A comment I often get from the more open-minded normies - 'ormies', as I will affectionately call them - is, "okay, I understand the Covid vaccines are potentially dangerous and that pharmaceutical companies cut corners to make money... but this whole worldwide conspiracy to kill us all off seems a bit far-fetched, don't you think?"
"Well, no, not really," I sigh. "Unfortunately, it makes grimly perfect sense."
"But... but... WHY would they want to kill us all?! That's the bit that you conspiraquacks never explain..."
Alright then, so - formally and for the official ormie record - let me explain how it works. It's not my favourite feature about myself that I have such a thorough understanding of the inner machinations of genocidal psychopaths, but said understanding has been vital in immunising me from the worst excesses of their insanity, so I truly hope it explaining it can help others (and ormies everywhere), too.
In making sense of what's really incentivising the behaviour of the global elites, it's critical to first understand how these ultra-wealthy ruling classes - those who own all the major resources, and who orchestrate all major global events - see the rest of humanity, and what they consider our role and value to be. This is quite simple to understand if you are familiar with the concept of farming. A farmer breeds, feeds, and houses livestock, as long as it is profitable for him to do so. Although we hope the farmer treats the creatures humanely. ultimately, their only value to him is as a business asset, and he is only motivated to maintain their care for as long as it is profitable to do so. Once it's not? They're culled.
I don't think that's the world's most esoteric analogy.... In short, the ruling classes see the rest of humanity just as a farmer sees livestock - live resources to be farmed; used and exploited to perform useful functions and raise profit. To the elites, ordinary people have no further intrinsic value, and - if not performing a useful or profitable function for these ruling, "farming" classes - such 'human cattle' can be culled. As technology, AI, and robots have become so much more advanced, the ruling classes now only require a fraction of the human labour they once did, hence why most global populations have been earmarked for culling.
Evil and diabolical as this is, it's not actually personal - just as the farmer who culled these pigs didn't do it because he had a personal vendetta against the porcine class, the ruling classes don't cull human populations out of individual, personal hatred. They do it because they see us as expendable commodities who are no longer profitable to maintain.
Just as a farmer would not continue to allocate resources to feed and maintain huge stocks of livestock if there was no longer a way of monetising them, the 'elites' see us in the same way. They consider the Earth to be a huge farm that they own, and that our presence is only maintained and tolerated as long as it serves them. Once they no longer need our labour - to run their industries (because robots do that), to serve them in various capacities (ditto) - they will not any longer provide us with "their" resources to maintain our upkeep. They think they own all the world's abundance - all the food, all the fossil fuels, etc - and this is where the phrase "useless eaters" comes from. The ruling classes see anyone who is not directly contributing to providing them with a useful service, as superfluous to requirements: a worthless imbiber of precious resources who is merely consuming without contributing.
They really don't disguise the fact they think this, either - see recent comments from WEF poster boy Yuval Noah Harari, who has clarified that the global regime does not "need" most human beings any more (he talks of the rise of a "global useless class"), and so the elite "farming" class that has shepherded them for so long, is wondering what to do with them. Human history for all ordinary, working people has been the constant fight against exploitation from monied elites. But now the looming threat to the ordinary person is not exploitation - but irrelevance. That, cautions the WEF, is much worse. So what do you do with all these useless, irrelevant people, once the ruling classes no longer need them as human labour? "Drugs and computer games are our best guess", says Harari.
And if anyone actually believes a ruthlessly greedy and warmongering ruling elite, who think nothing of bombing innocent civilians to smithereens in order to access resources and profit, are going to provide a handsome stipend to billions of people so they can spend decades taking drugs and playing computer games... I have the world's entire back catalogue of bridges to sell you...
It's just plainly obvious common sense, extrapolated from the way the ruling classes have made it clear they see everyone else, that when the masses are no longer seen to have a useful function, then - just like farm animals that can no longer fulfil the purpose for which they were initially maintained - they will be destroyed. You may think, "but I am a human being! I am not defined by my "usefulness", I have an intrinsic value of my own." - and that's true, objectively. The point is that the ultra-wealthy and well-resourced ruling classes who control the world don't see you like that, and no amount of appealing to their conscience or humanity will ever change that. They see themselves as a completely different species, a breed apart (that's why they are obsessive about interbreeding and always marrying their cousins etc. - they believe their bloodlines are 'special' and cannot be tainted by the blood of lowly lifeforms like ordinary human beings). Consider how differently you see yourself to a cow or a chicken - well, that's the same difference as to how they see us. They even refer to us as 'human cattle'. Not incidentally, the word 'vaccine' comes from the Latin, 'vacca' - cow.
So, that, then, is the purpose of the Covid vaccine: to cull the human cattle. It sounds diabolically evil, and it is, but to the social engineers, it really is just business. They have a surplus of unnecessary, no longer profitable cattle, and so they are culling them. This is also the explanation behind the 'flu vaccine programme, which has long since been free to the over-65s.
I have made the argument time and again that, if this vaccine was actually meant to protect and prolong life, it would be exorbitantly expensive, because a greedy, money-grubbing ruling elite, openly committed to reducing the world's population, would not give away for free a life-saving elixir to keep alive even longer the cohort that is the biggest drain on the public purse.
The biggest chunk of welfare spending (by far) goes on pensions, and those who are retired no longer pay income tax either, making them a double financial drain: so what possible motivation would a grasping, rapacious ruling class have for wanting to extend these people's lives? How would this square with the Exchequer, even? How could those responsible for financial forecasting have been persuaded that the huge cost of developing and maintaining an annual free 'flu vaccine made available to millions is worth it, if its end result is to make the government even poorer by keeping pensioners alive for longer?
The free 'flu vaccine campaign targeted at non-earners who drain the welfare state (not only through their pensions, but through their heavier use of other state services like the NHS) only makes any economic sense if its purpose is actually to dramatically shorten life, not to extend it.
And, with weary predictability, every year like clockwork, I hear the following conversations every time I go into a café or take a bus or am around any older people:
"I got my 'flu jab the other week. Honestly, I've never been so ill since..."
"I'm the same, could hardly get out of bed last week."
"Oh, I know, me too. So think how much worse it would have been if we hadn't got the vaccine!"
The mainstream media has even explicitly confirmed that the free 'flu vaccine programme has had "benefits for Britain's pensions black hole" by prematurely killing OAPs, thus saving money on pensions. The spin is that the vaccine targeted the "wrong strain", so excess pensioners died from a strain of 'flu they weren't immunised against. This is a thin veneer for the truth - that the vaccine directly killed them, as it is designed to do The risk is cumulative, so one jab is unlikely to result in death, but these are given annually, and with each successive injection, the likelihood of premature death rises - but if someone has had a 'flu jab for the previous four years then dies soon after the fifth, it's very unlikely grieving families will make a connection. ("It couldn't have been the jab, because s/he's had four previous ones and been fine.")
The same principle, then, applies to the Covid vaccine (the fifth of which is currently being rolled out), just on a much bigger scale. Up until quite recently, the ruling classes did still have a use for most able-bodied working-age adults. But huge advances in robotics and AI means they no longer do, so now the "flu farming" is being applied to all populations. It's already become clear that the changing face of the working world and collapsing economies around the world mean increasingly large numbers of us are effectively going to become "pensioners" - drains on the welfare state not contributing income tax - as employment opportunities continue to implode everywhere, and so UBI becomes inevitable. Once someone is on UBI - taking from the state whilst contributing nothing in return - the idea that any government will be incentivised to do anything but kill them off as quickly as possible, is based - I regret to say - in nothing but naiveté and wishful thinking.
Remember that your government is currently prepared to let you starve and freeze to death over the winter, yet somehow has unlimited funds to provide you with as many free Covid vaccines as you want. Remember that multiple essential services - including food banks, hospitals, and benefit payments - were inaccessible on the day of the Queen's funeral, yet you could still get your Covid jab.
I don't want to be demeaning or patronising in any way, but I can't help at this point but want to shout, "OH COME ON, IT'S SO OBVIOUS!"
However, it seems the objections "ormies" overall have to what I have just laid out above is:
"No way could that be true. Too many people would have to be in on it. There would be whistle-blowers."
Well, there ARE whistle-blowers! Literally tens of thousands, if not by now millions, of them. It's just the mainstream media and your government calls them quacks and conspiracy theorists and dismisses what they say, since - funnily enough - the same state-controlled media tasked with promoting and facilitating the cull of the human herd, is not going to give a platform to those people who oppose and want to stop it. You have to dig a little deeper. Please note, also, that whistle-blowers never said people would get injected and instantly drop dead (although that can and does happen), but rather, the injections would kick off a deadly tsunami of events in the body that would lead to death on average 2-3 years later (not for everyone, but for many, especially those who have had successive injections). The first injections were given in December 2020, so two years later is December this year, and already, in the UK and heavily vaccinated countries around the world, excess deaths are spiralling to unprecedented new highs, and "experts" cannot explain why (of course, "conspiracy theorists" can).
As for lots of people having to be in on it, well, yes, but most human beings are very - shall we say - morally flexible, and have no problem committing all sorts of atrocities, so long as a perceived authority has told them to do it. We see this throughout history again and again. Most people who have committed unspeakable evil throughout the ages are not inhuman monsters and tyrants (we tell ourselves this just to assure ourselves we could never be like them), they are ordinary people "just following orders".
The renowned Milgram experiment proved this beyond any reasonable doubt. His famous electroshock experiment proved that less than 1 in 3 people have the moral fortitude to say "no" if an authority figure in a white coat instructs them to apply lethal force to a stranger. So, that is exactly how the government and the NHS get away with it, too. The NHS primarily recruits people with high moral flexibility, a weak moral compass, and reflexive obedience to authority - which isn't hard, as that is most people - then submits them to intense NLP-based training and programming, which means it then has a perfect army of contract killers who will kill upon command - but whose own egos let them believe what they are doing is "for the greater good", and that these plebs and conspiracy theorists who question them just don't understand "the science". (And, sure - the current cull is indeed very scientific. The injections are working exactly as they are intended to.)
Even The Guardian admits that the out-of-control egos and God complexes of medical staff can have dire and fatal consequences, and virtually everyone I know now has a horror story of how the NHS has murdered one of their elderly relatives (they've been at it for years, but have really ramped up their efforts through "Covid" - apparently, NHS nurses refer to the drug Remdisivir - wholly inappropriately deployed to treat Covid patients - as "run, death is near").
Returning back to the "science" that crazy quackaloons like myself apparently deny, what I have noticed again and again is that many people have a massive blind spot regarding the connection between intelligence and character. Or rather, the lack of connection. Just because you're clever, doesn't mean you're a good person, and that you're going to use your abilities for good. It's frequently quite the opposite, and very clever people can tend to be contemptuous of "lesser mortals" and use their abilities to serve themselves, rather than to enrich the rest of humanity.
Every time I have an argument with a normie, I always get a furious spittle-fused foment to the general effect of, "so, you think you're cleverer than Chris Whitty, do you?".
Well, no, actually, I don't. I have no doubt that if Mr. Whitty and I were subject to IQ testing, he would far outscore me (I'm terrible at maths). The same is probably true for Anthony Fauci, Klaus Schwab, and maybe even Justin Trudeau (well, let's not take this too far...).
And what? What does this prove, exactly? Many psychopathic serial killers have exceptionally high IQs. I believe Ted Bundy was borderline genius.
This is what normies seem completely unable to grasp: just because someone is clever, doesn't mean they're going to use their cleverness to help you. They could, rather and instead, use their intellect to dupe, bamboozle, bewitch, and deceive you, in order to get you to do what they want, and that is, indeed, precisely what they are doing.
If you are relying on "the science" to tell you what to do, that just proves you don't understand science, because anyone who does, knows how wholly unreliable and corrupt the whole field is, particularly peer-review (I know that every single person who claims they took the vaccine because "I trust peer-reviewed science", has no idea what the peer-review process actually entails, nor how woefully flawed and almost comedically inadequate it is).
Any legitimate and competent scientist, including the editors of two of the most respected medical journals in the world, will tell you, "science" is a mess. Biased studies facilitated by shady funders that cherry pick data, omit findings, and straight-up lie, are by far the norm and not the exception, and unless you really know how to read and analyse studies (which if you have ever stated, "I trust the science", you don't), you will have no idea which studies are legitimate and reliable, and which are not. And even studies that are legitimate can, and do, get it wrong, which is why we keep doing science to continually test, re-test, and re-develop hypotheses, rather than robotically repeating the brainwasher's mantra of choice, "the science is settled". So, any so-called "science" that purports to show the Covid vaccines are "safe and effective", is flawed, inadequate, and downright wrong. Ultimately, you can get a study to show anything you like, and ambitious scientists keen to hold on to their lucrative grants and prestigious careers, do so all the time.
Ultimately, though, I think the normie inability to understand what is really going on in the world, even in the face of, at this point, overwhelming evidence, comes down to the ever-astute observation of the great Mark Twain, that: "it's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled".
Most people are not pathological liars and so, quite understandably, expect this of everyone else. We generally take people at face value, and when they tell us important things, expect them to be true - especially when the people in question are "officials" and "experts". This is because we are projecting our own standards onto others, so when I tell people about the genocidal plans of the ruling classes - that they have tricked people into taking a "life-saving medicine" that is actually going to kill them -- they often respond with something to the general effect of, "but they would never do that!"
No, you mean that YOU would never do it, because you lack the ability to be so monumentally deceptive and destructive on such a wide scale.
However, they are not you. They have those abilities in spades, and are trained from infancy to be able to be as dispassionate and detached as possible (see "cremation of care" ceremony), as devious and deceptive as is required - whatever it takes to get the job done. (Indeed, intergenerational ruling class families will subject their young children to moral testing, and those who display too much empathy or conscience are not selected for the top roles.)
In terms of the Covid injection, the reality is increasingly dawning on people that they've been conned, but there is huge psychological resistance to this, as the ego cannot accept it can get it so wrong. Most people would find it infinitely easier to be diagnosed with a 'random, inexplicable' terminal illness, than to be told they've been tricked into giving this illness to themselves. Most people would far rather hear: "I'm afraid you've got cancer, it's untreatable, we don't know where it came from", than "I'm afraid the injection you willingly took has decimated your health in a way that was entirely avoidable".
This is because people possess the ideological framework to deal with terminal illness - this is something that most families have had to deal with at some point and everyone knows they are not immortal, so the prospect of imminent death is not as inconceivable as the concept as having been so colossally tricked - because to realise your beliefs are wrong - such important and critical and foundational beliefs - threatens your entire identity and sense of who you are. Really, you ARE your beliefs, since everything you do - your job, your relationships, your interests - are based on what you believe, so if confronted with the fact that your belief system has been so wrong it has caused you to inadvertently kill yourself (I know that's blunt language but that's the reality for many who have submitted to the injection), this is too much for most people to take. It is too threatening to the very foundations of their identity and therefore threatens to annihilate their whole personality and ability to function in the world at all. So, the ego will resist it at all costs.
I would, however, strongly encourage people to try and entertain this possibility, deeply primally threatening as it is, because if you do make this realisation, it is not too late and there are many things you can do to reverse the effects of the injection (including, crucially, not having any more).
This whole twisted situation - people being tricked into taking injections clearly not in their interests - has led me to consider just why it is that so many people trust random "experts" - doctors they have known for three minutes; random talking heads on television they have never met, etc. - over their own instincts, and family and friends. Nearly everyone these days is connected to a "conspiracy theorist" who warned them not to take the injection, and many admit they had doubts and misgivings, so why did they nevertheless submit? I have come to the conclusion it is because of very severe arrested development that is - by design - endemic in the West, and that our culture attempts to foist on all of us as we are trying to grow up.
Every successful society that has ever existed throughout history has put huge emphasis on coming of age events and rites of passage rituals, and these are not merely ceremonial or token. The purpose of these is to ensure the successful transition of the dependent child, who trusts and follows parental orders, into the independent adult, who carefully thinks through and makes decisions for themselves. Societies gone by have known it is critical in one's maturation process to evolve from looking to external authorities to make critical life decisions on one's behalf (as a child does), to being able to be autonomous and self-reliant, and make these decisions for oneself.
It is not incidental that Western societies have so thoroughly done away with meaningful coming of age practices, and that turning 18 today is marked with nothing more auspicious than having your first (legal) pint. This has happened because our society does not want young people to make the transition from dependent child into independent adult. It wants them to remain utterly dependent on paternalistic authority figures (doctors, scientists, "experts") for the rest of their lives - because our dependence, equals their control.
So, all that now happens when people ostensibly grow up is that, instead of depending on childhood figures such as parents and teachers for guidance and instruction, people transfer the same trusting and uncritical dependency to doctors, scientists, and "experts" instead - something that would have been utterly anathema in ages gone by.
Many societies have practiced forms of "survival training" by sending their young people - around age 16 - off into the wilderness for a few nights, even in quite perilous conditions, the idea being that, if these youngsters cannot summon up enough personal initiative and self-preservation instincts to look after themselves, and are instead constantly looking for external authorities to "save them", they are too dysfunctional and needy - too much of a liability - to re-join the society.
The same is true today. People who do not learn in their adolescence to detach from childhood dependence into adult independence - trusting and relying on themselves rather than an endless succession of external "authorities" - are deeply dysfunctional and therefore a dangerous liability to themselves and others. They are literally lambs to the slaughter, because they have not learned (as sheep never do either) that the shepherd who feeds and guides them, ultimately has malevolent intentions.
It seems to me that this process, of severing dependence on external authorities, is critical in the evolution of the "conspiracy theorist", in that we have actually made this transition (that's what sets us apart from the normies) - but as our society lacks all healthy forms of rites of passage, it almost always comes through trauma. I have explored before the idea that it is a series of disturbances and traumas (often in childhood but not always) that sever trust in external authority, and therefore lead to the development of the "conspiracy theorist" (e.g., a critical thinker who has learned to trust themselves over any external source).
Conversely, trauma doesn't ALWAYS have this effect: it can create someone even more dependent and needy than ever, but there is the possibility that trauma ultimately proves bolstering - hard times make strong men, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and so on - and that the overlords did not count on this when they were busy dismantling society and making life as difficult and unpleasant as possible: that this could backfire on them, by igniting the natural human spark of independence, and prove an alternative 'rite of passage' to those they have worked so hard to destroy.
I decided not to take any Covid vaccines, not because of what some scientist or expert said (although there is certainly plenty of scientific expertise demonstrating the myriad dangers of vaccines). I made this decision based on my own common sense and instincts - instincts that kicked in at about the time I became responsible for my own medical decisions. I vividly remember, aged 17, intentionally staying at home the day the nurse came into college to give the meningitis vaccine. Not because I'd read any crazy conspiracy theories on the internet (I didn't have internet at home at that point, and only had access for a couple of hours a week in the college library, which I would use to take quizzes on The Beatles), but rather because I had a very strong sense there was something wrong with injections - and that sense has ended up serving me very well.
My main argument against vaccines - that ruthless and greedy ruling classes openly committed to depopulation aren't going to make available for free a treatment that dramatically extends your life - is based, not on 'expert testimony', but quite rudimentary logic. I don't dismiss "experts" altogether, but I do understand, as detailed earlier, that experts aren't intellectually omnipotent nor morally spotless: they can both get things wrong (sometimes catastrophically), and they can lie. The inability to comprehend this fact by the average normie seems an arrested development echo of the same uncritical trust a young child has in its parents as "Gods", who always know what they're doing and always get it right. Children typically lose this faith in their parents as adolescents - but are scrupulously guided by hidden hands to invest it into parental replacements, instead
As I do understand that "experts" can and do lie (more often than not, actually, as it's usually a requirement of maintaining their funding), I take anything they say with a stupendous sprinkling of salt (a commodity that one minute they tell us is killing us; the next is vital for good health), and, instead, look to my own instincts, conscience, and that most uncommon commodity of all - common sense - to guide my decisions. This approach has served me very well thus far, hence I remain in perfectly good health, with no "mystery new ailments" these past two years (as they say, a major advantage of being a conspiracy theorist is that you don't develop myocarditis). The overlords have farmed the masses not to develop these instincts - or to ruthlessly suppress them if they do - and the situation we have around us now is the sorry and inevitable end result of that: of a society of farmed, dependent, psychological children, rather than autonomous and self-reliant emotional adults.
So, there we have it - that's my explanation of why the overlords do what they do, and why we are where we are. But please remember: it's never too late to start making different decisions and reclaiming personal autonomy. Anyone can make the decision at any time to walk off the slave farm, to leave behind the dark nursery, and step into their own adult power.
The time is now.
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.