Kung Flu - Gaming the Matrix?


"Behold! human beings living in a sort of underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all across the den; they have been here from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them; for the chains are arranged in such a manner as to prevent them from turning round their heads. At a distance above and behind them the light of a fire is blazing, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have before them, over which they show the puppets.

I see, he said.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying vessels, which appear over the wall; also figures of men and animals, made of wood and stone and various materials; and some of the prisoners, as you would expect, are talking, and some of them are silent?

This is a strange image, he said, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said: how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would see only the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to talk with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?"

(from The Republic of Plato)


I am a bit confused by this analogy - Are you equating Icke’s output as a promotion and normalisation pedophila and the like?


Yea, everyone is watching a movie in the grand theatre of life - who controls the projector, who loaded the film reel, who edited the final cut and finally, who really shot the footage?


That’s not the point of the quote.


I wasn’t making an analogy. There is obviously a marked difference in the respective agendas.

But as you mention it, there is analogy in the contrived use of rationales, logic and justifications. - For both agendas, their logic is tied, simply, to what is acceptable, or appealing to the most people, or at least the subset of people that they have targeted with their messages.

There is also analogy in sentiment. Icke appeals to sentiment revolving around hatred of a deliberately ambiguously defined group of people that acolytes are lead to believe are responsible for all the ills of the world, and by extension their own personal grievances. O’Carroll appeals to sentiment revolving around exaggerated self-regard. - Now there is in practical terms very often little difference in those two sentiments.

There is also analogy in the dogmatic character of the messages encompassed by each agenda.

And finally, there is analogy in consequences of both sets of beliefs and dogmas that potentially fall heavily on others, while minimising personal consequences.


There’s an information war going on about Covid 19

I have an finger oximeter at home. My oxgygen is usually 97%. Yesterday my chest was tight and it was much lower. I had read a tweet on JK Rowling using breathing techniques and it helping. I did them a few times and woke up today with a percentage of 98.

I wanted to share this info with family and when I went to Google JK Rowling breathing this morning, the first 3 links were articles attacking her technique as actually spreading the virus !

This is a bizarre.


33 posts were split to a new topic: Free Radical #000000001


Its actually beginning to look as if many self professed “progressives” actually want people to die in order to score political points.

There was a plummy voiced D4 type on RTE radio earlier who stated that all criticism of China was emanating from Russian propoganda sources, based on the premise that China’s Belt and Road project poses a threat to Putin and co. Bizarrely Joe Duffy advertised his programme yesterday by stating that he would later be discussing how to make sense of living in our “New World Order”. We’re through the looking glass here.

The Hyrdoxychlorine (or whatever its called) issue is another case in point. Why wouldnt every effort be put into determining whether its viable or indeed why not simply offer it to people who’ve contracted this thing and are deteriorating rapidly (subject perhaps to them being made sign a waiver in advance) ? We’re told that currently there is no treatment so whats the issue if they choose to opt for it? Some juridictions already offer to euthanase people with depression ffs.

Itvseems likely that the issue is that if its deemed succesful its likely to result in Trump being reelected.

I wonder what Myers, Hook or Waters would have made of our current predicament to include the latest regulations governing freedom of movement? Would they have toed the line as per the entirety of their peers who remain embedded across the media? Or might they have at least asked a few questions? Maybe made a few people defend positions ie would they have done their job?


I like my version better.

It offers not simply hope, it contains the seed of freedom for all.


Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exposes the truth about Bill gates and his vaccines:

Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. is an American environmental attorney, author, and opponent of vaccination. Kennedy is a son of Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former president John F. Kennedy. He is the president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999.

From #RobertFKennedyJr‘s Instagram post today, April 9th, 2020:

#Vaccines, for #BillGates, are a strategic philanthropy that feed his many vaccine-related businesses (including #Microsoft’s ambition to control a global vac ID enterprise) and give him dictatorial control over global health policy—the spear tip of corporate neo-imperialism.

Gates’ obsession with vaccines seems fueled by a messianic conviction that he is ordained to save the world with technology and a god-like willingness to experiment with the lives of lesser humans.

Promising to eradicate Polio with $1.2 billion, Gates took control of India ‘s National Advisory Board (NAB) and mandated 50 polio vaccines (up from 5) to every child before age 5. Indian doctors blame the Gates campaign for a devastating vaccine-strain polio epidemic that paralyzed 496,000 children between 2000 and 2017. In 2017, the Indian Government dialed back Gates’ vaccine regimen and evicted Gates and his cronies from the NAB. Polio paralysis rates dropped precipitously. In 2017, the World Health Organization reluctantly admitted that the global polio explosion is predominantly vaccine strain, meaning it is coming from Gates’ Vaccine Program. The most frightening epidemics in Congo, the Philippines, and Afghanistan are all linked to Gates’ vaccines. By 2018, ¾ of global polio cases were from Gates’ vaccines.

In 2014, the #GatesFoundation funded tests of experimental HPV vaccines, developed by GSK and Merck, on 23,000 young girls in remote Indian provinces. Approximately 1,200 suffered severe side effects, including autoimmune and fertility disorders. Seven died. Indian government investigations charged that Gates funded researchers committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying parents, forging consent forms, and refusing medical care to the injured girls. The case is now in the country’s Supreme Court.

In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a trial of a GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,049 children.

During Gates 2002 MenAfriVac Campaign in Sub-Saharan Africa, Gates operatives forcibly vaccinated thousands of African children against meningitis. Between 50-500 children developed paralysis. South African newspapers complained, “We are guinea pigs for drug makers”

Nelson Mandela’s former Senior Economist, Professor Patrick Bond, describes Gates’ philantropic practices as “ruthless” and “immoral”.

In 2010, Gates committed $10 billion to the WHO promising to reduce population, in part, through new vaccines. A month later Gates told a Ted Talk that new vaccines “could reduce population”. In 2014, Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association accused the WHO of chemically sterilizing millions of unwilling Kenyan women with a phony “tetanus” vaccine campaign.

Independent labs found the sterility formula in every vaccine tested.

After denying the charges, WHO finally admitted it had been developing the sterility vaccines for over a decade.

Similar accusations came from Tanzania, Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines.

A 2017 study (Morgensen et.Al.2017) showed that WHO’s popular DTP is killing more African than the disease it pretends to prevent. Vaccinated girls suffered 10x the death rate of unvaccinated children.

Gates and the WHO refused to recall the lethal vaccine which WHO forces upon millions of African children annually.

Global public health advocates around the world accuse Gates of – hijacking WHO’s agenda away from the projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases; clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development.

They say he has diverted agency resources to serve his personal fetish – that good health only comes in a syringe.

In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI and PATH, Gates funds private pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, and a massive network of pharmaceutical industry front groups that broadcast deceptive propaganda, develop fraudulent studies, conduct surveillance and psychological operations against vaccine hesitancy and use Gates’ power and money to silence dissent and coerce compliance.
In this recent nonstop Pharmedia appearances, Gates appears gleeful that the Covid-19 crisis will give him the opportunity to force his third-world vaccine programs on American children.


…As we discussed recently, it’s an established fact that power structures will seize upon opportunities to roll out oppressive authoritarian agendas under the pretense of protecting ordinary people, when in reality they’d been working on advancing those agendas since long before the crisis being offered as the reason for them. It happened with 9/11, and we may be certain that it is happening now.

The reason for this is simple: the powerful are afraid of the public. They always have been. For as long as there has been government power, there has been the fear that the people will realize the power of their numbers and overthrow the government that is in power. And understandably so; it has happened many times throughout history…


Ok bye. Almost everything you’re hearing on MSM is a lie or misinformation. You’re welcome back here when you finally see the light. :slightly_smiling_face:


Tyranny by Consent.

Carrot and Stick or Problem Reaction Solution or both?


Indeed, I do not think I have seen such a “wrong think” topic so quickly rounded in on by the MSM, with youtube also pledging to crackdown on the wrong think so quickly, even Eamonn Holmes has fallen into the firing line.

This is the real notable if you ask me, all it does is bring more attention to the issue and raise peoples natural suspicions.



This Conspiracy Theory appears to be going mainstream


Ya mean what was known or suggested here and elsewhere as early as January

From what I have ready and very briefly, the US and possibly Canada may have been funding this lab in some part and possibly still are.

Might Dr.Faux I have oversight or hand in that funding?

Well he has been in his position for approx 35 years so he should at least know where all the high level Labs are as part of his job or at least you might think so.

The connected story is Chinese infiltration into the US at all levels to steal tech and undermine the US with of course the Aid of many current and since gone elected US represented and implanted officials, most directly related would be scientists who are CCP.

Chatter indicates Pompeo and Barr are going around clearing house on this front.


To say that a “conspiracy theory is going mainstream” is kind of missing the essence of things.

a. First, out of thousands of conspiracy theories, of course you occasionally find there was some truth contained in a handful of them. That’s just statistical probability, combined with conspiracists typically bending the original dogma to fit verified findings etc.

b. No doubt there was a likelihood that the virus laboratory in Wuhan had had some type of mishap. It had indeed been mentioned early on as a possibility in some proper media outlets. But the world according to the conspiracists is about an essentially different thing - it is that sinister forces were at work in that laboratory and the eventuality of its escaping was intentional. - Whereas back in the real world more intelligent people were/are discussing potentially valuable vaccine research being carried out in this Wuhan laboratory on these viruses, and an accident leading to the release of one of them.

c. So we see anyone actually au fait with the world knows that mediocrity and “muddling through” is a basic component of human organisation and institution. - Such people would not be at all thinking about this laboratory hypothesis at all in the same way as the conspiracist idiots.

d. Finally, the essence of the conspiracist mindset is that events can be explained by some “illuminati”, “bilderberger” type of group etc. It’s an uneducated, primitive mentality, exactly like say the belief of uneducated savages in fairies in times gone by. (Recall, uneducated primitive savages didn’t just believe in a parallel world of fairies where fairies went about their business. No, everything the fairies did impacted on THEM. Anything bad that happened in their lives could be attributed to the fairies etc…)


This is a textbook conspiracy. The possible conspiracy is not whether it was a lab accident or deliberate. The entire artifice of the Wet Market Origin Story, the communications around that, the hiding of the truth, the worldwide discussion of it and acceptance…that was the conspiracy.




Scenario Narratives


A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new in uenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing

8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and of ce buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wild re in the absence of of cial containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from ying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post- pandemic recovery.

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world exed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensi ed. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw t. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms
in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high- emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction
of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well—and in some cases tragically—in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.

There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national ag. Strong technology regulations sti ed innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider “best” for them. Some…


…governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to ll these gaps on their own.

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research

areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made signi cant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers—a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally.

Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that t with those interests—whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of of cial security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size- ts-all solutions yielded few positive results.

By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.

Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was con ict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away—largely in developing countries—incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish. •

Above copy and paste is not perfect - Read original PDF link below if required: