Killing Granny
Book by David A. Hughes: “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy - Interactive Book Summary
I hadn’t come across Hughes before, so thanks to Rancourt for the introduction.
David Hughes has written a wonderful book, freely available titled “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy
“Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy : Volume 1 | SpringerLink
The purpose of this article is to promote the book, and sprinkle in some of my reflections.
It made me think of one of my most read articles from Nov 2021.
Is this a War? - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
That’s really what war is about, territory. You have something that I want, and I will fight you for it.
So, if this is a war, who are the warring parties and what is the fight over?
The war is between “the state” and “the citizen”. The latter is YOU and ME and it’s easy enough to understand (sort of), but THE STATE is not straightforward anymore and I’ll cover that later.
The border between these two parties is being redrawn. The relationship between the State and the Citizen is being RESET.
When you hear about The Great Reset, that is what “Reset” really means.
I’m glad Hughes dedicates some time to “Killing Granny”, which I think was arguably the most effective information warfare strategy of all. It works in so many ways and directions. I struggle to remember anyone who wasn’t captured and/or effected by some aspect of this strategy.
Killing Granny
In ritual abuse, it is not only fear for one’s own life that is effective in inducing trauma, but also the victim’s conviction that they have harmed or killed someone else, especially a loved one: “States of despair, self-hatred, paranoia, and global distrust of humanity are also effective. These are induced through [inter alia] forcing the child to hurt or kill others” (Lacter, 2007). Victims may find that their memories return “in layers,” from being made to believe that they were guilty for a child’s punishment/suffering, to “seeing people hurt or even killed,” to “realizing that they [themselves] participated in the sacrifices” (Thomas, 2007, pp. 21, 50). Actual murder/sacrifice, however, is not necessarily required. In some instances, Lacter (2011) notes, “victims are tricked into believing that the murders are actual to terrorize them.”
As part of the “Covid-19” operation, Britons were traumatised into believing that they could be responsible for killing other people if they did not do as they were told. On March 22, 2020, for example, London mayor Sadiq Khan announced: “more will die unless people stay at home” (Williams, 2020). A terrifying propaganda campaign was launched. New Government/NHS “advertisements” appeared in the British media with messages such as “IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE” and “DON’T MEET UP WITH MATES. HANGING OUT IN PARKS COULD KILL.”
The “ANYONE CAN GET IT. ANYONE CAN SPREAD IT” posters from late March/early April 2020 utilise a range of different backgrounds and target young people in particular, e.g. young men socialising, or a girl hugging her grandmother. They all include an arrow pointing to one of the figures and the phrase “HAS MILD CORONAVIRUS. HASN’T NOTICED.” The implication is that a young person with no symptoms of disease might be responsible for killing their elderly relatives—an effective means of traumatising young people.
On May 5, 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care put out a short video showing four young people socialising. Sinister text and an arrow point to the person on the left: “HAS MILD CORONAVIRUS, HASN’T NOTICED.” The camera then pans to the next person and more sinister text appears: “LIVES WITH HIS LITTLE SISTER,” “PASSES IT TO HIS LITTLE SISTER,” “SISTER ENDS UP IN HOSPITAL.” The clip ends with a shot of the sister in hospital wearing an oxygen mask. The subtext is that absolute obedience to authority—to the point of renouncing one’s in-person friendships—is required to avoid the trauma of doing harm to children/relatives.
Health Secretary Hancock on September 8, 2020, told university students not to “kill your gran” by helping to spread coronavirus (Smyth & Bennett, 2020). On September 22, 2020, the Prime Minister told the nation in a televised address, “The tragic reality of having Covid is that your mild cough can be someone else’s death knell” (Prime Minister’s Office, 2020). On November 26, 2020, the Chief Medical Officer claimed: “Would I say people should hug and kiss their elderly relatives? No I would not. They want to survive to get hugged again” (cited in Davidson, 2020). Independent SAGE’s Gabriel Scally told Good Morning Britain on November 19, 2020, “There is no point in having a very merry Christmas and then burying friends and relations in January and February” (cited in Walker, 2020).
On December 15, 2020, BBC Newsbeat (aimed at young people) warned students not to return home for Christmas, reminding them, “Don’t hug your Nan at Christmas and then bury her in January” (Pandey, 2020). The same day, Margaret Greenwood, MP, wrote,
We cannot underestimate the profound psychological impact that it would have on a child to go to school, come home with Covid-19 and infect a family member and for that family member to then die. Loss in childhood is devastating; for a child to feel that it was their fault would be traumatic in the extreme. (Greenwood, 2020)
On New Year’s Eve, UCL Professor Hugh Montgomery, who directs two companies (Turbinate Technologies Ltd. and Panthair Ltd.) that supply PPE including face masks, told the BBC: “People who do not follow social distancing rules or wear masks […] have blood on their hands […] They are spreading this virus […] They won’t know they have killed people but they have” (“Covid rule-breakers ‘have blood on their hands,’” 2020).
In January 2021, the UK Government and NHS unleashed a new volley of sinister posters using the same reddish yellow filter as the ones from March 2020. They all made the demonstrably false (Fenton et al., 2021) claim that “around 1 in 3 people with coronavirus don’t have any symptoms.” Their headline claims were: “A STEP TOO CLOSE COULD BE A STEP TOO FAR,” “CORONAVIRUS TAKES THE TRAIN TOO,” “EXERCISE SAFELY DON’T RUN THE RISK,” “DON’T LET A COFFEE COST LIVES,” “DON’T HELP THE VIRUS SPREAD,” and “CATCH-UPS COST LIVES.” As with the March 2020 propaganda, the idea is that everyday activities such as going to the supermarket, travelling by train, exercising in the park, going to a coffee shop, and meeting up with friends can kill other people. A 30-second government radio advertisement from January 2021, contained the line “If you bend the rules, people will die.” The Cabinet Office agreed not to repeat that claim after being reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority (Rumsby, 2021), but the damage had already been done.
This from Sept 2022
Bob Moran - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)
Part of the point of that was the risk isn't very different to the risk they've always lived with, but grandparents and elderly people want to see their families, they want to see their grandchildren. That's what matters to them, not longevity.
And so, absolutely, that risk is worth taking.
And we've all taken it for hundreds of years. And we're all still here. If we'd obsessively tested and attributed death to these things and recorded it, we're probably all guilty of murder somewhere along the line, we’ve probably all given something to someone who killed someone else. And we didn't make children feel guilty about it.
We didn't say that was an unacceptable level of risk because we knew that to address it, to try and eradicate it would be to destroy the things that matter and basically create an insane society.
The most disgusting part of the Killing Granny strategy was to turn children into Human Shields.
This I wrote in Jan 2022.
"Vaccinated" children as human shields: A Saddam Hussein Story
Are there it was, the entitlement, it managed to surface in this most reasonable of people.
His generation had grown up with free, well-funded, public schooling, free university, affordable housing, and plenty of job prospects and once they got to retirement believed that there was no duty nor moral need to further contribute into the system. Even though they would drive on the roads, call the police when necessary, go to a hospital when necessary and generally participate in society for the next 20-30 years but believed that they didn’t need to make any contribution into that system. So, who would make the contribution, well the kids obviously.
This generational entitlement manifests in a form of theft. A generation that has used the power of the state to take from the young for its own benefit.
Where is the loud lobby of older Australians out in force arguing for a complete stoppage to the child jab campaign? How many grandparents have you come across screaming at their kids “Don’t you dare inject my grandchild!!”. Crickets.
Now, let’s talk about “the afraid” a bit. Well certainly the baby boomers are terrified, why wouldn’t they be, it’s pretty much certain death if they get the virus, isn’t it?
That terror has co-opted their kids into this “human shield building entity”. The kids, the 30-50 year old’s now want to “protect grandma” and they will do whatever it takes to protect grandma. The one-two of the baby boomers and their kids are the primary source energy of this zeitgeist, this entity as I call it. You might argue that the kids of the baby boomers (Gen X I think) are volunteering as human shields for their parents, sure, whatever. But you don’t get to “volunteer” your 5 year old as a human shield for grandma.
With all that said, and my reflections out of the way, let’s now look at 25 Q&As of my Interactive Book Summary of Hughes’s great book.
Interactive Book Summary
1. Q: What is the main argument presented regarding the goals and methods of the global ruling class?
A: The main argument is that the global ruling class is waging an undeclared war against humanity to install a system of global technocracy, which threatens to lead to the irreversible enslavement of humanity. They are using novel methods of Omniwar, including psychological warfare, to weaken resistance to the intended transition to technocracy.
2. Q: How does the author characterize the "Covid-19 operation" and its role in advancing the agenda of the ruling class?
A: The author characterizes the "Covid-19 operation" as the opening campaign of World War III, involving the largest psychological warfare operation in history. It was intended to demoralize, disorient, and debilitate the public, thus weakening its resistance to the intended transition to technocracy.
3. Q: What historical examples are provided to illustrate the concept of "permanent counterrevolution"?
A: The author cites examples such as the crushing of the Paris Commune in 1871, the suppression of the socialist labor movement through World War I, the intervention against the Red Army after the October Revolution, and the suppression of revolutionary activity in the "Third World" during the Cold War.
4. Q: How does the author define and describe the concept of "technocracy"?
A: The author defines technocracy as a centrally managed system based on energy rather than money, where technocrats control everyone and everything. It is described as hostile to human freedom, with the Technate owning all property and controlling all aspects of life, including education and career paths.
5. Q: What role does China play in the development and implementation of technocracy, according to the author?
A: The author argues that China, with the support of Western elites like the Rockefellers and various technology transfers, has become the world's first Technate or full-blown Technocracy. With proof of concept established in China, the aim is now to roll out technocracy in the West.
6. Q: How does the author define "World War III" and how does it differ from previous world wars?
A: The author defines World War III as the global class war, waged by the transnational deep state against populations using the novel methods of Omniwar. Unlike previous world wars, it is undeclared and waged clandestinely, so that the public does not recognize it as such.
7. Q: What is "Omniwar" and how is it being waged against the population?
A: Omniwar is war waged across every domain, but clandestinely, so that the public does not recognize it as such. It includes information warfare, neurological warfare, biological warfare, economic warfare, psychological warfare, and the weaponization of all aspects of the environment, food supply, and even the human genome.
8. Q: What is the significance of the "Covid-19 operation" within the context of Omniwar?
A: The "Covid-19 operation" served as a psychological warfare operation to demoralize, disorient, and debilitate the public, weakening its resistance to the intended transition to technocracy. Historically, psychological warfare has served as a prelude to physical war, raising the alarm about what is to come.
9. Q: How were shock and stress tactics used during the "Covid-19 operation" to manipulate the population?
A: Shock and stress tactics were used through the sudden imposition of lockdowns, disruption of behavioral patterns, isolation, defamiliarization, and implantation of trigger words and images. These tactics were designed to induce a state of mass psychosis and make the population more susceptible to manipulation.
10. Q: What is the connection between trauma-based mind control and the techniques used during the "Covid-19 operation"?
A: The author argues that techniques similar to those used in trauma-based mind control, such as psychological torture, intentional traumatization, and false rescue, were carried out against the public during the "Covid-19 operation." These techniques aimed to make the public feel powerless and dependent on their abusers for survival.
“Covid-19” as Mass Trauma Event
The “Covid-19 pandemic” was a mass trauma event. According to the British Psychological Society (2020), “There is global acknowledgment that society has suffered a collective trauma, experienced mass confusion, heightened anxiety, and increased depression both physical and financial.” NHS England’s clinical director for mental health told a Parliamentary committee in May 2020 that the “demand for mental healthcare would increase ‘significantly’ once the lockdown ended and would see people needing treatment for trauma for years to come” (cited in Schwab & Malleret, 2020, p. 92).
As with any traumatic event, a profound sense of unreality set in for many people after March 2020, expressible in the sentiment “this cannot be happening.” For example, Stephanie Seneff, co-author of an important peer-reviewed journal article warning of the potential dangers of the “Covid-19 vaccines” (Seneff & Nigh, 2021), opines: “I still feel like I’m in a surreal time. I just can’t quite understand that this is actually taking place. It doesn’t make sense to me” (Mercola & Seneff, 2021).
A key theme of ritual abuse is that the human mind is most susceptible to programming when traumatised by the fear of imminent death: “Torture involving states of extreme pain and terror, to the point of near-death, is required to install mind control programming” (Lacter, 2007). In the “Covid-19” context, military-grade propaganda about a “deadly virus” (see Chap. 4) was enough to make many people fear for their lives, with some believing they could die if they passed within six feet of another person.
For traumatised people, the world no longer feels like a safe place. In 2020, “very banal decisions,” such as whether to go out in public, became “tainted with a sense of dread” (Schwab & Malleret, 2020, p. 159). This was true, not only for those traumatised by the propaganda about death and disease, but also for nonconformists who risked encountering fear-driven hysteria on the part of mask wearers (see Chap. 6). Kidd and Ratcliffe (2020) observe that the world is “no longer homely in the way it once was” and is instead “suffused with an air of dread,” the physical public sphere becoming “a place where many fear to tread.”
11. Q: How were fear and threat used to exaggerate the danger of "Covid-19" and maintain control over the population?
A: Fear and threat were used through military-grade propaganda, emanating from governments and the media, involving a barrage of terrifying images, messages, and "alert levels." The BBC played a particularly culpable role in spreading fear. Death statistics were manipulated, and propaganda about hospitals being overwhelmed by "Covid-19" admissions camouflaged a sinister attack on public health. The primary purpose of face masks and PCR tests was to spread fear.
12. Q: What techniques were employed to create confusion and cognitive dissonance among the public during the "Covid-19 operation"?
A: Techniques such as proliferation of nonsensical and ever-changing rules, last-minute government U-turns, unpredictability of restrictions, fundamental irrationality in government behavior, verbal confusion, mixed messaging, continuous questioning by the media, and damage to the meaning of words were employed to create confusion and cognitive dissonance among the public.
13. Q: How does the author characterize the concept of the "Big Lie" and its role in totalitarian regimes?
A: The author characterizes the "Big Lie" as a lie so huge that ordinary people would not imagine it to be possible. In totalitarian regimes, "gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods" are established as unquestioned facts, with the masses organized to believe them through powerful propaganda.
14. Q: What evidence does the author present to question the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and the validity of the "Covid-19 pandemic"?
A: The author argues that the scientific evidence for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is weak, resting on cytopathic tests where the cause of cell degeneration is unproven, gene sequencing where it is unclear that the assembled genome corresponds to anything in nature, and electron microscope images that do not necessarily show infectious virus particles. The author also points to the disappearance of influenza during the "Covid-19 pandemic" and suggests that "Covid-19" may have been influenza rebranded.
15. Q: How does the author argue that the "Covid-19 vaccines" are military products rather than pharmaceutical ones?
A: The author presents evidence that the "Covid-19 vaccines" are legally classified as military products in the United States, evading normal commercial and clinical rules and procedures. The development and rollout of the vaccines were controlled by the military under Operation Warp Speed, and there are serious questions about the actual manufacturing process and contents of the vaccines.
16. Q: What role did mass paranoia and hysteria play in turning society against itself during the "Covid-19 operation"?
A: Mass paranoia and hysteria were inculcated through the lie that "anyone can spread it," leading to a global distrust of others. The public was encouraged to police one another, with face masks serving as visible symbols of compliance and segregation. Dissenters were scapegoated, and a new form of hate speech emerged targeting "anti-maskers," "anti-vaxxers," and the "unvaccinated."
17. Q: How were dissenters and the "unvaccinated" scapegoated and targeted during the "Covid-19 operation"?
A: Dissenters and the "unvaccinated" were blamed for prolonging lockdowns and spreading new variants. They were subjected to various forms of discrimination, including vaccine passports, restrictions on freedom of movement, and denial of access to public spaces and services. The media engaged in coordinated hate campaigns against the "unvaccinated," and political leaders openly expressed hostility towards them.
Snitching
Totalitarian societies get the citizenry to police itself: “each citizen is continually watched […] His neighbors watch him, his postman, his children, and they all represent the punishing state, just as he himself must represent the state and watch others. Not betraying them is a crime” (Meerloo, 1956, p. 121). With everyone a potential asymptomatic killer under “Covid-19” propaganda, citizens were similarly “enlisted in policing and punishing each other, adding an extra layer of division and fear between members of populations” and corroding popular resistance to abuses of power (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022).
In March 2020, SPI-B (2020a, p. 2) was already proposing strategies for getting community members to police one another: “Communication strategies should provide social approval for desired behaviours and promote social approval within the community”; conversely, “social disapproval from one’s community can play an important role in preventing anti-social behaviour or discouraging failure to enact pro-social behaviour.” Legislation, “with community involvement,” should be used to “compel key social distancing measures” (SPI-B, 2020a, p. 2). This came with the caveat that such measures need to be “carefully managed to avoid victimisation [and] scapegoating,” but the door to scapegoating was nevertheless opened.
British Home Secretary Priti Patel claimed in September 2020 that she would “call the police” if her neighbours broke the “rule of six,” thus giving the green light for the public to do the same (Heffer, 2020). Three weeks later, “Covid marshals” were introduced (Aitken, 2020). The fact that “Covid marshals” had no legal power to enforce any rules was beside the point: their psychological function was to create the impression of a society that must police itself, as well as to “impress pretended central authority upon local people and structures” (Thomson, 2020). Nazi Germany “institutionalized rewards for children spying on and informing against parents” (Zimbardo, 2005, p. 133); in January 2021, a Telegraph headline read: “Children can be used as undercover spies to report on parents,” according to a covert intelligence bill (Hymas, 2021). By December 2020, the enforcement mechanisms were clear: as psychiatrist Mark McDonald observes, “It’s actually coming from us, our parents, our children, our neighbors; it’s coming from businesses, corporations” (cited in Tapscott, 2020).
The enforcement was driven, not out of ideological conviction, but by fear. It was carried out in myriad small ways, not by ideological fanatics, but by ordinary people seeking to avoid ostracism and punishment (Hopkins, 2021c). Ostracism activates the same pain centres as physical pain and can be “one of the most aversive experiences for human beings” (Kyrie & Broudy, 2022). It can therefore be used as a deterrent against dissent and opposition, because most people prefer the comparative safety of belonging to the ingroup (hence the metaphor of “following the herd”).
Fear of being accused promotes conformity and the betrayal of once close relationships (Meerloo, 1956, pp. 131, 103). In totalitarian societies, Hopkins observes, “It isn’t usually the Gestapo that comes for you. It’s usually your friends and colleagues” (2021a). This was certainly witnessed in the “Covid-19” era, with nonconformists unexpectedly, and to their horror, finding themselves discriminated against by those whom they had known their whole lives. Academics who spoke out against the “Covid-19” narrative were discriminated against by their own colleagues, as cases from Yale, NYU, and Stanford illustrate (Abaluck et al., 2020; Miller, 2020; Bhattacharya, 2023).
History teaches that “Institutionalized spying by friends, family, and neighbors” destroys social bonds and relations of trust, creating socially atomized ‘locked loneliness’” (Zimbardo, 2005, p. 134). In totalitarian societies where merit is gauged by denunciation of comrades, it follows that most people will keep to themselves for fear of being accused, creating an “atomized and individualized society” (Arendt, 1962, p. 323). This, surely, was a key purpose of the “lockdowns,” i.e. to atomise society and make people fearful of one another. An atomised society is unable to unite against the predator class that holds it in subjugation.
18. Q: What does the author argue is the true nature and purpose of the "Covid-19 vaccines"?
A: The author argues that the "Covid-19 vaccines" are not really vaccines but rather military technologies intended to connect human bodies to a technocratic control grid. The author points to evidence of undisclosed ingredients in the vaccines, including self-assembling nanotechnologies, and suggests that they may be designed for purposes of surveillance, manipulation, and even remote-controlled assassination.
19. Q: How does the author describe the potential for weaponized neurotechnology and its implications for human freedom?
A: The author describes the potential for weaponized neurotechnology to enable surveillance of human bodies down to the level of thought patterns, as well as the potential for external manipulation and control of human behavior. If connected to a technocratic control grid, this technology could lead to the total enslavement of humanity, with dissidents targeted for elimination or torture via remote means.
20. Q: What evidence does the author present to suggest that the "Covid-19 operation" was planned well in advance?
A: The author points to a timeline involving the years 2020, 2025, and 2030 that was framed as early as 2001 in a NASA report on "Future Warfare." The report anticipated an "IT/Bio/Nano" warfare paradigm emerging around 2020, accompanied by serious psychological warfare. The author also cites pandemic preparedness exercises dating back to at least 2001 and the suspicious nature of the rapid development and rollout of mRNA vaccines.
21. Q: How does the author characterize the desperate nature of the ruling class's actions and the potential for revolution?
A: The author argues that the "Covid-19 operation" was a sign of desperation by the ruling class, which has been forced to accelerate its plans in response to the crisis of capitalism and the growing threat of social unrest. The author suggests that this desperation could lead to mistakes and internal conflicts that undermine the ruling class's agenda, creating the potential for a revolutionary situation.
22. Q: What role does the conflict in Ukraine play in the ruling class's "Plan B" after the "Covid-19 operation"?
A: The author argues that the conflict in Ukraine represents a "Plan B" for the ruling class after the failure of the "Covid-19 operation" to achieve its goals. The conflict is being used to further economic warfare against Western populations through inflation and the cost-of-living crisis while maintaining a state of perpetual psychological warfare and distraction from the true nature of the technocratic agenda.
23. Q: How does the author envision the potential for worldwide revolution against the ruling class and the system of technocracy?
A: The author argues that as class consciousness rises and more people become aware of the undeclared war being waged against them, the potential for worldwide revolution grows. The author envisions a decentralized, non-violent mass movement based on non-compliance and civil disobedience, with the goal of defeating the key actors and organizations behind the technocratic agenda.
24. Q: What historical parallels does the author draw between the current situation and previous instances of totalitarianism and resistance?
A: The author draws parallels between the current situation and the rise of totalitarianism in Nazi Germany, as well as the forms of resistance that emerged in response. The author also points to the social explosions that followed World War I and World War II as examples of how war can lead to revolutionary upheavals.
25. Q: What does the author argue is necessary for the population to resist and defeat the ruling class's agenda of technocratic enslavement?
A: The author argues that mass non-compliance and civil disobedience are necessary to render the technocratic agenda unenforceable. This includes actions such as rejecting smart technologies and surveillance systems, as well as organized resistance to measures such as vaccine passports and central bank digital currencies. The author also stresses the importance of holding collaborators accountable and creating a new social order based on human freedom and dignity.
Trauma Bonding
Trauma bonding can arise in situations where victims come to identify viscerally with their abusers and will go to great lengths to defend them. “Bettelheim syndrome,” for instance, describes “those [Nazi] concentration camp inmates who coped psychologically with their traumatic environment by identifying with their guards in hopes of survival” (Mega et al., 2000, p. 262). Even under less extreme conditions, trauma bonding is a “recognised psychosocial process whereby forced isolation, anxiety, physical threat, and other forms of stressful conditions can lead to social bonding between jailers and prisoners or captors and hostages” (Adler, 2010, p. 227).
It is not difficult to recognise such conditions in the “Covid-19” operation (see Chaps. 2 and 4). The result has been trauma bonding on a society-wide scale, with many people refusing to countenance the idea that they are the victims of serious psychological abuse carried out by the very authorities who are meant to protect them.
There has been a tendency among commentators on “Covid-19” to defend governments, typically attributing the catastrophic harm caused by government policies to incompetence rather than malice (Hanlon’s razor). According to Ponsonby (2020), for instance, “The sheer number of U-turns of late suggest a government constantly at the mercy of events where changes take place because the initial stances have not been thought through.” According to Canadian pathologist Roger Hodkinson, “There’s no big conspiracy here; it’s like the Americans say: never let a good crisis go to waste”; “SARS-CoV-2” was probably released accidentally from the Wuhan lab, whereupon bad people tried to capitalise on the situation (in Allen, 2021). Alting von Geusau (2021) refers to “mostly well-meant yet often ill-advised government-imposed Corona measures.”
In reality, the “Covid-19” operation represents a premeditated, meticulously, and maliciously orchestrated attack on the minds and bodies of the public that was enacted in coordinated fashion by governments around the world. “Millions of lives have been lost,” Kingston (2022) notes, “not due to a virus, but due to COVID-19 government policies and medical countermeasures.” The diabolical actions taken were not mere accidents or mistakes. They were crimes, including preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental milestones, forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their families, and pushing millions of people into poverty and starvation (Gutentag, 2021). As Gerrish (2021) understands, nothing was accidental: “What we are facing is calculated, and it’s a mistake to call it ‘madness,’ because it’s very precise; it’s very calculated. We need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we’re facing.” Scott (2022) realises that “there are real perpetrators from within our own government and external parties wishing to do us harm.”
This is not merely a matter of opinion. On July 15, 2020, a 188-page report was published by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Office for National Statistics, the Government Actuary’s Department, and the Home Office (2020). “When morbidity is taken into account,” the report states on p. 2, “the estimates for the health impacts from a lockdown and lockdown induced recession are greater in terms of QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) than the direct COVID-19 deaths,” as is shown in Fig. 1 of the report. In other words, the UK Government knew that “lockdowns” would prove more harmful than “Covid-19,” yet it kept the population under near-continual “lockdown” until July 19, 2021.
The flimsy excuse given in the report is that, without mitigations, “up to 1.5 m direct COVID-19 deaths” would occur (p. 2). As evidence of this, the report cites the “‘Unmitigated RWC [reasonable worst case]’ (31st March) scenario,” described in its Annex G as “a scenario provided to SAGE,” however, no reference is provided. Documents for SAGE’s March 31, 2020, meeting include a “Reasonable worst-case planning scenario, 29 March 2020” (the “31st March” designation is inaccurate and sloppy). That document places the “number of direct Covid-19 deaths in a first wave” (March 30–September 2020) at 50,000, and the “number of cases requiring hospitalisation” at 260,000 (Cabinet Office, 2020, p. 2). This is for a six-month period, rather than the 12-month period used in the DHSC/ONS/GAD/HO report, whose Annex G shows 504,000 (not 1.5 million) deaths arising from the unmitigated “direct impact from Covid” and 1.1 million deaths attributable to “insufficient critical care beds.” The numbers in the two documents cannot be reconciled, meaning that the 1.5 million figure appears to have been plucked out of thin air. The 504,000 unmitigated direct “Covid-19” deaths figure, meanwhile, comes close to the widely ridiculed 510,000 deaths in Ferguson et al. (2020, p. 7), and the tactic of abusing modelling to create a hyperbolic threat to push through unjustifiable policies (see Chap. 4) is the same.
Doctors for COVID Ethics (2023, pp. 183–184) concludes with respect to the “vaccine” rollout:
It is no longer possible to construe the actions of the authorities as “honest mistakes.” [..,] The rushed approval without necessity, the outright threats and the coercion, the systematic censorship of honest science, and the suppression of the truth about the numerous killed or severely injured vaccine victims have all gone on for far too long to permit any doubts as to intent and purpose. Our governments and the national and international administrative bodies are waging an undeclared war on all of us.
This is in keeping with the Omniwar concept explicated in Chap. 1. Margaret Anna Alice’s “Anthem for Justice” (2023) makes crystal clear that “mistakes were not made.”
Thank You for Being Part of Our Community
Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.
Discover Our Free Libraries:
Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.
Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.
Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:
I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.
Resources for the Community:
For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.
Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.
Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.
Crisis in the International Monetary and Financial System
"The acute crisis of capitalism in 2019 was also reflected in warning signs regarding the international monetary and financial system (IMFS). In May 2019, the yield curve on U.S. treasuries inverted, historically a harbinger of recession (Jones, 2019).
The S&P price/earnings ratio in 2019 was the second highest of all time, even higher than in 1929 and 2007, again indicative of a coming recession (Bourbon Financial Management, 2019). CEOs obviously knew that trouble lay ahead, with record numbers resigning (Atkinson, 2019).
This was not to be just any recession, however. This was, potentially, to be a system-destroying recession (Wolff, 2021). The storm clouds had been gathering for some time, viz. the Long-Term Capital Management crisis (1998), the “global” financial crisis of 2007/8 (more accurately described as a crisis of the “Atlantic banking community” [Nesvetailova & Palan, 2008]), and the Eurozone debt crisis. First, the banks had to bail out a hedge fund; then, the public had to bail out the banks; then, sovereign nation-states went bankrupt. Since 2008, the system had been on artificial life support in the form of “quantitative easing” plus near-0% interest rates. The next major crisis always had the potential to prove fatal (Wolff, 2021).
The erstwhile Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, warned at a meeting of the world’s most senior figures in international finance in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in August 2019 that “the deficiencies of the IMFS have become increasingly potent. Even a passing acquaintance with monetary history suggests that this centre won’t hold” (Carney, 2019).
The previous week, BlackRock had published a seminal report arguing that conventional monetary and fiscal policies will not be enough to deal with the next economic downturn (BlackRock, 2019). The report proposes completely remaking the financial system based on the idea of “going direct,” i.e. abolishing the split-circuit system that keeps central bank reserves and retail money separate (as is necessary for a democratic system of “no taxation without representation”) and instead establishing a direct connection between central banks and individuals’ private accounts.
This is what the drive towards central bank digital currencies (CBDC, cf. Strohecker, 2023) is all about, with the public having been primed for the rollout of digital currency via the cryptocurrency mania of the 2010s (the crucial difference being that CBDC will be centralised rather than decentralised). If implemented, central banks will be able to freeze individuals’ bank accounts, or take money out of them, or impose conditions on the way that “money” (just a voucher system by this point) is spent, and no financial transaction anymore will be private (Davis, 2023). Put bluntly, it is a system of financial enslavement, more “direct” than “debt slavery.” Dissidents will be financially outcast, as already indicated by the abortive move to freeze Canadian truckers’ bank accounts and those of their supporters in January 2022.
On September 17, 2019, a crisis in the U.S. repo market saw the secured overnight lending rate briefly hit 10% (vs. its prior 2019 rate of 2–3%), prompting the Federal Reserve to step in and provide additional liquidity. As Titus (2021) demonstrates based on Federal Reserve activity, this was the moment when the decision was made to put the “Going Direct” plan into action, and with it the entire manufactured “Covid-19” crisis: “It’s easy if not trivial to look at a timeline of monetary events and see that the official monetary response to the ‘coronavirus pandemic’ went into effect before there even was a pandemic.”
- David A. Hughes, "COVID-19", Psychological Operations and the War for Technocracy" (Pages 11-12)
Diabolical. The cabal were telling people "you're killing granny" when indeed it was they themselves who were killing granny. Midazolam, isolation, starvation. All the nursing home deaths were murder most foul. And what is most disturbing to me is that the evil schemers were not the ones keeping the elderly in isolation, were not the ones denying access to early treatment, etc. That was all done by your average Joe and Jane. I just can't wrap my mind around it. Still.