The Vaccines Work - Just Not As Normal Vaccines, To Prevent Infection Or Stop Spread

They're actually vaccinations against "excess population" and population growth. The people behind this have an agenda which has nothing to do with public health.

The pandemic and all of the officially-allowed interventions, the vaccines, and the measures which not only failed to stop spread, but encouraged it, are designed with one goal in mind - to reduce world population to a number which is sustainable, and then to control population growth. And, if you look at this from the standpoint of the globalist corporations and neoliberal governments which are the primary proponents of this, this is a sensible thing to do, and it’s their now obvious intent.

Going back to 2014 and before, there was active research in the US, funded by Anthony Fauci at NIAID/CDC, and done by Prof. Ralph Baric, of the University of North Carolina, on enhancing the infectivity and virulence of coronavirus, specifically the virus which caused the SARS epidemic in 2003, SARS-CoV-1. This research was banned in the US in 2015, and Fauci and Baric moved the research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2015, and Fauci funded the research to the tune of at least $3.1 million, and probably more, over the years. By 2019, a new, very successful virus, SARS-CoV-2, with a genome sequence not seen in nature, producing on the spike protein the furin cleavage, which made it very good at clamping onto ACE-2 receptors - and getting into cells.

Whether by lab leak, or deliberate release, it got out of the lab. Wuhan is a city of 11 million people, with an international airport with direct flights to Europe and the United States. It’s unclear when the first cases started popping up - either, by one account, in September 2019, at the Military Olympics in Wuhan, or citizens in Wuhan in the later part of November 2019. The Chinese stopped domestic travel in and out of Wuhan in December 2019 - but not only allowed, but encouraged, travel to foreign countries. And then there was the “repatriation flight”, of 300 US diplomatic personnel and others, from Wuhan to the US in January 2020, which President Trump tried to stop, but was sabotaged by “State Department” officials who somehow were allowed to overrule him. And for some reason, this aircraft could not land on Guam or Air Force bases in Hawaii or even Alaska, it had to land in the continental US. And the passengers were supposed to be quarantined, including about half with active illness, but instead they were dispersed throughout the US and not tracked. And that’s how the epidemic got kicked off here.

And then, the “public health” people did everything they could to further the spread of a respiratory-spread virus, first with the removal of all N95 respirator masks from every store where they could be found, online or off. In December, they were plentiful and cheap, by the middle of January, they couldn’t be found anywhere - and not even by doctors and nurses in hospitals, for whom they were supposedly “reserved” - in fact, according to a doc friend, they were “unobtainium” and were so - until just this month. And mask wearing was discouraged by the CDC. City officials urged people in New York and Los Angeles and other large cities, to attend mass gatherings - such as the Chinese New Year celebration in NYC - at which no social distancing was possible. And the result was that the virus spread like wildfire in those places, so that NYC still retains the title for the highest death rate from the WuFlu (or to be fair, the Baric/Fauci Flu).

And then there was the handwashing and spraying of surfaces with alcohol solutions, for a virus spread by breathing, sneezing, and coughing, and then the ridiculous six-foot “social distancing” rule - which put gullible people directly in range. And the fake PCR testing, which created rafts of false positive results, whole haystacks of them - and there was no way for the “public health” people to know who could spread the virus. Actually, there was a way to do this, from very early on, here: https://lexfridman.com/michael-mina/
and this interview was a year after I first learned about Dr Mina’s rapid antigen tests. He made a good case that the entire pandemic could have been stopped in three weeks, by the end of April 2020. But the FDA has still refused to approve his test - and they’ve slow-walked other rapid antigen tests. A lot of people died - were killed by - this deliberate action of the US Federal Government.

And then there were the mandates, the stuffing of ill people into nursing homes, which exposed a highly vulnerable population to contagion and death - another form of deliberate mass murder by governments at the state level. And the incessant propaganda and the psychopathic lying, which created mass formations of people, people who made the mistake of trusting governments and mainstream media, and that was a very useful result for later on, because large groups of scared people, because they could be herded right off of a cliff, to their destruction, and that was the point of this entire exercise…

The virus was created to drive demand for the proffered "vaccines". These so-called vaccines had the odd effects, unlike any other vaccines, of not preventing infection, and not stopping spread of the infection, and they have side effects, most of which have to do with reducing life expectancy, or killing outright (stillbirth, MI, stroke, PE) or in the short term. Another effect is sterilization - women have been made barren by this "vaccine". And these effects were actually known by the vaccine makers, which has come out in part, with the exposure of a Pfizer study from Japan by a whistleblower. And the pharma companies got some unique protection from the bad effects of their products, including injury and wrongful death, by Federal legislation which gives blanket and sweeping immunity from civil liability - even extending to medical malpractice, so you could get Hep C and AIDS along with your booster shot, and you can’t sue, unless you can prove with clear and convincing evidence that the person who gave you those diseases knew that that was happening, and intended it to happen - recklessness and negligence are protected by the blanket immunity.

Now, we have a problem that isn't much talked about - world population growth. Right now the population is 7.9 billion. With growth of just 1% per year - 79 million people - the world population doubles in 70/1 years - 70 years. That's the rule of 70 - see this:

Here’s another:

So that's about 16 billion people by 2092. Current predictions are 11 billion people by 2050, with current growth.

We have an economic system entirely dependent on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources, like the rare earth metal lithium, and there's a finite supply of these available. With every new person, an additional amount of energy from these sources is required to sustain life. Mechanized agriculture is pretty much a means for converting fossil fuel energy into food, and it's pretty efficient, but this entails, with exponential population growth, exponential growth in the use - and depletion - of a non-renewable resource of which there is a finite amount. And this means that there is a hard limit to growth. We could get to the point where it takes a barrel of oil's energy to recover a barrel of oil, and beyond that point, there's no use to the exercise.


And globalist corporatism - which is what the WEF represents and advocates for - is a *huge* user of fossil fuels - oil to run cargo ships, military equipment, avgas for aircraft, and so on, not to mention mechanized agriculture. So there's this hard limit, and the rush towards it is driven by population - even without growth, with the kind of economic growth the WEF looks for to remain profitable, fossil fuels are predicted to be depleted by 2050. That's 28 years out, and that means the end of mechanized agriculture - and globalism. So they're looking at that probability right in front of them.

Various people have done calculations, and most of them come up with the figure of about 2 billion - the population in 1950 - as being a sustainable population. 7.9 billion - 2.0 billion = 5.9 billion people that are "off the island"... Now, if you offer people an injection that will result in their death - or radically foreshortened life expectancy, and the sterilization of their wives and children, chances are they won't take it. But if the injection is the answer to a fearsome pandemic where people go to hospitals and die horribly, they will gladly take it - and urge it on others, if they think they will be protected. So, in a short time, the globalists' problem is solved. And corporations never let mass murder get in the way of profits, growth, or, frankly, continued enjoyment of a certain lifestyle...

But there’s a way to continue to live, and get back to a better normal, the old normal, the normal that was the rule before globalization took over. Globalization has similar effects the world over - the effects in the US are the same as seen in Ladakh:

”From my 40 years of experience working in both industrialized and land-based cultures, I believe the primary reason is globalization. When I say globalization, I mean the global economic system in which most of us now live – a system driven by continual corporate deregulation and shaped by neoliberal, capitalist ideologies. But globalization goes deeper than politics and the economy. It has profoundly personal impacts.

Under globalization, competition has increased dramatically, job security has become a thing of the past, and most people find it increasingly difficult to earn a livable wage. At the same time, identity is under threat as cultural diversity is replaced by a consumer monoculture worldwide. Under these conditions it’s not surprising that people become increasingly insecure. As advertisers know from nearly a century of experience, insecurity leaves people easier to exploit. But people today are targeted by more than just marketing campaigns for deodorants and tooth polish: insecurity leaves them highly vulnerable to propaganda that encourages them to blame the cultural “other” for their plight.

Let me illustrate how this happened in Ladakh, or Little Tibet, where I first visited as a young woman and where I have worked for over four decades. Situated in the Indian Himalayas, Ladakh was relatively isolated – culturally and economically – until the late 1960s. When I arrived in the early 70s, a campaign of Western-style development had just been launched by the Indian government – giving me the opportunity to experience what still remained of the ancient culture, and to observe the changes that came with modernization.

In the old culture, work involved providing for the basic needs of the community—food, clothing, housing. Although there was little money, there was no evidence of the kind of poverty one sees all over the so-called ‘developing’ world — where people are hungry or malnourished, and have neither adequate shelter nor clean drinking water. In fact, throughout Ladakh I was told regularly: “We are tung-bos za-bos”, which means “we are self-sufficient, we have plenty to eat and drink”.

During my early years in Ladakh, a remarkable degree of social harmony was evident; particularly noteworthy was the fact that the Buddhist majority and Muslim minority lived peacefully side-by-side. Of course there were problems, as there are in all human societies, but the harmony and joie de vivre I encountered were vastly different to what I’d known growing up in Europe.

Within a decade, however, there was a terrifying shift away from the traditional harmony, as Buddhists and Muslims began seeing one another as enemies. Ethnic and religious differences began to take on a divisive political dimension, causing bitterness and enmity on a scale previously unknown. Young Ladakhis, for whom religion had been just another part of daily life, took exaggerated steps to demonstrate their religious affiliation and devotion. Muslims began requiring their young daughters to cover their heads with scarves. Buddhists in the capital began broadcasting their prayers over loudspeakers, so as to compete with the Muslim prayer call. Religious ceremonies once celebrated by the whole community – Buddhist and Muslim alike – became instead occasions to flaunt one’s wealth and strength. In 1989, tensions between the two groups exploded into violence that took several lives. I heard mild-mannered Buddhist grandmothers, who, a few years earlier were sipping tea with their Muslim neighbors and even celebrating each others’ religious festivals, declare: ”we have to kill the Muslims before they finish us off”.

Outsiders attributed the conflict to old ethnic tensions flaring, but any such tensions had never led to group violence in 600 years of recorded history. As someone who lived there and spoke Ladakhi fluently, I had a unique perspective as both an outsider and insider, and it was obvious to me that there was a connection between the economic changes wrought by development and the sudden appearance of violent conflict.

The most noticeable changes in the economy centered on food and farming.  Imported food, heavily subsidized by the Indian government, now sold at half the price of local products, making local agriculture seem “uneconomic”. Food self-reliance was steadily replaced by dependence on the global food system, and many Ladakhis – the vast majority of whom were farmers – began to wonder if there was a future for them.

Changes in education also had a huge impact. In the past, Ladakhi children learned the skills needed to survive, even to prosper, in this difficult environment: they learned to grow food, to tend for animals, to build houses from local resources. But in the new Westernized schools, children were instead provided skills appropriate for an urban life within a globalized economy – a way of life in which almost every need is imported. The new schools taught almost nothing about the Ladakhi way of life; instead children were implicitly taught to look down on the traditional culture.

The locus of political and economic power changed as well. Traditionally, the household was the center of the economy, with most of the larger decisions taken at a village level. With the arrival of the new economy, economic and political power became centralized in the capital city, Leh, leaving villagers out of decisions that deeply affected their lives. Meanwhile, young men were being pulled out of their villages into Leh in search of paid jobs. Suddenly cut off from their village community and in cutthroat competition with hundreds of others for scarce jobs, their once secure sense of identity was deeply eroded.

These changes were further amplified by an influx of foreign tourists, by the introduction of satellite television, and by a bombardment of advertising campaigns – all of which served to romanticize western, urban culture, making the Ladakhis feel backward and stupid by contrast.

It was clear to me that the arrival of the global economy had created a pervasive sense of insecurity and disempowerment. On a practical level, the Ladakhis were becoming dependent on far-off manufacturers and centralized bureaucracies instead of on each other. Psychologically, they had lost confidence in themselves and their culture. It is not hard to see how people who feel insecure and disempowered can turn to anger and extremism.

The speed and scale at which these changes took place in Ladakh was overwhelming, making the structural connection between globalization, insecurity and conflict very obvious. It was also clear that the same process is underway around the world: the economic system, I realized, has become a driver of fear, fundamentalism and political instability worldwide. And in both the global North and South, the enormous psychological and material insecurity fostered by globalization has greatly magnified the ability of demagogues to use fear and prejudice to manipulate public opinion.

To reverse this trend, neither a politics of identity, nor of conventional ‘left’ versus ‘right’ politics, is sufficient. Instead, we need to fundamentally change the structural economic forces at the root of the problem. Those forces have been unleashed by the deregulation of global banks and corporations, and reversing that process is our best hope for peace and stability.

In order to see how corporate deregulation has led to a breakdown of democracy, to increasing fundamentalism and violence, and to the rise of far-right political leaders, it is vitally important that we see the broader connections that mainstream analyses generally ignore.

Globalization & Insecurity

Many people, especially on the left, associate globalization with international collaboration, travel and the spread of humanitarian values. But at its core, globalization is an economicprocess – one that has been at the heart of neoliberal ideology and the corporate agenda since the end of Word War II. In the Global South, it’s referred to as ‘development’, in the global North, as progress. But in both North and South the fundamental process is the same: the deregulation, centralization and privatization of business, finance and politics.

These days, this is mainly accomplished through ‘free trade’ treaties that give corporate entities the freedom to move across the world in search of the cheapest labor, the least stringent health and environmental standards, the biggest tax breaks and the most generous subsidies. These treaties enable corporations to move operations – and consequently jobs – wherever they please. They even give them the right to sue governments over laws or regulations that threaten their potential profits – thus making a complete mockery of democracy. Locked into a system requiring constant global “growth”, communities have seen their local economies undermined, pulling them into dependence on a volatile corporate-led economy over which they have no control.

The trajectory of growing corporate power is not inevitable or natural, nor is it a consequence of supposed ‘efficiencies of scale’, as many assume it to be. Rather, it is the result of decades of policy choices by national governments as well as international bodies like the World Bank and the IMF, which deliberately support the big and the global in the belief that corporate growth is the pathway to peace and prosperity. Not only have global corporations and banks been allowed to take advantage of differences in labor, health, safety, and environmental standards across the globe, they have also been granted huge tax breaks and massive direct subsidies. Even more insidiously, the corporate system has been built on a range of indirect subsidies – largely for the infrastructure on which globalization depends. Global marketers like Wal-Mart, Amazon and Apple require a well-developed and constantly expanding transport network of seaports, railways, airports and mega-highways, as well as massive amounts of heavily subsidized fossil fuels for transport. To monitor their supply and delivery chains they also need advanced satellite communications technologies – something also required by global banks and financial institutions for moving capital around the world. In almost every country, educational systems have been shifted towards training students for the skills needed by the corporate world. All these mechanisms structurally favor big and global businesses over those that are localized or place-based, and most have been paid for not by the corporations themselves, but by the taxpayer.[1]

Even the global businesses that appear to have been ‘bootstrapped’ into existence by charismatic entrepreneurs owe much of their success to government largesse. As author Mariana Mazzucato argues, even the iPhone was less a product of Steve Jobs’ imagination than of publicly funded research by the US Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation.[2] And Elon Musk’s futuristic businesses have benefited not only from $5 billion in direct local, state and federal support, but from decades of research on, among other things, rocket technology.[3]

Job insecurity

As corporations have been freed up, the jobs they provide have become increasingly insecure. For example, under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the USA suffered a net loss of an estimated 700,000 jobs as manufacturers relocated to Mexico, where wages were cheaper and labor standards lower.[4] But globalization is an ongoing ‘race to the bottom’, so not all of those jobs stayed in Mexico: between October 2000 and December 2003 alone, Mexico lost 300,000 jobs because Chinese mass-produced exports to the United States were cheaper.[5] Overall, Mexico’s farmers were the biggest losers: highly subsidized agricultural products from the United States infiltrated their local markets, undermining the livelihoods of approximately 2.3 million small farmers.[6] Many of these farmers ended up in Mexico’s crowded cities, where they were forced to compete with one another for low-paying industrial jobs. With few viable options, many ended up migrating – legally or not – to the United States. These victims of globalization, ironically enough, often became the far right’s scapegoats for American job losses.

While the media has emphasized rising standards of living among industrial workers in the global South, the benefits for workers there are heavily outweighed by the benefits to the corporations that offshore their manufacturing operations. Of the price paid for an Apple iPhone, for example, less than 2% goes to the Chinese workers involved in its production, while 58% is captured by Apple as profit.[7]

It’s not only the disappearance of jobs that leads to stagnant or declining standards of living, but the threat that jobs can be easily taken elsewhere if workers don’t accept lower wages, longer hours or fewer benefits. In this way, the many multilateral and bilateral “free trade” treaties now in force serve to undercut workers’ bargaining power and depress wages even for the corporate jobs that haven’t been offshored.

Jobs are also lost as businesses are centralized and scaled up. When a global corporation – propped up by a range of tax breaks and subsidies – enters a new market, the local economy tends to experience a net loss of jobs, as smaller competitors that tend to be more dependent on human labor go out of business. Some studies have shown that every new supermarket in the UK entails a net loss of 276 jobs.[8] The online marketer Amazon has destroyed 150,000 more jobs than it has created, according to a report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.[9] Like other online retailers, Amazon has not only benefited from communications and transport infrastructures built at public expense, it has avoided collecting state and local sales tax from its US customers – sales tax revenues that states and localities desperately need – giving Amazon a price advantage of as much as 9.75% over main street businesses.[10]

At the same time, many jobs are being lost to advanced technology. The obvious example is in manufacturing, where robots have replaced a wide range of skilled workers, but technology is having a similar impact on agriculture. The global economy’s export-led markets demand huge amounts of standardized commodities; producing those foods on a large scale means monocultural production, which is heavily dependent on industrial machinery and chemical inputs, but requires only a relatively small agricultural labor force. As a result, there have been massive declines in livelihoods in the agricultural sector. In the EU, nearly 4 million farms with holdings under 10 hectares have disappeared in the last decade; today, just 3% of farms control more than 50% of total EU farmland.[11] In the US, the Census Bureau considers farmers such a demographically insignificant population that it no longer tracks their numbers, but it is estimated that there are now fewer farmers in America than there are people in prison.[12] As information technology becomes more sophisticated, jobs in many other sectors are being transferred away from people to computers. For now, poorly-paid manual work and highly-skilled positions are relatively protected from this trend, but technological advance is leaving everyone more insecure about their job.[13]

Political insecurity

Deregulation of corporations, including banks, has enabled a handful of giants to monopolize global markets. Some have grown bigger than nation states, both in terms of wealth and political influence. These multinationals have used their unprecedented power to lobby governments into still more economic deregulation, using mechanisms such as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in free trade treaties to sue governments and attack public-interest regulations.[14]

While ‘free trade’ gives big players the freedom to do as they please, it means quite the opposite – more regulation and restrictions – for smaller, nationally-based players. Governments have been lobbied by big business to constrain the activities of smaller businesses by locking them into unreasonable standards and convoluted bureaucracy. In many cases, an unfair burden falls on small-scale enterprises through regulations aimed at problems caused by large-scale production. Battery-style chicken farms, for example, clearly need significant environmental and health regulations: their millions of genetically-identical, closely confined animals are highly prone to disease, their tonnes of concentrated effluent need to be safely disposed of, and the long-distance transport of processed poultry entails the risk of spoilage. Yet a small producer – such as a farmer with a few dozen free-range chickens – is subject to essentially the same regulations, often raising costs to levels that make it impossible to remain in business. Large-scale producers can spread the cost of compliance over a far greater volume, making it appear that they enjoy ‘economies of scale’ over smaller producers.

At the same time, governments themselves have been impoverished by corporate deregulation. Their funds have been stretched by the heavy subsidies handed out to attract big business, and their revenues have been eroded by tax breaks, offshoring, and the ability of multinationals to hide profits in countries with lower tax rates. The deregulation of finance has left governments ever more indebted to global banks and corporations. At the same time, governments are left to cover all the externalities – the social and environmental problems that are the inevitable by-products of global growth.

Increasingly distanced from the institutions which make decisions that affect their lives, and insecure about their economic livelihoods, many people have become frustrated, angry, and disillusioned with the current political system. Although democratic systems worldwide have been hugely compromised by the de facto government of deregulated banks and corporations, most people blame government leaders at home. Because they don’t see the bigger picture, increasing numbers of people have grown susceptible to the false claims and empty promises of unconventional, authoritarian candidates, who are thereby able to gain a foothold in political arenas.

Psychological insecurity

As local, even national, economies are undermined, the fabric of interdependence that holds communities together begins to fray. This not only leads to social fragmentation and isolation, it also unravels the safety net ensuring that the surrounding community can be relied upon for help in times of hardship.

At the same time, the global consumer culture that supports corporate growth is relentlessly expanding. People all over the world are targeted with advertising messages telling them: “you are not good enough as you are, but you can improve yourself by buying our product.”

As face-to-face relationships deteriorate and real-life role models are replaced by distant, artificial images of perfection in mass media and in the hyperbolic world of social media, unhealthy comparison runs rife. These trends are associated with rising rates of disorders such as anorexia, anxiety, aggression and even suicide, while social isolation, domestic stress and increasing economic pressures have given rise to epidemics of depression and addiction.[15]

Left insecure and marginalized by the new economy, people can be highly vulnerable to prejudice. In the global South especially, the breakdown of communities and cultures is severing rich intergenerational relationships and uprooting identities, often replacing them with unhealthy alternatives that reflect a desperate need for belonging. Ideological fundamentalism and extremism seem to offer an explanation for worsening social and personal ills, as well as a radical solution. It can provide personal validation and meaning, solidarity and a sense of community – all essential human needs that have been undermined by globalization.

The uprooting of land-based populations – a dramatic and visible trend in the countries of the global South – has been the driver of much of the ethnic conflict, fundamentalism and radicalism in that part of the world. In the global North, rural areas have been similarly hollowed out by global economic forces. Small family farms tied to the global food economy are caught between the rising prices charged by the agribusinesses that sell them inputs and equipment, and the falling prices paid by those that purchase their production. They simply cannot compete with heavily subsidized export-led agribusinesses, and their steady demise has decimated the local economies and communities they once supported. Young people who have grown up in these rural areas often see no future for themselves there: not only are jobs scarce, but – just as in Ladakh – the media and advertising tell them that urban life is ‘cool’, glamorous and exciting by contrast.” https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-06-21/localization-a-strategic-alternative-to-globalized-authoritarianism/