A short essay about our future (next 10 to 20 years; the bases are already laid)

@ArishMell It's so easy - and so natural - for us ordinary decent people to expect our governments and our sources of information (press, TV...) to behave in a civilised, altruistic way towards us - we the people who have committed themselves into the care of our (elected) overseers.

So easy, in fact, that we refuse - yes, we strongly REFUSE - to believe anything which CONTRADICTS this positive vision.

Our rejection of other theories leads to the easy application of the "conspiracy theory" label, with the willing assistance of this suddenly ubiquitous phenomenon known erroneously as "fact-checkers." It leads us to condemn those who have chosen not to participate in the humanity-wide gene-therapy injection campaign as granny-killers (!) and bio-terrorists (!!!).

It even leads us to request of people like me, a totally insignificant SW member, that we stop spreading more conspiracy theories... What is the risk, here? Do you think that my several recent pieces on the plans being made for us will lead to widespread doubting of the inherent goodness of those above us? and maybe to mass protests, such as have been seen in Canada?

That is unrealistic, surely! Please allow these posts. Unless you have a special role as a SW policeman. Trust the readers to be adult enough to make their own decisions. They don't need to be protected by you or by anyone, really.

Just a couple of remarks: the government plans (see government document "Human 2.0," also The Great Reset, and The Great Narrative, by K. Schwab) will ALWAYS be presented as being FOR OUR GOOD. They are not stupid! Just as two weeks to flatten the curve was "for our good", and the masks, and the lockdowns. Presented in such a way as to win our confidence and compliance.

And let's admit it, they have won those things, bigtime! So - why stop there! Never let a good crisis go to waste! The item above is worth thinking about, not tossing off out of hand.

And if you want to go on thinking that all is for the best in the best of worlds, I will not be joining you in that camp. Men are evil and grasping. They always have been. They are not evolving into saints with the passage of time.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely - especially if it is accompanied by absolute wealth and technological/biological power. In those conditions, they can - and will - do as they please, with us, the people.

@WalterF

@WalterF Of course I allow you the freedom to express your views.

Whenever someone tells me that one or another organisation has some particular, devious plan or has said ""XYZ" my first wish is to identify:

WHO made the plan or statement,and they REALLY said;

WHAT am I being asked to believe they said,

and by BY WHOM and WHY.


I am perfectly well aware that those in power can be devious or inept but also cowardly. This shows time and time again when caught out even for ineptitude rather than ill-will, so refuse requests for interviews or opportunities to explain their position. "No-one was available to comment", or "we asked but they refused to take part". Sometimes they think a bland message as meaningless as those 1980s company "mission statements", will suffice. Of course it doesn't.

So please don't think I am naive, but on balance I trust official and "mainstream" publications from known sources rather more than bits of anonymous blogs or mysterious on-line "news" magazines that usually look American but could be from anywhere in the world. On examination though, many are in fact clearly anti-"West".

You and I both know the Internet is being flooded with all sorts of knavery and conspiracies, and I accuse the unknown writer for the unknown publication you showed us, of helping to fuel those.


Please be assured this is not a personal attack on you, but a principle I try to apply to everyone and everything.

For example....

If Someone tells me the Daily Blah reports that such-and-such has happened/failed/been said by the Minister for...; I consider first the paper's known bias so fairness of report, then the fairness of the Someone's quote. I allow for honest mistakes but biased bias is not much help to anyone!

Note: bias, not lies. The newspapers (at least in the UK) sometimes make gross errors but do not deliberately lie because they would soon be caught out; but they do edit selectively so slanting the stories. Luckily I trust their sincerity even if not agreeing with them; as they are honest in their views and party-political allegeances, and publish under full titles and names.

@ArishMell Of course. I understand.

I won't be revealing the author of this post, as his vast work of scholarship covering several decades has been integrally belittled and undermined by the opinion-givers who identify as fact-checkers, no doubt using condemnations such as

"This man is little more than a chicken-farmer who spends his weekends in his tin-foiled covered anti-nuclear blast garden shack playing with his test-tubes and reading Grimm's fairy tales"

or

"His mother was divorced five times - we cannot trust him"

or

"He has the neck to peddle trumped-up and expensive "natural remedies" on his website - how dare he?"

But suffice it to say that this man, who is not "pretending to be an American", is no attention-seeking, trash-writing, wild-eyed fanatic, opposing the good Dr Fauci and his pharmaceutical companies just for the sake of badness.

If only I could share his work with you! Or the work of so many well-known but silenced experts!

@WalterF Well, I do not take attacks like those as fair criticism either, and using his parents' problems as excuses would be low indeed.

If someone is peddling false remedies, for example, then expose his fraud; but at least do so in a proper manner.

You fear Governmental powers and controls, and I agree we must hold governments to account whether their wrong actions or failures are deliberate or by mistake.

I fear the Internet more though, as potentially becoming as destructive and despotic as any tacky national dictator.

@ArishMell I will send you the link to the full article I have cited. It's only available online for 36 hours more as censorship is hard at work in all areas, as it has been since the start of this covid catastrophe.

@WalterF Thank you - yes, I will be interested to see it - assuming I don't miss the time-limit set by the censors, whoever or wherever they may be! 29 hours now, according to when you posted that.