness written on madness.
But it is all I can think of.
Just try to persuade them that we ought to be able to choose.
Persuade them with soothing words. Not with logic. Abandon that. They do not respond to logic.
Not with examples or anecdotes or demonstration - they're all inherently logic too. They don't respond to them.
It's like calming a stressed horse.
All that works is calming.
One doesn't have to prove that freedom to choose is logical, or good, or necessary or constitutional or moral or anything - all of that is immaterial.
Gain their confidence and they'll grant you anything.
Gain their confidence and they'll mutely nod, yes, you should have freedom to choose to refuse this and to take that.
And we just have to settle for that I think.
And try to plan a way to avoid what's coming down the track: every single individual tracked constantly by the govt and capable of being 'cancelled' by the govt electronically at a keystroke so's all licences cancelled, all banks accounts frozen, all access to anything prevented, all communication ended.
All of that is nearly here. All of it is being build in the name of the 'good' it can bring. And the danger it brings is ignored by the sheeple. But not by others, of course, hungry to just get their hands on the controls.
Seems to me our only hope is the size and diversity of the world. We have to escape somehow from our Western prisons. Virtually, perhaps. Remain, stay, don't move, appear to be just exactly the same but behind the scenes mutate into another persona with credentials in some other state with possessions there and wealth there, ID documents there and plan to run to there should this world suddenly direct its attentions to us and begin to make moves to 'get' us.
Perhaps because of something we wrote on Twitter, for god's sake, some miniscule infraction of their rules.
Not wearing a mask in the waiting room. Suggesting others not wear a mask!
We have to disappear, so to speak, and reappear elsewhere in the world.
Not easy to do but I fear it has to be done. We are not safe any more.
I am most interested in the resources you shared on depopulation. That's a subject that has been of interest to me since I read Peter Zeihan's latest, "The End of the World is Only the Beginning". Being a Boomer I'm aware of the Baby Boomers, but I thought that we were making enough babies. Turns out I was wrong. No one, anywhere, is making enough babies. Difficult to believe, but you can't argue with the data.
Depopulation is going to have a lot of effects and will likely cause the world order to shift drastically. It won't be fun or pretty.
The boomers were the product of the end of WW2 and that group of babies was huge. Every nation that has arrived at decent prosperity sees the birth rate shrink, now below replacement. I see it as a sort of selfishness, others may have different opinions. Boomer families were just at replacement rates; their children not so much and now their children not at all.
isn't really as 'prosperous' as it looks? If we discount the perhaps natural desire for women to avoid the very onerous, difficult procedure of creating and giving birth.
What we have left is the possibility that the economic consequences of this 'prosperity' are driving down population growth: number of babies.
For it's axiomatic now that both parents have to work. We assume often that it is a privilege: that they 'want to work' but that's a bit specious isn't it? What if we grant it and then saw 'now I want to work as a mother' ?
They usually cannot suddenly stop. Mortgage payments etc. won't allow it.
It goes on from there. The principle is that we've constructed a society within which children are not seen as of value.
Our society has become the more 'inhuman' for that.
Children were once central simply for getting food as the elderly got enfeebled and for protection against enemies: as the elder got enfeebled.
That's putting aside any natural desires for 'children to love' and so on.
And they couldn't be prevented anyway so in places where they were not wanted they had to be allowed to come to birth and were then killed.
Now we have societies where those things don't operate.
We don't appear to need them to get food.
We don't appear to need them for protection.
We can stop them ever becoming.
It would seem natural for them to dwindle in supply, then.
The answer?
To value them.
Which would mean a return to a human style of existence we're so far removed from we can't be sure it ever existed.
i.e. a time when humans were happy to be humans rather than have an obsessive desire to be termites endlessly producing bigger and bigger and more sophisticated mounds.
Where perhaps 'a little child led them' to mangle a phrase.
Have no idea about others. I never needed a two worker income for my family. OTOH, I am well educated at some degree of sacrifice to gain that advantage. My family has lived within it's means. My children became a two parent working household as they had children; none of them elected higher education but one got extensive technical training that has served him well so his wife didn't need to work when kids were small.
As far as others go in making their choices, I see some that want a bigger house, a boat and a summer house, a fancy car. I never thought those things mattered much.
Modern life has to a degree eliminated the nuclear family along with the extended family that once prevailed. We will see increasing numbers of destitute seniors needing gov't supports into a very lonely institutional situation. Not sure if that situation ever recovers or if we see these societal failures and try to develop better policies.
Yep, I say ' it is axiomatic ' by which I mean it's the norm. Arrived at from different directions. i.e. not at all always from need.
But: generally it finishes up as a case of 'need'. I am suggesting.
Because people with the larger incomes generally spend the more and most particularly 'invest' the more and borrow the more.
Particularly the borrowing for their home which they feel should reflect their status.
Modern life has arguably completely eliminated the nuclear family, I think. I agree with you.
Depends, of course, on the definitions, as everything does. But I'm thinking a definition of 'nuclear family' has to incorporate some allowance for interdependence, joint effort, working together of necessity and other such factors.
These factors have been negated by modern life so the nuclear family disappears kinda by accident, by default: i.e. the default position becomes one without the nuclear family.
By default (again) the overt legal structural components of it remain which hoodwink many into thinking the thing itself has remained.
But just because you still have a mum and dad ( or sons and daughters ) and live in a 'family home' and the parents are legally responsible for the children to a certain age I don't think you really have enough to claim survival of the nuclear family in any real sense.
We have become individual worker ants. Termites.
By some strange alchemy we've all become willing slaves happy to toil a monotonous regimen of 5 days a week, eight hours a day and so on. For the whole of our lives.
It interests me. For people are truly happy in it. They are. I swear they are. Fulfilled, without disquiet. Happy.
As I say the family having gone they are all individuals each concerned with their own fates only. 'Husbands and wives' are often with prenuptial agreements, often openly claim to possess their own careers, are only ever accepting the other because they are 'perfect' and completely fulfill and satisfy them.
So we have these individuals happy to toil - no families, no question of children, a society bound to diminish in numbers.
Thanks. I just wrote about Haidt's five moral foundations in my review of The Past is a Future Place. Dutton also has a take on Gen Z. Hyper liberal, just not as much as the Millennials. FWIW I and my kids don't have smart phones. Mom does, but supports me with regard to the kids.
Vaccines seem to be a product of awful QA given the trash in them. Maybe it's always been that bad but we never noticed. Supposedly the government FDA inspectors were not allowed to inspect manufacturing facilities; super secret, you know. OTOH the actual active ingredient might be quite variable in dosage terms so https://howbad.info/ shows side effects differ from batch to batch. Nobody knows if planned or not and we are told that batches were to be distributed widely so a location would not see a lot of a given batch; true or not we don't know. Planned that way r not; we don't know.
Much of this might be internet gossip. No real statements by makers. We might get some answers from Congress if they ask the right questions.
BTW, you were likely an impudent young man yourself! Good for him, being independent. He will learn over time, old dad.
During the early stages of the phony pandemic, I was sitting by a canal waiting. There is a small park across the water from the place where I had an appointment, and I was quietly biding my time when a young guy in his thirties came along with a puppy who was soon playing. This guy said something in German. I don't speak German, so he switched immediately into English and we got onto the topic of Covid. It turns out that this guy is a chauffer and he has chauffered Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda in the past. He told me that Gates had an appointment with Jens Spahn, the new German Federal Minister of Health in the first week of Spahn's appointment to his office. Gates was there right away to "advise" the new top health official in Germany on healthy policy. The chauffer also drove Melinda Gates on other occasions. He said that she was the hardest person that he's ever met. This driver and I discussed the Gates plan to vaccinate the world, and he said there was no way he was ever getting a Covid shot. This was in the summer between the introduction of Covid-19 and the rollout of the vaccines in the winter. He was skeptical and suspicious, having seen Gates and his ex-wife in person working on their agenda. They did not inspire his confidence.
Thank you for the personal glimpse. A successful psychopath must master the art of seeming to be normal and reasonable.
OK, here is what the Russian Government put out about biolabs, etc: https://russiaun.ru/en/news/271022_nb I've tried to find the 310 page document to no avail. My bet is that the Russians know the full details, because the biolabs were Soviet Union-created, DTRA just took them over and apparently continued their operation, instead of removing them...
There's this - but still no 310 page document - https://azradale.substack.com/p/russian-mil-begin-naming-names-fauci
I still think that it's a convenient pretext, because of the sequence of events predicted by this 2004 article, referencing Foundations of Geopolitlcs, a 1997 work by A. Dugin, which has been followed, bit by bit, with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, Georgia, Donetsk/Lugansk/Crimea - and now the southern oblasts of Ukraine - https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics
You follow this stuff closely so https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/discussion-with-sam-dube-and-lara will be of interest. Sasha has her own SStack now and we might expect more from her research. Digging through the contract files allows some assumptions but those can be quite poor inferences. Wonder if it's really true that the manufacturers were only doing a "demonstration" of capability that gave us this huge world experiment for the mRNA platform. Ukraine gets tied in, of course and then we have Biden at work.
I've been into this Covid thing since 2019. I have a site: covidhonesty.com where I've collected some 2000 URLS to pertinent information.
We lost the battle and the freedoms have gone never to return: restrictions and insane impositions are enshrined in law now, to be introduced on authoritarian whim.
I am now at where I simply advocate for 'choice', freedom to choose.
No more arguing the merits or logic of this or that. The need, the efficacy, the validity of trials, the honesty of claims..
Nope.
Just let them go. Can't stop them.
Try to get the public onside with respect to this one simple thing: freedom to choose.
Not a given that they'll support it.
Not at all.
They are so insane, so irrational, that they swallowed and totally accepted, didn't reject and spew out again, the proposition that you had to be forcibly vaccinated in order to protect me who's already been forcibly vaccinated in order to protect me against the virus, guaranteed and 'the only way'.
Madness written on madness.
But it is all I can think of.
Just try to persuade them that we ought to be able to choose.
Persuade them with soothing words. Not with logic. Abandon that. They do not respond to logic.
Not with examples or anecdotes or demonstration - they're all inherently logic too. They don't respond to them.
It's like calming a stressed horse.
All that works is calming.
One doesn't have to prove that freedom to choose is logical, or good, or necessary or constitutional or moral or anything - all of that is immaterial.
Gain their confidence and they'll grant you anything.
Gain their confidence and they'll mutely nod, yes, you should have freedom to choose to refuse this and to take that.
And we just have to settle for that I think.
And try to plan a way to avoid what's coming down the track: every single individual tracked constantly by the govt and capable of being 'cancelled' by the govt electronically at a keystroke so's all licences cancelled, all banks accounts frozen, all access to anything prevented, all communication ended.
All of that is nearly here. All of it is being build in the name of the 'good' it can bring. And the danger it brings is ignored by the sheeple. But not by others, of course, hungry to just get their hands on the controls.
Seems to me our only hope is the size and diversity of the world. We have to escape somehow from our Western prisons. Virtually, perhaps. Remain, stay, don't move, appear to be just exactly the same but behind the scenes mutate into another persona with credentials in some other state with possessions there and wealth there, ID documents there and plan to run to there should this world suddenly direct its attentions to us and begin to make moves to 'get' us.
Perhaps because of something we wrote on Twitter, for god's sake, some miniscule infraction of their rules.
Not wearing a mask in the waiting room. Suggesting others not wear a mask!
We have to disappear, so to speak, and reappear elsewhere in the world.
Not easy to do but I fear it has to be done. We are not safe any more.
I am most interested in the resources you shared on depopulation. That's a subject that has been of interest to me since I read Peter Zeihan's latest, "The End of the World is Only the Beginning". Being a Boomer I'm aware of the Baby Boomers, but I thought that we were making enough babies. Turns out I was wrong. No one, anywhere, is making enough babies. Difficult to believe, but you can't argue with the data.
Depopulation is going to have a lot of effects and will likely cause the world order to shift drastically. It won't be fun or pretty.
The boomers were the product of the end of WW2 and that group of babies was huge. Every nation that has arrived at decent prosperity sees the birth rate shrink, now below replacement. I see it as a sort of selfishness, others may have different opinions. Boomer families were just at replacement rates; their children not so much and now their children not at all.
That's perhaps because 'decent prosperity'
isn't really as 'prosperous' as it looks? If we discount the perhaps natural desire for women to avoid the very onerous, difficult procedure of creating and giving birth.
What we have left is the possibility that the economic consequences of this 'prosperity' are driving down population growth: number of babies.
For it's axiomatic now that both parents have to work. We assume often that it is a privilege: that they 'want to work' but that's a bit specious isn't it? What if we grant it and then saw 'now I want to work as a mother' ?
They usually cannot suddenly stop. Mortgage payments etc. won't allow it.
It goes on from there. The principle is that we've constructed a society within which children are not seen as of value.
Our society has become the more 'inhuman' for that.
Children were once central simply for getting food as the elderly got enfeebled and for protection against enemies: as the elder got enfeebled.
That's putting aside any natural desires for 'children to love' and so on.
And they couldn't be prevented anyway so in places where they were not wanted they had to be allowed to come to birth and were then killed.
Now we have societies where those things don't operate.
We don't appear to need them to get food.
We don't appear to need them for protection.
We can stop them ever becoming.
It would seem natural for them to dwindle in supply, then.
The answer?
To value them.
Which would mean a return to a human style of existence we're so far removed from we can't be sure it ever existed.
i.e. a time when humans were happy to be humans rather than have an obsessive desire to be termites endlessly producing bigger and bigger and more sophisticated mounds.
Where perhaps 'a little child led them' to mangle a phrase.
Where adults and children were one.
Where communities were truly 'happy'
Boggles the mind. Couldn't be right, eh?
Have no idea about others. I never needed a two worker income for my family. OTOH, I am well educated at some degree of sacrifice to gain that advantage. My family has lived within it's means. My children became a two parent working household as they had children; none of them elected higher education but one got extensive technical training that has served him well so his wife didn't need to work when kids were small.
As far as others go in making their choices, I see some that want a bigger house, a boat and a summer house, a fancy car. I never thought those things mattered much.
Modern life has to a degree eliminated the nuclear family along with the extended family that once prevailed. We will see increasing numbers of destitute seniors needing gov't supports into a very lonely institutional situation. Not sure if that situation ever recovers or if we see these societal failures and try to develop better policies.
Yep, I say ' it is axiomatic ' by which I mean it's the norm. Arrived at from different directions. i.e. not at all always from need.
But: generally it finishes up as a case of 'need'. I am suggesting.
Because people with the larger incomes generally spend the more and most particularly 'invest' the more and borrow the more.
Particularly the borrowing for their home which they feel should reflect their status.
Modern life has arguably completely eliminated the nuclear family, I think. I agree with you.
Depends, of course, on the definitions, as everything does. But I'm thinking a definition of 'nuclear family' has to incorporate some allowance for interdependence, joint effort, working together of necessity and other such factors.
These factors have been negated by modern life so the nuclear family disappears kinda by accident, by default: i.e. the default position becomes one without the nuclear family.
By default (again) the overt legal structural components of it remain which hoodwink many into thinking the thing itself has remained.
But just because you still have a mum and dad ( or sons and daughters ) and live in a 'family home' and the parents are legally responsible for the children to a certain age I don't think you really have enough to claim survival of the nuclear family in any real sense.
We have become individual worker ants. Termites.
By some strange alchemy we've all become willing slaves happy to toil a monotonous regimen of 5 days a week, eight hours a day and so on. For the whole of our lives.
It interests me. For people are truly happy in it. They are. I swear they are. Fulfilled, without disquiet. Happy.
As I say the family having gone they are all individuals each concerned with their own fates only. 'Husbands and wives' are often with prenuptial agreements, often openly claim to possess their own careers, are only ever accepting the other because they are 'perfect' and completely fulfill and satisfy them.
So we have these individuals happy to toil - no families, no question of children, a society bound to diminish in numbers.
That's fine by me. :)
Thanks. I just wrote about Haidt's five moral foundations in my review of The Past is a Future Place. Dutton also has a take on Gen Z. Hyper liberal, just not as much as the Millennials. FWIW I and my kids don't have smart phones. Mom does, but supports me with regard to the kids.
This morning I noticed this, and I would imagine you’re familiar with Jonathan Haidt, but if not - he is worth the read.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-national-crisis-of-generation-z-jonathan-haidt-social-media-performance-anxiety-fragility-gap-childhood-11672401345?st=bumigeanh6h8t7f&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Vaccines seem to be a product of awful QA given the trash in them. Maybe it's always been that bad but we never noticed. Supposedly the government FDA inspectors were not allowed to inspect manufacturing facilities; super secret, you know. OTOH the actual active ingredient might be quite variable in dosage terms so https://howbad.info/ shows side effects differ from batch to batch. Nobody knows if planned or not and we are told that batches were to be distributed widely so a location would not see a lot of a given batch; true or not we don't know. Planned that way r not; we don't know.
Much of this might be internet gossip. No real statements by makers. We might get some answers from Congress if they ask the right questions.
BTW, you were likely an impudent young man yourself! Good for him, being independent. He will learn over time, old dad.