Primary Motivations Behind the Plandemic (Part Five)

Psychological Warfare and the Pandemic

Interested in learning more about Bill Gates’ motivations? In a 2017 video that compiles an excerpt from a TED Talk and various interviews, Gates suggests that due to ongoing population growth, there is a need for population reduction. No fancy editing; this is him and his own words. In reference to population levels during the TED Talk, Gates says, “If we do a really great job on new [injections], health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15%.” Yes, you heard that right, using injections to reduce population growth! If an injection is supposed to protect people against disease and death, then how can it be used as a tool to reduce population growth?!

Then the video shows Gates speaking about his $10 Billion investment in injections. When asked about what his investment means, Gates speaks to “inventing new [injections] and making sure they get out to all the children who need them.” He says, “The benefits [are] there in terms of reducing sickness [and] reducing the population growth.” And yes, you saw that right: Again, he speaks about using injections to reduce populations, this time in reference to CHILDREN! Are we talking about a systematic sterilization?!

Unsurprisingly at this point, again speaking about sickness in children in the next interview, Gates goes on to say that a goal of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is to have a “reduction in sickness and population growth.” Then, in the interview after that, when speaking about foreign assistance for injections—treatments that are effective at “saving lives”—he says, “The good news is that as you make those breakthroughs, the population growth in the country goes down.”

So, some might say that Gates doesn’t appear to have any interest in saving lives; instead, they argue that it appears as though his goal is to eradicate populations that don’t fit his world view. They say he uses every tool at his disposal: injections, “reproductive health,” and other forms of “health care.” They say he’ll do whatever it takes to achieve his goal of reducing population growth, even if it includes children! If all of this is true, how sick would that be?!

In a 2017 TED Talk entitled, “The disease-eradicating potential of gene-editing,” Dr. Tal Zaks—Chief Medical Officer overseeing preclinical development, clinical development, and regulatory affairs across Moderna and its ventures—speaks directly to this potential. To summarize the talk, I’ll refer you to the video’s description:

“If our cells are the hardware and our genetic material the operating system, what if we could change a few lines of code? In this cutting-edge science talk, oncologist Dr. Tal Zaks reviews the future of personalized medicine, which may lie with gene-editing injections tailored to each patient's immune system, teaching it to overcome the genetic mutations that trigger diseases like cancer.”

In the video, he speaks of “hacking the software of life” and that related studies are “changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease.” He goes on to quickly describe human biology and the important role of mRNA. He states that mRNA “transmits the critical information from the DNA, our genes, to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of.” He adds that this mRNA is comprised of the “critical information that determines what a cell will actually do.”

Furthermore, Dr. Zaks says that “we [i.e. he and Moderna] think of it like an operating system,” where if you can change a “line of code,” it will have “profound implications for everything from the flu to cancer.” He then speaks about injections for the flu that would use mRNA instead of the pathogen’s protein, making it so the body would “create its own antibodies.” He states that this technology has already been used in animal models and (then) recently in humans, and that “we’re going to be developing a whole slew of [injections] against diseases for which we don’t have one.”

At this point, let’s pause and consider Dr. Zaks’ talk. From a business standpoint, isn’t it an interesting coincidence how this “development” in medical technology happened just prior to the pandemic taking place? Isn’t it a convenient opportunity to perform mass trials on humans without any liability for mistakes? Isn’t it equally a convenient opportunity for its developers—and its investors, like Bill Gates—to earn massive profits?

From the perspective of a person who could receive a mRNA injection, do you feel confident in this technology? It is, after all, only a few years old. In fact, in reference to mRNA’s use for cancer, Dr. Zaks says,

“When we started to do this a couple years ago, my CEO stopped by one evening and said, ‘Tal, I get the idea, but is this gonna work?’ And I said, ‘Look, Stéphane, I don’t know. But, we’ve got all the pieces to try and answer the question, so we should try.’ And today, I can tell you that I still don’t know if it’s going to work. But, I know we’re able to actually run the experiment.”

Do you want to be one of the subjects of this experiment? I know I won’t be!

Now, what about the motivations of governments and rich philanthropists? Read on to Part Six to learn more!

And if you haven’t read Part Four, go back to “Is It Really a Plandemic?”

- Steve

Is It Really a Plandemic? (Part Four)

Psychological Warfare and the Pandemic

In an attempt to answer who is behind the plandemic, I’ll offer some additional questions designed to further clarify the first:

1. Who has been most vocal about the “crisis”?

2. What has been said in the past about the potential for an epidemic?

3. And who stands to gain (and lose) from the situation?

While some would say that the psychological warfare involved in the plandemic is more recent, I submit that the full force of what we’re experiencing now may have been initiated earlier than we think. The video that I will speak to next involves a series of utterances made by a particularly influential and unimaginably rich person that may have the influence and/or power to make certain things happen. The date goes back to 2015, but if we consider documents such as Agenda 21 put out by the United Nations back in 1992, maybe the seed of fear was planted much earlier. In that document, there was already talk about “concerns” related to population growth and avenues at the disposal of UN members to “manage” certain “issues.”

In any case, let’s now take a closer look at the video that I am referring to...

During a 2015 TED Talk, Bill Gates said that “the greatest risk of global catastrophe” is not nuclear war, but a highly infectious pathogen that could kill 10 million or more people. He then refers to the need for investment in a system—including necessary people and tools— that would allow us to be better prepared to address such an epidemic; that our (then) current lack of a system is really a “global failure.” Moreover, he adds that the World Health Organization (WHO) is not able to address matters directly. And, as a result of all of these things, Gates says that the next epidemic “could be more devastating than Ebola.”

Next, in rapid succession, Gates goes on to reference the following concerns: airborne pathogens, rapid spread, case numbers, a large number of deaths, asymptomatic transmission, natural epidemic, and bio-terrorism. Then, he even uses a model—that is, an idea that may not resemble reality—of an airborne pathogen that spreads throughout the world in order to demonstrate that this is serious and of great concern. Hmm... All of this seems oddly familiar...

Furthermore, Gates emphasizes the importance of preparedness in order to prevent or “stop the spread”; he refers to our ability to build a great response system using the tools at our disposal. He talks about the benefits of “science” and technology, including the use of cell phones for the bidirectional sharing of information between governments and people; he comments on us having satellite maps to “see where people are and where they are moving” (tracking and spying?) and that advances in biology would allow us to “dramatically change the turnaround time to look at a pathogen and be able to make drugs and [injections] that fit for that pathogen.”

Speaking about the tools being put into an overall global health system and the need for preparedness, Gates says that the “best lessons...on how to get prepared are again what we do for war.” He speaks rapidly about how it’s analogous to the military: soldiers, full-time, waiting to go; reserves to scale us up to large numbers; mobile units to deploy rapidly; and war games to check training, logistics, and the use of the same frequencies. Gates says that these are the kind of things needed to deal with an epidemic; we need to pair the medical people with the military; and we should have simulations like “Germ Games” instead of war games to see where the holes are. And on the subject of “germ games,” he referred to a previous simulation in 2001 that didn’t go so well; he said, so far, the score is: Germs 1, People 0.

Thereafter, he said that we need to have lots of advanced research and development (R&D) in the areas of injections and diagnostics. Surprisingly, Gates then tells us that there are “big breakthroughs, like adeno-associated [pathogen], that could work very quickly.”

WAIT, did you hear what I heard?! First, to clarify, what is an adenovirus? The CDC says:

“Adenoviruses are common [pathogens] that cause a range of illness. They can cause cold-like symptoms, fever, sore throat, bronchitis, pneumonia, diarrhea, and pink eye (conjunctivitis). You can get an adenovirus infection at any age. People with weakened immune systems or existing respiratory or cardiac disease are more likely than others to get very sick from an adenovirus infection…”

Second, doesn’t this description sound eerily similar to the airborne pathogen of this pandemic? Don’t forget: This TED Talk is from back in 2015.

And third, how is it that he is referring to “big breakthroughs” in reference to an “adenovirus”? Was this a slip of the tongue, where Gates is saying that a pathogen was developed and is ready for deployment? Did he know something that we didn’t? The things that make you go, “Hmm?!”

Approaching the end of the talk, Gates says that he doesn’t know the exact cost of the system he’s recommending. He suggests that the investments are likely to be “very modest” as compared to the “potential harm.” He refers to the World Bank estimation that global wealth would be reduced by $3 Trillion if a worldwide flu epidemic took place and that millions of people would die.

Interestingly enough, speaking further about the investments, you can find another Freudian slip: He says that the benefits would go beyond just being ready for the epidemic; “the primary health care, the R&D, those things would reduce global health equity and make the world more just as well as more safe.”

Wait, so, what he’s proposing is designed to DECREASE equity; that is, Gates wants LESS equity in the world? And then by decreasing equity, the world will be fairer and safer? Is he insinuating that:

a. Those who do invest now will protect themselves;

b. Those who can’t invest—i.e. the poor—will die; and

c. That will be a good result because it will make things more fair and safe for the rich?

Was this a mistake? Did Gates mean to say “inequity” instead of “equity”? Seems awfully suspicious to me!

To end the talk, Gates says that there is no need to panic, hoard, and hide in the basement, but we do need to respond quickly because time is not on our side. He says that the one positive of the Ebola epidemic is that it serves as an early warning and a wake-up call to get ready for the next epidemic.

After hearing the talk, I started wondering: Is Gates preparing us for the coming of a society where the “haves” accumulate even more and the “have-nots” have even less? Does it come from protecting the “haves” and leaving the “have-nots” for dead? And who’s going to pay for all of the investments that he speaks of? I doubt that it’ll be him; the “we” that he speaks of paying for things is you and I through taxes!

If this report from CBS it’s true, that “Billionaires got 54% richer during [the] pandemic,” then surely the rich would want it to continue. Maybe they initiated the plandemic in the first place! Isn’t it interesting how Gates is one of these rich folks and has so much interest in pathogens and the pandemic?

Has any of the above served to scare you? It surely scares me! I mean, not the pathogen; rather, fear of those who are behind the plandemic; fear of how they use it against us and stand to gain from it, while you and I are left suffering and in misery.

To learn more about Gates and others' motivations, read on to Part Five!

And if you haven’t read Part Three, check out, “Do Masks and Injections Equal Protection and Freedom?”

- Steve

Do Masks and Injections Equal Protection and Freedom? (Part Three)

Psychological Warfare and the Pandemic

A little more than one year into the plandemic, there appears to be a rise in the number of demonstrations against the measures taken by the government and police. This suggests that many people are asking questions about the entire situation. Not only are they questioning the “science”/”statistics,” they are starting to question the motivation behind the governmental and police measures. Demonstrators are saying that someone is behind all of this with a design to control the populace. But, more on that later...

Despite the measures taken to “protect” us and related propaganda, is it possible that personal observation is sufficient in order to determine the veracity of the claims made by the “medical experts” and our governments about the airborne pathogen? I submit that the answer is a resounding “Yes!” But, what are some of the questions we might ask to make such determinations? And would these questions provide us with clear evidence that something is not right?

By the way, in case you’re thinking that I do not believe in the pathogen, you’re wrong; I am not suggesting that it does not exist. Rather, it’s clear to me that it simply is not the killer that the “medical experts” and government claim it to be.

The first question one can ask relates to the mandatory use of “masks.” There is a lot of debate as to whether or not masks work. Maybe the question should be: Which masks verifiably protect us against airborne particles and which don’t? The prevalent types of “masks” used by the vast majority of people are cloth/fabric masks, surgical masks, and face shields. In the case of our politicians and police, they tend to model cloth/fabric and surgical masks. But, do they work?

The short answer is: No. Don’t take my word for it; here is a reference straight from the CDC stating so. Take note, however, that it takes a lot of research and reading in order to get to the real answer; not only is the answer hidden toward the bottom of the reference, but the discussion of additional types of “masks” only serve to confuse the reader. In any case, given the size of aerosolised particles, the use of a “mask” amounts to using a chain-link fence to stop a pea—and by the way, this analogy is not of my creation. Clearly, the “masks” used by most everyone do not work and only amount to a form of virtue signalling.

Now, what about the injection? I keep on hearing that the injection is there to save us all and ensure that we don’t pass on the pathogen to our loved ones. But does it work as the “medical experts” say it does?

I was previously under the understanding that an injection prevents an individual from getting a particular disease, but it appears that it is no longer the case. In fact, after consulting an online dictionary, I was surprised to see how the definition had changed within the past few years to include the use of mRNA. If only I could find out when this addition took place... Feels like Newspeak to me!

What bugs me the most is that we are bombarded with the idea that the injection is “approved.” But, is it? The answer to this is also clear: It is not approved. Don’t believe me? Read what the CDC has to say. Once again, in a long-winded explanation, the CDC confirms that the injections have received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) only, where: ”Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” Very interesting indeed! Was the CDC coerced or paid off to allow for the use of these experimental injections? I surely don’t know, but I can’t help but detect an odour...

So, once you’ve received the injection, you can go about living and doing your business, right? Not really! Here is the direction given by the CDC:

“You will still need to follow guidance at your workplace and local businesses. [Also,] you will still be required to wear a mask on planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation traveling into, within, or out of the United States, and in U.S. transportation hubs such as airports and stations.”

In fact, it wasn’t until just recently that the CDC removed the mask and physical distancing mandates. And note how they refer to it as “interim public health recommendations”? It’s so they can reverse their guidelines whenever they please!

Since the CDC said that they’re still learning how the injections will affect the spread of the airborne pathogen, I guess that either it’s because the injection was rushed into use without enough testing—hence the EUA—or the worldwide use itself serves as the testing. What else could it be?! Essentially, those who choose to take the injection are the “guinea pigs”!

And do you think that the “medical experts” or the rich and powerful will receive the injection? I doubt it. A placebo instead? Absolutely! Where is mine?!

In his video, Stmeyer poses a series of questions designed to make us use our very own powers of observation in order to determine the truth about the airborne pathogen:

1. “If there really is a pandemic, then why don’t we hear the constant wail of ambulance sirens throughout the day and night?

2. If there really is a pandemic, then why are all the undertakers saying that business is either normal or less than usual?

3. If there really is a pandemic, then why don’t we see endless queues of people at cemeteries and crematoriums burying their loved ones?

4. If there really is a pandemic, then why are all of the statistics saying that the death rate was within normal parameters last year?

5. If there really is a pandemic, then why have all the normal influenza deaths nearly disappeared?

6. If the first lockdown worked, then why are we doing it again?

7. If the lockdowns didn’t work, then why are we doing the same thing again?

8. Why is the government listening to their own very small panel of experts and refusing to listen to the vast majority of doctors, nurses, and health experts?

9. Why do we see scenes of pandemonium in hospitals on TV when, in reality, they are all empty?

10.If there really is a pandemic, then why are there thousands of nurses out of work?

11.If the pandemic started in 2019, then how did all the governments around the world order and deliver PCR test kits the year before in 2018?

12.If used and discarded masks could be highly contagious, then why do we see thousands of them littering the streets and countryside?

13.If there really is a worldwide pandemic, then why do the rules and regulations differ greatly from city to city and country to country?

14.If the [airborne pathogen] doesn’t affect children, then why are the schools shut?

15.If masks work, then why haven’t we been using them every year for the flu?

16.Why have we never seen people keeling over and dying in the streets?

17.If we should avoid crowds of people, then why are the supermarkets that can hold hundreds of people open and your corner shop with only room for three people shut?

18.Why is the government calling positive PCR tests ‘cases’ and not just a positive result?

19.Why has the BBC and all other media outlets failed to tell you that the World Health Organization has published an update saying that the PCR tests are unreliable and should not be used?

20.If a cough or sneeze droplet can carry up to 30 feet, then why are we socially distancing only six feet?

21.Why are you OK with rubbing poison into your skin 10 times a day?

22.Why do we need an experimental DNA-changing [injection] for a [pathogen] with a 99.7% recovery rate?

23.If the [injection] works, then why can you still catch and transmit the disease after you receive the [injection]?

24.If you’ve had the [injection], then why do you still have to wear a mask and social distance?

25.How many people do you personally know who have died from the [airborne pathogen]? And then compare that number to how many people you know who have [injection-damaged] family members.”

He concludes his video with the following: “Ask yourself next time you leave the house: Am I really seeing a deadly pandemic? If the answer to this last question is “yes,” then you really need to turn off your television. It is much easier to fool somebody than convince them that they have been fooled [attributed to Mark Twain].” Enough said!

So, who is behind it all? In order to find out, read on to Part Four!

Otherwise, if you haven’t read it yet, go back to How the Pandemic PsyOp Has Played Out (Part Two).

- Steve

How the Pandemic PsyOp Has Played Out (Part Two)

Psychological Warfare and the Pandemic

How has the pandemic PsyOp played out to this point in time?

The pandemic PsyOp began with a false flag: Something occurred in a faraway place. Some said that it was a virulent contagion that had escaped a research facility. Others suggested that it was a case of biological warfare, whereby the contagion was purposely released into the local population with the intent of spreading it across the world. Yet others said that it was a pathogen that went from an animal to a human. Clearly, fingers and blame were pointed in many directions regarding the origin of the contagion. However, whether or not any one of these scenarios was true is secondary; instead, the goals of instilling fear in people, gaining control, and shifting public opinion were achieved.

After the new airborne pathogen had been “discovered,” it quickly became a “real” threat—one in which there was, and still is, no cure. While the potential for death from the airborne pathogen is actually real, it’s clearly an exception rather than the rule; the survival rate is well over 99% for all age groups except those who are 70+(94.6%). So, should we be concerned? Perhaps, if we or our loved ones are over 70. But how does this airborne pathogen compare to the common flu? Unless my calculations are way off, the numbers show very little difference (excluding the 70+ range). So, why not protect that group instead of locking down the entire population? Clearly, because it goes counter to the operation’s propaganda...

When the story broke, news outlets started pumping out “information” that presented us with doom-and-gloom scenarios. Media in all of its forms—internet, TV, radio, social, or other—suggested that we were all going to die and that the science would prevail to “save the world.” “Experts” in lab coats began peddling one—and only one—perspective on the pathogen. They made sure that only their narrative and “science” about the airborne pathogen was acceptable and presented. In fact, when information went against the narrative, it was discounted, suppressed, and/or censored by news outlets and the media, and the individuals (and their media accounts) who presented counter arguments or statistics were ridiculed, threatened, and “cancelled.” This made it impossible for a balanced view to exist in the public sphere; instead, with brainwashing as the objective, only one approved narrative could be allowed to circulate.

As it was to be expected, this objective came to fruition, with only approved leaflets reaching the public. Messages included calls to socially/physically distance, stay at home/self-isolate, quarantine, and even report people to the police if they didn’t follow the “rules.” The mask became the main object to symbolize adherence to the “rules” and communicate “virtue” to others. Now, newer leaflets are circulating, with a focus on communicating that the injection is safe and beneficial. Next, expect “injection passports” to become a/the new object, further differentiating those who are “clean” from those who are “dirty.”

With this messaging, the threat will evolve to include the potential for violence between those who follow the “rules”—the “clean” citizens—and those who don’t—the “dirty pathogen spreaders.” Further restrictions will be imposed by governments that threaten everyone’s rights and freedoms and establish unprecedented control over the populace, including martial law and police-state-like measures. If you don’t believe me, this has already been tested in Ontario, Canada. To boot, people have been and will continue to be complicit in these measures by giving up their rights and freedoms in order to “save lives.” With the newest threat of only being allowed to return to “normal” if we have an injection passport, those who do not comply will not be allowed to attend sporting events, go to a theatre or restaurant, go to the gym, or visit any public venue for that matter; in other words, all of those who do not comply with each new rule will be banished from civil society.

So, has the PsyOp worked? Considering all of the preceding, without a doubt! Do you remember the wise adage, “divide and conquer”? Between political, social, and pathogen-related issues, our population is more divided now than ever. With differences preventing people from joining together to combat the erosion of their rights and freedoms, it’s especially easy to manipulate and control the population at this point in time.

However, I believe the tide is starting to turn. In order to prove this, consider this resource on psychological warfare. It suggests that propaganda takes three forms:

a. “White propaganda: The information is truthful and only moderately biased. The source of the information is cited;

b. Grey propaganda: The information is mostly truthful and contains no information that can be disproven. However, no sources are cited; and

c. Black propaganda: Literally ‘fake news,’ the information is false or deceitful and is attributed to sources not responsible for its creation.”

Quoting Daniel Lerner, the author writes, "Credibility is a condition of persuasion. Before you can make a man do as you say, you must make him believe what you say.” But, as the author suggests, “while grey and black propaganda campaigns often have the most immediate impact, they also carry the greatest risk. Sooner or later, the target population identifies the information as being false, thus discrediting the source.”

While all of us have been subject to grey and black propaganda throughout the pandemic, some of us have been (and continue to be) more affected than others. Nonetheless, with so many propagandists’ credibility going down the tubes, I believe we’re starting to turn the corner; finally, light is starting to become the best disinfectant, so to speak.

Read on to Part Three to see how the ridiculousness of it all is becoming more and more apparent.

Otherwise, if you haven’t read it yet, go back to Defining Psychological Warfare (Part One).

- Steve

Defining Psychological Warfare (Part One)

Psychological Warfare and the Pandemic

To better understand the topic at hand, we must begin by defining Psychological Warfare (a.k.a. PsyOps). It is defined as:

a. “things that are done to make someone (such as an enemy or opponent) become less confident or to feel hopeless, afraid, etc.”;

b. “the use of propaganda, threats, and other psychological techniques to mislead, intimidate, demoralize, or otherwise influence the thinking or behaviour of an opponent”; and

c. “the use of activities that cause fear and anxiety in the people you want to influence without hurting them physically.”

These three definitions present us with some interesting “ingredients” as to the nature of psychological warfare. As you can see, each one clearly compliments the other. When combined, we have a good recipe for (i.e. overall view of) the term and what it is all about.

It’s important to note that in all of the definitions, no direct physical harm is inflicted upon the targets; instead, it is purely psychological. But, how does it work?

To arrive at an answer, consider the point made in the following passage: “The power of psychological warfare, when performed successfully, is the inability of those being brainwashed to defend themselves against its effect. Psychological warfare aims at the insecurities and desires of its targets and uses these as a means of achieving objectives.” So, in other words, psychological warfare “attacks” targets (i.e. people) where they are most psychologically vulnerable in order to produce the desired result.

Next, let’s look at some of the techniques used to support the achievement of the objectives.

The starting point is a tool that might not be so obvious: Propaganda. “Propaganda is ideas or statements that are false or exaggerated and is deliberately spread to influence the masses. The goal of psychological warfare is to intentionally use propaganda to manipulate another and break down their will without using physical force.” And how are the lies disseminated? Easily! Here’s how:

a. “News Outlets—The news is a large information source that all can tap into. Whether it's government run or independently owned, the news has the ability to spread whichever information it chooses. By infiltrating a news source, a population could be tainted by volatile information;

b. Threats—Threats of violence, restrictions of freedom, and control can be made to instill fear in the people. These could be empty threats or threats with true intention. Whatever the case, threatening a group or groups of people can psychologically damage the recipients over time, putting them in a state of constant fear, anxiety, and terror;

c. Leaflets—Leaflets are pieces of paper with manipulative messages and pictures that are dropped from the air over areas of war or political unrest. The goal is to persuade the recipients to either support or oppose the political event taking place;

d. Objects—Using objects such as t-shirts, posters, hats, pins, and more is an effective way to get a message across. The objects can become symbols for larger messages regarding politics, radical beliefs, religious philosophies, etc. These objects can become tools for promotion and even worship;

e. False flag—A false flag is when a group releases false information or carries out a fake terror attack to instill fear in people. However, the blame is put on another group or organization to gain control over the masses and shift opinion; and

f. Media—While it may not seem like it, films, music, and books can act as tools for psychological warfare. The messages in the media can rewrite history from a new perspective and/or put new ideas in the minds of the populous.”

Considering the preceding, we can now bring everything together to get a better picture of this plandemic. Oops! I mean pandemic!

Next, in Part Two, you’ll learn how the pandemic PsyOp has played out to this point in time.

- Steve