The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:18 pm

If you hadn't dumped your load here, I would have had nothing to stir. Impartiality ends when a decision has been made to terminate one's membership, whether for a week, a month, or permanently. Don't post ridiculous bullshit here and you'll never hear from me.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:39 pm

Elvis » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:17 pm wrote:Iam and BS, gentlemen, please turn down the rhetorical heat! — neither of you is a stupid idiot, you both have good intent, and I'm confident you guys (and all of us) can discuss these interpretations of data without rancor.


YES. I see a lot of detailed litigation here on both sides veering into long analyses of each others' rhetoric. Try stepping back, with each assuming the other is with the good guys, and drawing bigger-picture points. To that end, I ask each of you: How would you define your own AND the other's position as a reporter? Try it, let's see what happens.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Elvis » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:57 am

Belligerent Savant wrote:.

Elvis » Thu Sep 03, 2020 7:00 pm wrote:It's largely on us: vote for candidates who refuse corporate money.


Come now, Elvis. Tell me this is sarcasm. You can't earnestly believe this is an option in our current system. Which candidate would that be?

There were many!—in the primaries, some of whom won and will run in the general. In my own district I voted for a progressive House candidate who refused corporate & PAC money. I sent him money, while anyone taking bux from bad actors gets nothing from me.


[Sanders would be an incorrect answer, due in large part to his complicity in playing along in the game. We've addressed this elsewhere already.]

Sanders is a correct answer because he fits the simple criterion of not taking the money. Recall the wife of a billionaire sent him a check and the campaign returned it.

Did we define what "playing long in the game" means? If you mean his post-Super Tuesday decisions, keep in mind that "playing along" at that time, to that extent, preserved what influence he had with the DNC machine; as a result of that, he and his advisors fought to get at least some minimal scraps of meaningful healthcare language put into the platform. They had to fight for it. Sanders knows that a third party or independent run won't succeed (in 2020 anyway), and by remaining in the Democratic party milieu and not further alienating them from progressives—he can affect more desirable change in the law.

Laws are everything. Doing nothing just leaves the bad guys to make their plans for us. It'll be monumentally difficult to change Citizens United, but the end-run around that is to make corporate campaign contributions a mark of shame for those who accept them (let alone seek them out).
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:34 am

.

At the local levels, yes there are options, at least until they arrive at positions of higher influence/national impact; that's when the Big Money invariably gets involved. Overt pandering to the public doesn't count as progress. Actual, tangible progress, untethered to hidden strings, is what counts as progress.

Sanders is only the correct answer if he actually gets elected. Many of us, right here in RI, argued that he stepped down prematurely, and his reasons for doing so weren't fully his own (this can never be proven, needless to say).

I strongly disagree that a 3rd/independent party won't succeed. If anyone can succeed as a 3rd party candidate, it's Sanders, in large part due to his ability to accumulate large sums without major corporate donors. The fact he hasn't done so is telling.

I simply don't believe it's possible, in this current system, to be elected to the Presidency without marked compromise/subservience to the Deep Pockets. It has been this way minimally in the modern era, and there is no sign it will subside. If Sanders truly wanted to challenge the status quo -- the corrupt and wholly compromised '2 party system' -- he could/would have. Even if he didn't win as a 3rd party candidate, it would have been very impactful, especially this year.

He opted instead to play his part for the DNC.

Your idealism may yet come to fruition at some point in the future, but right now, we are far from a system cleansed from influence of big corporates/lobbyists. These entities pervade well beyond our govt, into mainstream/'alternative' media, entertainment, think tanks, non-profits, education/Medical/Healthcare systems, ostensibly grassroots movements, and popular culture.

Their impact have been increasingly pervasive in recent years, not less. Their tentacles extend to the handling of our current crises.

It will be a surmountable challenge to overcome their influence. Possible? Yes. But we're not there now, demonstrably.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:52 am

>He opted instead to play his part for the DNC.

But he did that in 2016 which IMO calls everything between that moment (rejecting Stein's offer to lead the ticket) and the moment he "conceded" to Biden into question.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Been watching this a long time.

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:10 am

No third party effort is going to ever get anywhere unless it is explicitly and mainly about the rules. If you're not mainly and always about money out and proportional rep, it doesn't matter what else you say. I'd be impressed by a fusion ticket of the thirds that is exclusively that. Of course, the 'Libertarians' are a funded front of right-wing money, exclusively designed to make hypercapitalism sound like radical freedom, and you can see how serious they are in that they're the ones who backed Citizens United and decry ANY regulation, let alone public funding, of elections.

The attempt to take over the Democrats got closer than anything by the left electorally in my lifetime, by a factor of about 1000. It has put a good crack in them and can expand. It's certainly got them fighting in a rage against it, that's a good sign. I didn't get to see Neal's head on a pike, but I pray to see Pelosi's!

It may not bode well overall, but bodes way better than anything else happening on this front. It has set off an organizing wave so far that's no tsunami, but can get there. I have no idea what anyone thinks can be accomplished with Howie Hawkins. I can vote freely, in New York, but will find some Commie party instead.

I want a landslide for the Ds, too bad. I believe it would be the outcome likeliest to initiate their break up, other than actually losing to the regime now explicitly saying you are voting for fascism, which is going to be some serious Machtergreifung and shoot-ups right after. And of course, Ds are fascist-lite themselves, or rather technototalitarian plus as imperialist as the other side (all of them are going to start a war).
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Been watching this a long time.

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:48 am

JackRiddler » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:10 am wrote:No third party effort is going to ever get anywhere unless it is explicitly and mainly about the rules. If you're not mainly and always about money out and proportional rep, it doesn't matter what else you say. I'd be impressed by a fusion ticket of the thirds that is exclusively that. Of course, the 'Libertarians' are a funded front of right-wing money, exclusively designed to make hypercapitalism sound like radical freedom, and you can see how serious they are in that they're the ones who backed Citizens United and decry ANY regulation, let alone public funding, of elections.

The attempt to take over the Democrats got closer than anything by the left electorally in my lifetime, by a factor of about 1000. It has put a good crack in them and can expand. It's certainly got them fighting in a rage against it, that's a good sign. I didn't get to see Neal's head on a pike, but I pray to see Pelosi's!

It may not bode well overall, but bodes way better than anything else happening on this front. It has set off an organizing wave so far that's no tsunami, but can get there. I have no idea what anyone thinks can be accomplished with Howie Hawkins. I can vote freely, in New York, but will find some Commie party instead.

I want a landslide for the Ds, too bad. I believe it would be the outcome likeliest to initiate their break up, other than actually losing to the regime now explicitly saying you are voting for fascism, which is going to be some serious Machtergreifung and shoot-ups right after. And of course, Ds are fascist-lite themselves, or rather technototalitarian plus as imperialist as the other side (all of them are going to start a war).


I'm actually surprised to hear you Tom Frank blanket the libertarians quite that hard, Jack. In many regards and surely for the majority of loud-mouthed white boys touting it, yes, of course I agree. But there's always been that whole Koch brothers supporting ACLU and criminal justice reform authenticity vs PR standing question and there is that sticky problem that it remains possible to build anti-authoritarian alliance with social conservatives. (I realize I've just shined the AD bat-signal for anti "third-positionist/red-brown alliance" copypasta).

After 20 years, I'm pretty happy to say fuck the Greens at this point. 2000 should have been an opening salvo and I think they (blaming Nader in part) really botched it in the years that followed. But the strategy was good (5% and even the whole trade your vote in a safe state thing) and they dropped the ball.

Trump pissed me off enough recently to bother to mail in a Biden ballot in my deep Red state. Feels pretty weird, I admit. But I'm wagering this is the last election to even remotely resemble previous ones. So it'll be a moot point one way or another.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:17 pm

Democracy is local. Hoping for systemic change without first focusing upon electing local leaders who do represent your views, is futile.

Bernie's toast, a thing from the past, like Hillary. Sure, while he lives, he'll have some supporters who will work to realize goals he targeted, but we need more AOCs; young bloods! I hope we'll never again see a septuagenarian candidate for president.

This year I will be voting third party.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:49 pm

.

Back to the topic at hand.

Warning: those sensitive to 'ridiculous bullshit' can avert their eyes.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/04/suf ... -children/

(lots of embedded links at source)

School Closings, Child Abuse, and the COVID19 Coup’s War on Democracy

[...]

...I’m not going to pull any punches about the systematic child abuse being orchestrated, as I write, by a phalanx of America’s most “respectable” politicians, pundits and self-styled educators.

Child abuse? Yes, that’s what I said: and I’m talking about the concerted campaign to keep the United States school system shuttered in honor of the Great God Corona – a cynical bid to smother the free instincts in a whole generation of children before they’re even old enough to know how deeply they’ve been violated.

As if that weren’t ugly enough, the propagandists who want to take away our kids’ education are using emotional blackmail to do it, terrorizing 74 million American children with the slander that they’re as poisonous as Rappaccini’s daughter – that the moment they cross the threshold of a school building they will have condemned their teachers, and probably their parents, to an early and painful death.

Child abuse? That’s almost too mild a name for it.

What is it going to take, I wonder, to make the proverbial Man in the Street as angry as I am about this? If I could, I’d try to shout into his face some measure of his inconsistency. Have you been gnashing your teeth over the alleged crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, Mr. Street? What do you say to a crew of governors-turned-dictators who hold millions of American children captive in their own homes, polluting their minds with fear porn?

Does it bother you when the minions of President Donald Trump throw helpless children into the arms of traffickers south of the border as a matter of “immigration policy”? How do you feel, then, about a “health” policy that deprives all our children of a normal education?

You’ve heard tell of irresponsible organizations tainting social media with “misinformation,” haven’t you? Do you mind the idea of your own kids being manipulated 24/7 through a computer screen by the same folks who planted microphones in a home “security” system and have already handed over your private information to political gangsters like Cambridge Analytica?

Or maybe you’re upset with Israeli soldiers who hide stun grenades where they can hurt unsuspecting youngsters in a West Bank village? If so, Mr. Street, what about people who hang the calumny of being walking death-traps like a sword of Damocles above the heads of millions of American pre-teens?

Are you angry yet?

Mainstream pundits, of course, assure us that all of this is really a saintly effort to protect the young.

“This is exactly what we’ve been warning about,” a smug Megan Ranney, described as “the director for the Center for Digital Health at Brown University,” told the press about a recent rise in COVID19 “cases” among schoolchildren. (Ah, why can’t Americans just forget about educating their kids and let the “experts” do their thinking for them?)

“Coronavirus cases are already surfacing in K-12 schools that have reopened,” screeched NBC News – again citing “experts” – but “the federal government is not tracking these outbreaks, and some states are not publicly reporting them.”

And as if that didn’t prove we’re all eye-deep in the Black Death, a Florida judge blocked the reopening of his state’s public schools by claiming that the decision properly belonged to – you guessed it – “health experts” and not its elected representatives; meanwhile, the Orwellian gloating of a teachers’ union president about the judge’s twin attacks on education and democracy (“This is a great day for public schools”) was topped only by a young middle-school teacher who stood on a Tampa sidewalk with a poster blaring, “I CAN’T TEACH FROM THE GRAVE.”

But there are some cracks in the walls of the propaganda.

The article containing Dr. Ranney’s pontifications, for instance, dealt exclusively with the rise in COVID19 “cases”; after all, that’s the only way to make an ominous story out of the spread of a dime-a-dozen flu virus among people who are seldom if ever harmed by it.

The article mentioned only one child as experiencing any serious consequences at all – and it turned out (though the article didn’t say so) that he died of a seizure, that there’s no evidence his death had anything to do with COVID19, and that in any case he was apparently infected in church, not at school.

Furthermore, not one of the articles I’ve sampled even tried to present evidence of teachers contracting COVID19 from their students – an issue that ought to be central, given so many teachers’ vehement opposition to doing their jobs.

But you know the drill: the Right Thinkers have already reached their conclusions; inconvenient facts must be airbrushed.

And oh boy, there are plenty of inconvenient facts.

The coronavirus coup is already crippling a nation even as its jaws open for our kids. According to a continuing special project of the US Census Bureau:

almost a third of people in some states have little or no confidence they can pay August’s rent or mortgage […] Jobs have been furloughed, businesses closed, hours reduced and salaries cut […] 35% of adults [are] still expecting a loss of employment income in the coming month for themselves or someone in their household.”


And what about the children? By mid-August, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was reporting that more than a quarter of all young adults in the United States had contemplated suicide during the “pandemic.”

A West Los Angeles child and adolescent psychiatrist has publicly testified to a “rapid and substantial increase” since March in cases of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, bedwetting, self-harming, violence, panic attacks and related symptoms of emotional illness among the children he treats.

Let’s be clear about this: none of these horrors resulted from a respiratory virus. They were and are the products of unilateral “executive orders,” issued without the approval of any legislature and without public debate, by state governors who for over five months have claimed quasi-dictatorial powers on the strength of an “emergency” that never existed and certainly doesn’t exist today.

Our bleak reality, in a word, is the price we are paying for a sustained attack on the fundamental components of constitutional democracy. And the chief weapon in that campaign has been panic – panic deployed against civil liberties (illegal house arrests became “public safety” measures), then against the arts (singing was suddenly deadly, theater audiences became Petri dishes for infection), and now against the most vulnerable target of all: our children.

Sadly, some of the young themselves seem to have been hypnotized by the fear offensive.

As the University of North Carolina moved to hobble its undergraduate programs barely a week into the fall semester, the editorial board of its student newspaper attacked administrators, not for denying them their right to normal college classes, but for not crippling their education even sooner.

Out of over 19,000 undergraduates at UNC, a grand total of twenty-odd new cases of COVID19 have allegedly been discovered on campus. That’s right – 20 out of 19,000; and given the age of those students, the chance of any serious consequence is about as remote as the danger of being struck by lightning.

Yet this is enough for the student editors to abandon the most precious thing their university ought to be giving them – the education free people deserve – and to pray aloud that their elders will take away even more of their liberty, so as to “disincentivize” any semblance of normal student life. It is a gloomy augury.

Bear in mind that even those lockdown-lovers who are willing to allow that, yes, maybe, sooner or later students ought to be permitted to resume what they call “in-person schooling” – that ominous phrase is cropping up everywhere, alongside the even more ominous “new normal” – don’t intend to let the kids get away unscathed.

Students will be muzzled, will be subjected to repeated temperature checks, will not be allowed to congregate or to whisper to one another, will be kept rigidly apart in the classrooms, and will not even be able to observe the facial expressions of their friends or acquaintances.

Never mind that there isn’t the slightest medical justification for any of this. (We’ve known at least since March that healthy people are more likely to be harmed than helped by wearing masks.) The Right Thinkers are determined to keep us in fear, and our children are not to be exceptions to this rule, whether at home or in a schoolroom.

But even that kind of torture isn’t enough to please Michael Mulgrew, president of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers. He’s threatening to impose regular virus testing on students and staff at all New York City schools, plus special school building “entry and exit procedures” and a surveillance regime involving mandatory quarantine for anyone who has tested positive in the previous 24 hours.

Otherwise, “the union is prepared to go to court and/or go on strike if we need to.”

And what about state law that prohibits such strikes? “Union receiving penalties, I go to jail, all of that,” says Mr. Mulgrew. “We’ll do it if we have to.” If only the teachers’ union had ever shown as much courage in actually teaching our children as in blackmailing them!

And so I’m angry.

I’m angry when people who call themselves educators turn into advocates of child abuse.

I’m angry about politicians who claim to care about working people and then, by closing schools, force those same working people to choose between their children and their jobs.

I’m angry at dishonest news media that can watch a 5-year-old child break down in tears in front of a computer screen and call his emotional torture “distance learning.”

And I’m angry, above all, at a cynical intellectual culture that sees nothing wrong with using children as hostages in a campaign to turn my country into a police state.

Abusing children in the hope of gaining political ground would be reprehensible in any case. But the lockdown-lovers can’t even claim the defense of well-meaning fanaticism. The idea that we can permanently “contain” COVID19 by putting much of the population, children included, under house arrest is no longer even remotely credible.

Professor Johan Giesecke, a medical advisor to the Swedish government, posed the obvious question a month ago: suppose strict lockdowns really do slow the spread of COVID19 infections, he asked.

But then, what next? No democratic society can remain in lockdown for many months or years. Their economies cannot withstand it, and the public won’t allow it.”


So there it is, folks. We are shredding the Bill of Rights, trashing our economy, destroying our working class, censoring the arts, undermining the educational system, turning our society into a fever swamp of paranoid repression, and betraying our children – and all for what?

The only answer the Right Thinkers can give us is the answer of all totalitarians: that we are too foolish to make our own decisions, that we need “experts” to construct the sort of society the Right Thinkers believe we ought to inhabit but aren’t sensible enough to build for ourselves.

Ultimately, that is the message that stares every one of us in the face when we see a child sitting at home in front of a computer screen when he or she ought to be at school. This is the democracy-destroyers’ most ambitious ploy. If they can train a whole generation of children to live almost entirely through the artificial and isolating medium of cybernetics, they can look forward to a future in which manipulating the population will be easier than ever.

Political life revolves around cooperation and discourse; what sort of political opposition can you expect from people who have never even learned to form groups?

Intellectual maturity requires surprise, confrontation, provocation such experiences come from the unexpected give and take of real social life, not from computerized media where a child finds only what he looks for.

In other words, “distance learning” for children is just about perfectly designed to produce mentally and socially stunted adults – the kind of adults the Right Thinkers prefer to deal with.

But remember, that isn’t all it will produce. While our children are being shorn of the instincts of free human beings, the master manipulators on the other side of their computer screens will be carefully scrutinizing them, noting every weakness, every foible, every fear to be exploited in the future.

By the time the kids are old enough to begin to live on their own, it will be too late; they’ll be helpless against the elites who control all the pathways of the only sort of life they have ever known.

This time around, whether its motives are conscious or not, the purpose of the abuse aimed at our children is perfectly clear. If the propagandists have their way, society is to be reshaped forever; freedom as we have known it is to be sharply curtailed; democracy, an obsolete hindrance to the plans of Silicon Valley billionaires, must be abolished, or at least drastically redefined.

And our children are to be the guinea pigs in this grand social experiment.

Will they get away with it? I certainly hope not – but successful resistance will depend upon a lot of people calling this species of child abuse by its proper name, seizing every opportunity to rise up against it with the anger and contempt it deserves.

The stakes are terribly high. If you imagine that the Right Thinkers are just out to delay the opening of public schools a few weeks this year – if you still don’t grasp that their goal is nothing less than to snatch away your children’s last chance at a normal life – well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.



Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. His latest nonfiction book is Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities (McFarland & Co., 2014); his first collection of poetry, Surfaces, was published by The High Window in 2019. A memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back: The Personal Journey of a “Born-Again” Jew – will be published in September 2020 by Lincoln Square Books.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby PufPuf93 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:24 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:49 pm wrote:.

Back to the topic at hand.

Warning: those sensitive to 'ridiculous bullshit' can avert their eyes.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/04/suf ... -children/

(lots of embedded links at source)



BellSav

The situation at hand is bound to be used by the evil doers. The evil doers are those who want to own and control our lives, those you fear and a rational fear at that.

CV19 needs to be addressed. Maybe you and others think CV19 is best ignored and allowed to playout in CV19s own due course? The problem is half way measures in such a task will acerbate and extend the time until exposure to pandemic catastrophe is gone. The forest fire analogy is apt for CV19; the fire ignites, then grows, and finally run out of fuel or the weather turns to fall at worst case. Most fires can be caught readily. Even most fires with potential for great damage are stopped. Some fires escape and grow. The worst fires escape and grow and there is no tactical option except back off and let the fire burn to a perimeter that has high likelihood of containment. Sometimes these measures even fail. What is best is to stop fires in the early stage and eve better if there has been pre ignition management of potential wildfire vegetation and other fuels and the land use planning and infrastructure planned to catch fires and minimize the worst case. But CV19 can carry over and Winter and become endemic, a statistic where the illnesses are less lethal but show in that average life expectancy for everyone declines (and may rise again over time as with other diseases that once held sway in epidemic).

At each stage of the forest fire progression additional resources and a change in tactics is required, so it is with CV19 or similar. We do not know how bad the outbreak can get nor the long term ramifications so best to stop early. Identify cases and contact trace, stop the spot fires ahead of the burn. Do what can be done to avoid spread, fire lines fuel breaks and back burns. It is the matter of manners and common sense, and a test for individual humanity in that we each need to care about other humans more than ourselves, a team effort.

What I am seeing now regards the economy is that because the CV19 has not been adequately addressed things are occurring that harm the economy in the long term are cascading because what is crucial is that CV19 be in check and we don't take our effort off that task until secure. One might be gloomy because the nature of CV19 and the progress to date indicate that the disease will become endemic and at best there is weak if any herd immunity and less than ideal vaccines developed. Alas that is my projected reality based outcome.

In an extreme case, what if everyone stayed home and in isolation for 30 days or however many are required until CV19 stops its spread and we are all clear of infection? That is not 100% feasible but that is the required direction. Some might say that is a tool of fascist authoritarianism with all individual freedom gone.

I disagree. Looks to me that the disorganized and uncommitted by many response to CV19 is just what the evil doers want. Much of what is done now with the economy before addressing CV19 adequately is thoughtless and with panic or anger premature and with chaos what the evil doers want and how they benefit.

So I won't insult you but what you just posted supports the ends of the evil doers. I cannot predict a good outcome especially as there are so many that aid and abet the evil doers. The evil doers want the mass of humanity to share your fears rather than care for each other, that is the means to their ends which are not attractive. You are arguing to not address CV19. That is what will destroy and enslave us and our children. It is a base play to fear and emotion that serves evil. That is -precisely what the evil doers want and how they aim to control.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:13 pm

.

Puf - I appreciate your take, and can understand the position.

Suffice to say I don't see it the way you do. A sober, clear-eyed (free of distortion) look-back of this period will demonstrate that this virus was not nearly as harmful to the populace at large as initially touted, and the extent and duration of the lockdowns will be shown to be markedly more devastating to lives and livelihoods than the virus itself.

The author of the article is essentially clamoring for reason; for the people to resist the fear porn, disinfo and induced-panic blaring through the loudspeakers, assaulting our senses.

To the contrary, in my view the author is calling on the people to resist the bidding of these so-called evil doers. To resist, in other words, the urge in each of us to be consumed by, and in some instances partake in, acts of evil -- inadvertently or otherwise -- as a result of heightened conditioning programs.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby liminalOyster » Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:09 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:13 pm wrote:.

Puf - I appreciate your take, and can understand the position.

Suffice to say I don't see it the way you do. A sober, clear-eyed (free of distortion) look-back of this period will demonstrate that this virus was not nearly as harmful to the populace at large as initially touted, and the extent and duration of the lockdowns will be shown to be markedly more devastating to lives and livelihoods than the virus itself.

The author of the article is essentially clamoring for reason; for the people to resist the fear porn, disinfo and induced-panic blaring through the loudspeakers, assaulting our senses.

To the contrary, in my view the author is calling on the people to resist the bidding of these so-called evil doers. To resist, in other words, the urge in each of us to be consumed by, and in some instances partake in, acts of evil -- inadvertently or otherwise -- as a result of heightened conditioning programs.


In addition to the fact that I think you're respectful, pretty level-headed and mostly courteous (by RI standards, ha) in your disagreement, BS, I also really like you, so it's always interesting to me how and why we see this so differently.

I don't really think a comparison can be set up between "lockdowns" and "the virus itself" as causes of harm. They're too closely intertwined. And I just don't understand what always feels like a minimization of how devastating the virus is.

I imagine it's what killed Graeber.

And I just got word yesterday of a friend who is suffering a sudden acute organ failure threat. Super healthy athletic woman in her early 40s who had a mild COVID case earlier this summer. I'm praying (blessing/secular/etc) for her and hope all will be well.

But this is yet another person in my network who has been hit and could conceivably end up with permanently impaired function of this organ. And there's lots of data now (albeit already politicized heavily) about mycocarditis of very forms being widespread, some transient and some probably not. Where I live there's never been any "lockdown" at all, nor where my family and friends live. There's never been any time when people were not allowed to leave their houses or not allowed to be in the streets, etc. At worst, there have been shuttered businesses and that's obviously a really big deal for small biz owners and employees. But lockdown? Not remotely.

I'm affiliated currently with a university that has opened and is clearly going to close (well, go fully remote) and you could see it a mile away. Alot of faculty thought their job security was better protected by opening up, taking risk and generating residential income. But now, if/when we close, it's much more likely to lead to catastrophic losses.

I dunno. Too tired to write more, but I really struggle and puzzle over the fault lines COVID has created here and say again - I think of you as a friend and comrade, not an adversary.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:09 pm

Thank you, PufPuf and liminalOyster. We should be aware of the virulence of this disease and that it constantly mutates with each and every new infection. Reminds me of this post early in another Covid-19 thread:

Wombaticus Rex » Tue Mar 31, 2020 10:34 pm wrote:
Nordic » Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:54 pm wrote:
“ If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”

What part of this do you think is a joke?


It's been obvious from the start that nCov wasn't anywhere close to as fatal as SARS or MERS -- and that's a blessing. The problem is the virulence, not the fatalities, although the fatalities will definitely be a huge problem at the peak.

But the mitigation steps are more about preventing & reducing second-order effects than preventing & reducing deaths. It's about what happens when a majority of the first responders in your city are out sick. It's about what happens when your supply chain is being hit by shortages of labor, products and supplies just as your supply chain is being hit by a record high tide of demand. It's about what happens when all 50 states are in a state of emergency and you're out of resources to help them all simultaneously.

People are completely right to point to the fact that a bad flu season kills a shocking number of people -- that's precisely why having two of them at once would be so catastrophic, in the absence of a vaccine or reliable, non-experimental treatment plan for nCoV.


I had hoped this disease would have been much better managed, and received better cooperation universally early on so we'd have had it controlled by this time of year, Autumn. It's really worse than shameful the way covid-19 was politicized, with Red state resistance and fearful support of an insane leader stifling all sensible options that would have gotten us ahead of the curve combating this disease, while destroying our economy and sense of security in the process. Billionaires sucking up lives and life savings cause they just ain't rich enough.

I pray this fucker doesn't start a war. I mean one far away, with soldiers and sailors and awe. He's done a fine job organizing militias to get our domestic race war underway. By 2048, Caucasians will become a minority, with Latinx becoming most populous.
Last edited by Iamwhomiam on Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:26 pm

This page started contentiously but got really interesting. I find myself agreeing with all of the perspectives at times. I don't know, but I'd like to frame a series of the last few posts.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 06, 2020 12:10 pm

liminalOyster » Sat Sep 05, 2020 11:09 am wrote:
Belligerent Savant » Fri Sep 04, 2020 11:13 pm wrote:.

Puf - I appreciate your take, and can understand the position.

Suffice to say I don't see it the way you do. A sober, clear-eyed (free of distortion) look-back of this period will demonstrate that this virus was not nearly as harmful to the populace at large as initially touted, and the extent and duration of the lockdowns will be shown to be markedly more devastating to lives and livelihoods than the virus itself.

The author of the article is essentially clamoring for reason; for the people to resist the fear porn, disinfo and induced-panic blaring through the loudspeakers, assaulting our senses.

To the contrary, in my view the author is calling on the people to resist the bidding of these so-called evil doers. To resist, in other words, the urge in each of us to be consumed by, and in some instances partake in, acts of evil -- inadvertently or otherwise -- as a result of heightened conditioning programs.


In addition to the fact that I think you're respectful, pretty level-headed and mostly courteous (by RI standards, ha) in your disagreement, BS, I also really like you, so it's always interesting to me how and why we see this so differently.

I don't really think a comparison can be set up between "lockdowns" and "the virus itself" as causes of harm. They're too closely intertwined. And I just don't understand what always feels like a minimization of how devastating the virus is.

I imagine it's what killed Graeber.

And I just got word yesterday of a friend who is suffering a sudden acute organ failure threat. Super healthy athletic woman in her early 40s who had a mild COVID case earlier this summer. I'm praying (blessing/secular/etc) for her and hope all will be well.

But this is yet another person in my network who has been hit and could conceivably end up with permanently impaired function of this organ. And there's lots of data now (albeit already politicized heavily) about mycocarditis of very forms being widespread, some transient and some probably not. Where I live there's never been any "lockdown" at all, nor where my family and friends live. There's never been any time when people were not allowed to leave their houses or not allowed to be in the streets, etc. At worst, there have been shuttered businesses and that's obviously a really big deal for small biz owners and employees. But lockdown? Not remotely.

I'm affiliated currently with a university that has opened and is clearly going to close (well, go fully remote) and you could see it a mile away. Alot of faculty thought their job security was better protected by opening up, taking risk and generating residential income. But now, if/when we close, it's much more likely to lead to catastrophic losses.

I dunno. Too tired to write more, but I really struggle and puzzle over the fault lines COVID has created here and say again - I think of you as a friend and comrade, not an adversary.



Indeed, Liminal - there is no reason any of us here should view each other as 'adversaries' (though I understand you meant it in a more benign way, at least in this instance); most of us are here attempting to understand root causes. Our adversaries are those using power and influence to the detriment of the majority.

My position on this topic is governed primarily by my observations, analysis, and assessment of what I know to this point, in aggregate (since childhood, really), about power structures. It's all any of us here have. None of us can be in a position to 'verify' much of this information ourselves. We can only go by our existing knowledge and the extent which we may distill the information available to us. Our views may well vary based on a number of factors. It's one of the reasons we convene here, among other places, to test our positions, observe those of others, refine where needed, and keep digging.
(I speak largely for myself but imagine it's a similar process for others here).

Anecdotally:

my wife works in an urgent care facility about ~25 miles from NYC. Given the nature of her job she's been going in every week since the onset of this pandemic. Particularly during the first few weeks of the crisis, I'd ask her questions about the types of calls/patients/ailments that would come in. The majority of the calls her office fielded were panic-stricken calls -- there was a massive influx of visitors back in March/April wanting to get tested, etc., and many of the calls were based on a variety of concerns due to what they heard on the news, etc. Her office handled plenty of positive cases, and most of those that fared worse were older and/or already stricken with comorbidities. There were fatalities, unfortunately, but the percentage was well within ~1%.

Aside from her line of work, I also heard -- from neighbors, friends, doctors I'm friendly with, etc. -- about otherwise healthy, young (30s - 40s) individuals that reportedly succumbed to this virus, but those were rare/isolated instances, and the specific circumstances were not known. As mentioned either in this thread or another COVID-related thread, I have several family members well into their 70s/80s that tested positive and are now fine -- no lingering issues. As with many other viruses/diseases, there is no uniform way human bodies will react to pathogens/invaders. There may be similar patterns across the board, but there are also variations.

I'm re-pasting the below, as it includes excerpts from an online posting by a virologist; with each passing month, the guidance -- particularly the commentary on "dose + time" -- holds more true to me. Lies are being told out there, for many of the same reasons lies are told, historically, by those in power. Where to draw the line (between what's 'real' and what's 'manufactured') is the question that may never be adequately answered via consensus agreement.

Belligerent Savant » Sun Jul 19, 2020 10:21 am wrote:.

norton ash » Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:47 pm wrote:
[...] unless the news from the USA is completely fake... Wear your mask, yank friends, because the USA appears to be fucking up mightily in the name of freedumb.


It's unlikely to be a clear delineation (a 1 or 0: either 'completely fake' or 'completely real'). Likely some variation of circumstances and govt reactions that are real or manufactured; exaggerated; alarmist; purposely misleading/outright disinfo.

In any event, healthy scrutiny is required, and broad-brush assessments are likely to be short-sighted.


With respect to the highly charged topic of mask wearing, while I can certainly understand the logic behind wearing masks in closed/indoor spaces, particularly if keeping within a given indoor space near others for 5 or more minutes, wearing masks outdoors serves no purpose other than as virtue signaling/false illusion of 'safety' (it may also very well be unsafe while exercising - did we all forget that breathing in our own 'exhaust fumes' is not advisable?).

This may have been shared here before: a non-political perspective on how the virus can spread, written by a virologist.

Good luck finding such nuance in most readily-accessible 'official' commentary.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-ri ... avoid-them

Excerpts:

If you are sitting in a well ventilated space, with few people, the risk is low.
If I am outside, and I walk past someone, remember it is “dose and time” needed for infection. You would have to be in their airstream for 5+ minutes for a chance of infection. While joggers may be releasing more virus due to deep breathing, remember the exposure time is also less due to their speed. Please do maintain physical distance, but the risk of infection in these scenarios are low. Here is a great article in Vox that discusses the low risk of running and cycling in detail.

...

Social distancing rules are really to protect you with brief exposures or outdoor exposures. In these situations there is not enough time to achieve the infectious viral load when you are standing 6 feet apart or where wind and the infinite outdoor space for viral dilution reduces viral load. The effects of sunlight, heat, and humidity on viral survival, all serve to minimize the risk to everyone when outside.
When assessing the risk of infection (via respiration) at the grocery store or mall, you need to consider the volume of the air space (very large), the number of people (restricted), how long people are spending in the store (workers - all day; customers - an hour). Taken together, for a person shopping: the low density, high air volume of the store, along with the restricted time you spend in the store, means that the opportunity to receive an infectious dose is low. But, for the store worker, the extended time they spend in the store provides a greater opportunity to receive the infectious dose and therefore the job becomes more risky.

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belligerent Savant and 33 guests