(10-24-2023, 08:29 PM)EndtheMadnessNow Wrote: ...I smacked my screen when that woman speaker replied.

Quote:The “Covid Inquiry” is just more propaganda by Kit Knightly

The British government has been holding a “Covid Inquiry” for several weeks, they are apparently on “Module 5” now. Hours of footage livestreamed to the handful of people who can be bothered to listen, picking apart Boris Johnson’s Whatsapp messages.

We haven’t mentioned it before now because…well, there’s no point.

We know what it’s going to find, the same thing this kind of navel-gazing show trial always finds:

• The government under-estimated and/or overreacted.
  
• There was a failure of imagination based on bad intelligence.
  
• A lack of accountability and oversight led to some minor abuses of power by people who will be censured, may be forced to resign, but will definitely never face any criminal trial.
  

Whatever they eventually find “officially” happened, you can be sure that corruption and malfeasance and personal profit played no part. Nobody ever acted in bad faith. Everything is always a well-intentioned accident. A minor display of over-zealous incompetence.

Oh. And here’s a scapegoat. What an idiot, right? Let’s make fun of him on Have I Got News for You this weekend, and then next year we’ll make him a lord.

That’s what inquiries are for. They tell stories and sell narratives. They tie up the loose ends and weave a pretense of accountability.

They rewrite history amid a theatrically contrived display of faux-cathartic self-examination which, in the end, only supports the mainstream narrative.

“Oh no! The intelligence was flawed!”
“Oh no! We never wargamed hijacked planes!”
“Oh no! We accidentally revitalized the heroin trade!”
“Oh no! We didn’t take the virus seriously enough at first and then we over-reacted!”

It’s always the same, and rarely worth talking about.

The reason I’m breaking that habit today is that I happened to see this headline…

Quote:The real Covid scandal is emerging right in front of the inquiry’s nose

And it irritated me. Firstly, with the pettiness of the subject, the narrowness of the focus. It’s picking gnat shit out of pepper, as the saying goes.

But, mostly, because it’s just such a lie. The story it’s selling is that Dominic Cummings wanted a lockdown, and he went against the experts who fought tooth and nail against it.

This is clearly about salvaging the tarnished reputation of “the science”, government experts and corrupt modelers so they can be redeployed in the future without any embarrassing baggage. It’s about piling all the blame on one disposable non-entity.

As I said, here’s a scapegoat…

The author, Fraser Nelson, tweeted it in these words:




As I said on Twitter: Government inquiries never “unwittingly” reveal anything. Like “leaked reports” and “anonymous insider sources”, they seed story beats that support the establishment narrative under a wafer thin veneer of “the story behind the story”.

This inquiry is just another strain of propaganda in the information war. A rear-guard action covering the Covid retreat.

The “real Covid scandal” has little and less to do with Dominic Cummings. The “real Covid scandal” is that the fake pandemic was orchestrated from the highest level in order to seize political power to an unprecedented extent.

Dominic Cummings is the smallest fraction of one percent of that story. He’s not the reason the UK had a lockdown. Just as he isn’t the reason France had a lockdown, or Germany, or Canada, or Russia, or China, or Brazil, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Italy, or Mexico, or Japan or…

…you get the idea.

“Lockdown” was not a mistake. It was a deliberate act of societal sabotage carried out on a global scale.

What the “Covid Inquiry” would have you believe is that an international wave of lockdowns was some kind of happenstance. An avalanche of coincidences. Dozens of ethnically diverse little Dominic Cummings clones, all making the exact same mistakes for the exact same reasons at the exact same time in almost every nation of the world.

What Covid really revealed – what the inquiry will never so much as hint at and what nobody in the mainstream wants us to talk about – is that some greater authority exists above almost all national governments, with both the desire and ability to dictate the domestic policies of almost every nation on Earth.

And spoiler alert: It’s not Dominic Cummings.

Quote:Biden DOJ Quietly Hires More Lawyers For Vaccine Injury Lawsuits

In January, the CDC was forced to reveal the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines (thanks to a FOIA request by Zachary Stieber of the Epoch Times), which painted an alarming picture. The analysis, spanning Dec. 14 2020 through July 29, 2022, revealed:

• There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.
  
• The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
  
• Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.
  
  

Read more on that here...

In April, the Biden administration rejected several demands for compensation from people who have been injured by the Covid-19 vaccine, despite the fact that injury reports have been on the rise - as evidenced by a February report by Florida Surgeon General Joseph Lapado over a 4,400% increase in life threatening conditions reported to in the state to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since the 2021 rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.


Meanwhile, several lawsuits have been filed against the Biden administration by vaccine-injured individuals over worldwide vaccine contracts that indemnified drugmakers from litigation, as well as for censorship surrounding the big tech crackdown on people sharing their experiences after receiving Covid-19 vaccines.

DOJ Hires Lawyers

In response to the mounting vaccine injuries, the Biden DOJ quietly began hiring more lawyers in October to handle vaccine litigation. In a posting to USAJobs.gov, the Washington DC Office of Office of Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation - Vaccine Litigation Staff asks for individuals who can fight "claims of injury as a result of the receipt of vaccines" covered by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act ("Vaccine Act").

The job pays between $94,199 and $183,500 for whatever soulless Devil's Advocate acolyte take a job fighting vaccine injured Americans.

Quote:The position is a unique trial practice in support of public health, science, and medicine. The legal and medical issues at stake in each case vary. Trial attorneys independently manage heavy caseloads, and while streamlined procedures are utilized, many cases involve complex scientific issues of causation that require expert witnesses in medical fields such as pediatrics, neurology, immunology, and epidemiology. In cases in which petitioners are found entitled to compensation, the litigation occasionally requires use of damages experts to develop an appropriate life care plan for the injured party, including medical treatment and related care needs, and the determination of other compensable damages, such as lost earnings and pain and suffering, often awarded through a structured settlement.

Attorneys with limited experience will focus primarily on litigating cases in a "claims" type posture, typically involving less complicated issues of science and medicine, limited damages, and fewer court appearances, with the possibility of transitioning to handling more complex cases in litigation over time.

Attorneys appear frequently before the Office of Special Masters in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and also appear before the judges of the Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when handling appeals. Responsibilities include factual and legal research, medical record review, brief writing, and working with expert witnesses to develop the defense of claims, as well as to address the life care needs of vaccine-injured petitioners in some cases. The majority of cases are resolved informally, and thus attorneys engage regularly in settlement and damages negotiations, including alternative dispute resolution, and drafting settlement memoranda.

Hilariously, while the DOJ came after Elon Musk's SpaceX (which deals with matters of national security) for not hiring illegal immigrants, the vaccine injury job posting requires applicants to be "a U.S. Citizen or National."

Other interesting job requirements include:

• Must be able to obtain and maintain a Top Secret security clearance with eligibility for Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) access depending on organizational assignment / duty location.
  
• Financial Disclosure: If selected, you will be required to disclose financial information in accordance with DOJ and Federal ethics guidelines.
  
• You will be required to complete a pre-employment security investigation and background check which includes a drug screening.
  

We think they're going to need more than eight.

Quote:Bots and the COVID-19 Infodemic

Especially in recent years, such widespread contentions in the digital sphere do not often erupt entirely organically but are instead subject to a variety of inorganic influences (Freelon & Wells, 2020; Starbird, 2019). Automated accounts, also known as social bots, have played a significant role in this context (Ferrara et al., 2016). Due to their automated nature, social bots may be coordinated to engage in “computational propaganda” through large-scale information operations to influence public discourse (Beskow & Carley, 2019; Woolley & Howard, 2016). K. M. Carley (2020) succinctly summarizes such actions as narrative maneuvers, or actions which positively or negatively impact the framing of an issue; and network maneuvers, or actions which positively or negatively impact information flow in large-scale conversations, such as who talks to whom and receives information from each other.

A range of such bot activities have been documented in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ferrara (2020), for instance, highlights the outsize role played by bots in the spread of conspiracy theories early in the pandemic, especially those linked to QAnon and elaborate narratives of the coronavirus as originating from a Wuhan lab. Moffitt et al. (2021) reaffirm these findings, showing that Twitter accounts sharing such stories are typically more likely to be bots, and that bots potentially attempt to boost the reach of such conspiracy theories by linking their messages to more influential accounts in the online conversation. Xu and Sasahara (2022) similarly show that, besides conspiracy theories, bots are involved in sharing a wide range of low-credibility information around the pandemic, such as fake cures, though their influence in the overall conversation may be relatively small. Himelein-Wachowiak et al. (2021), however, nuance this observation by indicating that even if bots are on average not the central voices in an online conversation, a small proportion of bots may still become superspreaders of low-credibility information and despite their small numbers may still achieve large-scale impact.

.....

Conclusion

This article examined Twitter discussions of racism during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. By combining social scientific theory about identities with computational tools for hate speech and social bot detection, we empirically characterized bot-fueled amplification and redirection of hate from focusing on Asian and Chinese populations in March to targeting political discourse surrounding US political figures in August. This work advances research on how hate speech targets particular social groups and, in turn, how bot-driven information operations can take advantage of societal divisions to achieve strategic objectives during times of crisis.

Quote:A new canvassing of experts in technology, communications and social change by Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center finds that many expect similar impacts to emerge from the COVID-19 outbreak.

Asked to consider what life will be like in 2025 in the wake of the outbreak of the global pandemic and other crises in 2020, some 915 innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers and activists responded. Their broad and nearly universal view is that people’s relationship with technology will deepen as larger segments of the population come to rely more on digital connections for work, education, health care, daily commercial transactions and essential social interactions. A number describe this as a “tele-everything” world.

Notable shares of these respondents foresee significant change that will:

• worsen economic inequality as those who are highly connected and the tech-savvy pull further ahead of those who have less access to digital tools and less training or aptitude for exploiting them and as technological change eliminates some jobs;
  
• enhance the power of big technology firms as they exploit their market advantages and mechanisms such as artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that seem likely to further erode the privacy and autonomy of their users;
  
• multiply the spread of misinformation as authoritarians and polarized populations wage warring information campaigns with their foes. Many respondents said their deepest worry is over the seemingly unstoppable manipulation of public perception, emotion and action via online disinformation – lies and hate speech deliberately weaponized in order to propagate destructive biases and fears. They worry about significant damage to social stability and cohesion and the reduced likelihood of rational deliberation and evidence-based policymaking.
  

At the same time, a portion of these experts express hope that changes spawned by the pandemic will make things better for significant portions of the population because of changes that:

• inaugurate new reforms aimed at racial justice and social equity as critiques of current economic arrangements – and capitalism itself – gain support and policymaker attention;
  
• enhance the quality of life for many families and workers as more flexible-workplace arrangements become permanent and communities adjust to them;   
  
• produce technology enhancements in virtual and augmented reality and AI that allow people to live smarter, safer and more productive lives, enabled in many cases by “smart systems” in such key areas as health care, education and community living.
  

These six themes were commonly expressed by these experts in their responses to a question that asked them to consider the changes that were set in motion in 2020 by the COVID-19 outbreak and describe what the “new normal” might look like in 2025.

Some 47% of these respondents said life will be mostly worse for most people in 2025 than it was before the pandemic, while 39% said life will be mostly better for most people in 2025 than it was pre-pandemic. Another 14% said most people’s lives in 2025 will not be much different from the way things would have turned out if there had been no pandemic.

Among the 86% who said the pandemic will bring about some kind of change, most said they expect that the evolution of digital life will continue to feature both positives and negatives. These expert views link in interesting ways with public attitudes. A Pew Research survey in August 2020 found that 51% of U.S. adults said they expected their lives to remain changed in major ways even after the pandemic is over.

This is a nonscientific canvassing, based on a nonrandom sample. The results represent only the opinions of the individuals who responded to the queries and are not projectable to any other population.

The bulk of this report covers these experts’ written answers explaining their responses. They sounded many broad themes about the ways in which individuals and groups are adjusting in the face of the global crisis, describing the most likely opportunities and challenges emerging as humans accelerate their uses and applications of digital technologies in response. It is important to note that the responses were gathered in the summer of 2020, before the completion of the presidential election in the United States and before COVID-19 vaccines had been approved.

As these experts pondered what was happening in mid-2020 and the likely changes ahead, they used words like “inflection point,” “punctuated equilibrium,” “unthinkable scale,” “exponential process,” “massive disruption” and “unprecedented challenge.” They wrote about changes that could reconfigure fundamental realities such as people’s physical “presence” with others and people’s conceptions of trust and truth.

They wondered, too, if humans can cope effectively with such far-reaching changes, given that they are required to function with “paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and god-like technology,” in the words of biologist E.O. Wilson.

Among the scores of changes they see is the emergence of: an “Internet of Medical Things” with sensors and devices that allow for new kinds of patient health monitoring; smart millimeter wave machines to diagnose people with disease symptoms; advances in synthetic biology and computational virology that improve drug testing and targeted disease therapies; diagnostic screenings that cover a person’s diet, genes and microbiome; handheld detection devices that citizen swarms use to address environmental problems; and a new class of tele-care workers.

Additionally, these experts forecast the creation of 3-D social media systems that allow for richer human interaction (sometimes via hologram avatars); mediated digital agents (interdigital agents) gradually taking over significantly more repetitive or time-consuming tasks; a “flying Internet of Things” as drones become more prolific in surveillance, exploration and delivery tasks; ubiquitous augmented reality; an expanded gig economy built around work-from-home free agents; urban farming that reaches industrial scale; advances in trusted cryptocurrency that enable greater numbers of peer-to-peer collaborations; locally based, on-demand manufacturing; “local in spirit and local in practice” supply chains; a robust marketplace of education choices that allow students to create personalized schooling menus; “tele-justice” advances that allow courts to handle large numbers of cases remotely; “truth valuation” protocols that diminish the appeal of disinformation; and small, safer nuclear reactors for energy production.

Quote:I wrote this commentary in response to Todd Hayen’s article “Did the Covid PsyOp fail?”, to which I would add a few remarks.

I agree with Hayen: something about the alleged failure of the “Covid PsyOp” feels strange. It “feels” fishy. But what could that be? I will explain this below.

I have written two books on this myself, “Corona – Krone der Technokratie?” (Corona – Crown of Technocracy?) and “Das globale Technat” (The Global Technate). In the latter, the title of which was inspired by Iain Davis‘ outstanding articles “Understanding Technocracy” and “Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order”, one of the points I made was that the lockdowns had no medical reason, but economic reasons: By paralysing the economic cycles, i.e. by artificially triggering a deflationary phase (which is characterised, among other things, by a decline in demand), inflationary overheating was prevented, which would have been caused by the monetary policy of the years since 2008 (the last major financial crisis). (For further information on this, please read Michael Bryant’s article “COVID-19: A Global Financial Operation”)

This policy, also known as “Quantitative Easing”, in conjunction with the deliberate zero interest rate policy – which in my opinion served as bait to lure more people into a spiral of debt – could have triggered a severe recession, or even hyperinflation at worst, on a global scale. The so-called “Covid Aids” gave the elite even more power over the economy and society.

Rising public and private debt naturally means a gain in power for them, because debt always and without exception also means a relationship of dependency between creditor and debtor. In other words: You can more easily dictate your conditions if someone depends on your credit supply.

If you want to find out more about the background, I highly recommend the article “Sustainable Debt Slavery” by Whitney Webb and Iain Davis.

What is certain is that German newspapers published articles on this potentially imminent recession or depression throughout 2019 – and with increasing frequency. These signs weren’t just on the wall, they were dancing Lambada on coke. Then – purely by chance, of course -, a “new type of virus” emerged, which conveniently allowed the press to only talk about the “Corona Recession” – and not mention the monetary policy causes at all anymore. That alone was telling enough – at least for me.

Anyway, instead of focusing only on the “medical” aspects of the “pandemic”, I think we should rather consider the possibility – as Hayen rightly suspects – that this “event” with all its already tragic consequences for so many people was “only” a first step in a longer, ongoing process.

It is probably no coincidence that the World Economic Forum has already spoken of the age of “Polycrises” into which humanity has now entered. By “Polycrisis” is meant: Climate, War, Terror and Pandemics.

We had the first Pandemic – “Corona”. We have a war (Ukraine), which in my estimation is NOT a “classical” or “conventional” geopolitical conflict, but allowed the elites – via a chain of sanctions and counter-sanctions – to further raise the cost of living (rising prices for fossile fuels like natural gas which have already been targeted by the so-called “Sustainable Development Goals“, aka “Agenda 2030” of the UN).

Shortly after the war began, German mainstream television networks coined the phrase – yes, in all seriousness – “Frieren gegen Putin” (“Freezing against Putin”). You gotta be kidding me.

We had a terror attack in Moscow, allegedly perpetrated by the “Intelligence State”. Sorry. What was I thinking? I meant the “Islamic State”, of course. Shortly after, German newspaper “Die Welt” (The World) warned about a possibly upcoming chain of “worldwide terror attacks” by the Intellige … Islamic State.

It’s just my very humble opinion, but I get the strange feeling that all of this is meant to keep the populaces “on their toes”, to make them live in constant fear, to occupy their minds and distract them from the fact that on the level of international treaties, i.e. UN-level, all three “Power Blocks” – Ozeania (USA), Eurasia (EU) and East Asia (BRICS) – are already making “ends meet” by signing contracts that will bind them legally to “global goals”…

I call this the “Multipolarity Hoax“.

When it comes to the much-discussed Covid Vaccines, I would like to suggest that we stop focusing solely on them and instead look at NEW vaccines that are currently being developed. Why is that? Because we have to consider the possibility that the ingredients administered with the Covid vaccinations will only trigger the desired overall effect in COMBINATION with future vaccinations.

Anyone who has ever done research in this area – especially with regard to vaccination trials in court – knows that it can be difficult under certain circumstances to attribute side effects or damage to the vaccination. This depends very much on the time that elapses between the vaccination and the occurrence of possible harmful effects. If I get vaccinated and just two or three days later, or even a few weeks later, such side effects occur, the matter is pretty clear. But if years pass between the vaccination and the possible consequential damages, it becomes much more difficult to prove this in a legal case. Because in the meantime, many other factors could have triggered these side effects.

My thesis is therefore: Instead of betting everything on one card, i.e. on ONE vaccination, it would be much more ingenious (in an evil way), if only for reasons of possible consequences under criminal law, to rely over many, many years on effects that only result from a combination of several different vaccinations. This would not only make it increasingly difficult, but almost impossible, to find the medical “needle in the haystack”.

I couldn’t agree more with Hayen when he warns of the possible long-term consequences.
Yes, it’s quite possible that the vaccinations will have after-effects that we don’t even know about yet. Some of these possible effects were described by a German author, Michael Nehls, PhD, MD, who habilitated in molecular biology, in his book “Das indoktrinierte Gehirn” (“The indoctrinated Brain”, not available in English yet). He writes about possible long-term effects of these “Covid-Vaccinations” on a very important process in the human brain called “Hippocampal Neurogenesis” which is essential for the development of a stable personality and, most of all, a healthy memory.

But as mentioned before, I don’t think that the Covid vaccines alone will “do the trick”.

In his article, Hayen wrote:

Quote:Yes, all this could still happen, but it seems there have been more false starts – starts that didn’t go anywhere. But if so, you would think they wouldn’t have put them out there just to not have them continue.”

Exactly. But how could this continue?

To further support Hayen’s argument, I would like to introduce readers to a quite astonishing quote from a book by Bertrand Russell. It was published in 1953 and was entitled “The Impact of Science on Society”.

This quote made me sit up like a Jack-in-the-box and take notice; I am convinced that we are guinea pigs in a long-term conditioning process.

In his book “The Impact of Science on Society” Bertrand Russell wrote (my emphases):

Quote:Fichte [german philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, my remark] laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx.”
Russel, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953, US-Library of Congress, Catalogue Number 68-54290, p. 50

As if those words alone wouldn’t be mindblowing enough (and already been confirmed by today’s state of public “education”, if you can call it that anymore, especially in Germany), please forgive me for pushing you over the edge now. Russell continues, but please believe me, any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental, it’s all just stupid conspiracy theories, folks (my emphases):

Quote:In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”
Russel, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953, US-Library of Congress, Catalogue Number 68-54290, p. 50

Erm. Wait a minute. Diet? You mean, like “Eat Ze Bugs”? Like “Processed Foods”, delivered by companies which are owned by people who are members of think tanks like the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, like Bilderbergers, like Club of Rome and the sorts? Or by financial giants like Blackrock, which are also driving forces behind the “Agenda 2030” (Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs), CBDCs (total financial control) and so on?

Woah. And injections? You mean, like “Covid Vaccinations”, for instance? And maybe many more to come in future pandemics (or against other illnesses) because this could very well be a long-term conditioning process? And injunctions? You mean, social distancing etc.?

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not telling you all this because I believe we don’t stand a chance. I’m not writing these lines to “demoralize” and depress you. Quite the opposite.

I’m just asking you NOT to fall for every single “event” that they’re serving us to occupy our minds and to distract us from their possible long-term goals.


In Germany right now, they’re serving the public the so-called “RKI-files” or “RKI-Protocols” (RKI stands for Robert Koch-Institut). Unfortunately, even large parts of German alternative media have fallen for it. I mean the sincere parts. Not the bought-and-paid-for disinformants, because it is a sad fact that 90% of the “most popular” names in German alt-media are controlled opposition, gatekeepers and limited hangouts.

These supposedly sensational, new “revelations” contain nothing – absolutely nothing – really “new”. They’ve just – thanks a lot, how merciful – released information that has been known for at least two years now.

But most of all, it seems to be one of the oldest tricks in the state’s book for psychological warfare: make the serfs and slaves believe that they should only accept information that has been “officially confirmed”.

“Officially confirmed” by the very same state that lied to and deceived them for years, by the way.


That ruined many of their businesses during the Reset- and Build Back Better-demic and is deliberately destroying German industry according to the “Degrowth”-agenda outlined by organizations like the “Club of Rome” decades ago. It really couldn’t be more obvious at this point, but well:

Quote:… education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.”

If we are aware of the possibility that it may be a conditioning process that could span years, maybe even decades, we can learn to think how the elites do: not in the sense of daily doses of fear porn to keep us busy so that we never come to our senses, but to think in longer time spans.

This way, we could develop a sharper sense for long-term strategies.

I believe what we’re experiencing right now is a build-up to the “Managerial Revolution” that James Burnham talked about in his book of the same title, published in 1941. Burnham wrote that after the end of the Second World War, “many more wars” would have to be fought – until the “Manager Class” can take control of all production. Hm.

That sounds a lot like the “Global Public-Private Partnership” that the WEF has been proposing for some time now. A certain Eric Arthur Blair alias George Orwell adapted this idea for his dystopic novel “1984”, in which he described a world that is mainly divided between three great power blocks. Well, you know: USA, EU, BRICS. Sorry. Too much coffee this morning. I meant Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia, of course.

And don’t you forget: It’s all just purely coincidental.

Axel B.C. Krauss is a german indepent journalist and publicist from Berlin. He studied literature, philosophy and film and has been researching our dearly beloved ‘Overlords’, their institutional networks of finance, science and power and their methods of ‘Mass Management’ for almost 30 years now.

(04-11-2024, 11:11 PM)EndtheMadnessNow Wrote:

Quote:I wrote this commentary in response to Todd Hayen’s article “Did the Covid PsyOp fail?”,...