Conspiracy Theory? What do you mean?
If you're fishing around for wacky conspiracy theories to shoot down, I'll assume you've never heard the phrase "in business to make money."
The term "conspiracy theorist" was not a common phrase until it was thrust into more frequent public usage as a result of the 1967 CIA memo 1035960. At that time it was introduced to dissuade discussion and speculation related to the assassination of JFK. With the emergence of Covid19 and the subsequent biosecurity state, the terms "conspiracy theorist" and "conspiracy theory" have found new life. In the New World Order that came about in 2020 these terms were being used incessantly and with great hypervigilance. Anything outside of the parameters of a sketchy official narrative, riddled with holes, inconsistencies and contradictions, was sloppily deemed "conspiracy theory."
Do you see the inherent irony of this? To call someone a "conspiracy theorist" is to effectively call them a freak. Yet to assume everyone who does not conform to a narrow and particular thought process is a freak — is freakish. In a future substack, I would like to take a closer look at the implications of the overuse and erroneous use of these terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists." The goal here, however, is to point out that while people were looking to debunk and discredit spooky, kooky conspiracy theories, they failed to see the basic mechanism at play. Corporations — too big to fail and too big to jail — were granted total legal impunity. What could possibly go wrong? To grant total legal protection to three massive corporations, (hang on I’m about to call out each one specifically) all with criminal backgrounds, and expect flagrant abuse not to occur, is like asking sharks not to smell blood.
A corporation is an instrument to maximize profit in the marketplace. Its amorality turns into real world immorality as they pursue every form of exploitation available to them to achieve their ends and fulfill the ongoing goal of satisfying insatiable shareholders.
Is it reasonable to grant any major corporation total protection from liability, under any circumstances? I would say no. Is it utterly insane to grant impunity to corporations that have been found guilty of major crimes? I would say yes — obviously.
Under The PREP Act Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), Moderna and Pfizer (all felons) were granted legal protections that virtually compelled them to commit atrocities. If the one-size-fits-all administration of these products results in mass death, they're in the clear. They tried their best. If they ruin or end your life, you won't see a dime, your family won't see a dime and that's the deal. Tough noogies. Is that reasonable? Is that a good arrangement for the public?
How is it possible to not see that this scenario sets the stage for unimaginable levels of malfeasance? Even if you were the most dedicated covidian, completely locked into the narrative, naively believing every measure that was implemented was done so in a sincere desire to mitigate and protect, how could you not at least consider that legal impunity for mega-corporations is potentially very problematic? One does not have to employ abstract thinking to suggest a variety of things that are likely to go wrong. When corporations which are already not regulated well enough and which are perfectly willing to pay fines to get away with inflicting a degree of injury and destruction inherent in their project of profit maximization, it means that people will be harmed — necessarily.
Let's take a quick glimpse at the three corporate players involved in the operation warp speed rollout of (fake) vaccines:
Johnson & Johnson continues to pay out a massive $8.9 billion lawsuit because they were willingly harming those who were using their baby powder (which first of all includes women and babies). They knew their product was carcinogenic and chose to conceal that fact for as long as they could get away with it, which turned out to be decades. It seems to me a crime of that magnitude should put them out of commission for good. But no, they're too big to fail. So instead, they were granted their first foray into vaccine-making. What a lovely idea? (I guess baby powder wasn't intimate enough.) Their viral vector vaccine (not the same as mRNA exactly, but similar) was quietly pulled from the market. It was associated with blood clots, suspended briefly early on, and then ultimately pulled all together. I don't watch mainstream, lamestream media — but could anyone out there please report back to me, has there been any coverage about J & J's first ever vax getting pulled from the market? I certainly didn't overhear anything. Did Fauci make one of his addresses to the public about the fact that one of the three major products that were shoved into people's veins, (under mandate in many cases), was just removed from the market? Can the people who took that intervention, under pressure of losing their jobs, now sue because they were forced to take a product that was deemed unsuitable for application shortly thereafter? Seems to be a bit of a scandal to me. I don't understand why people aren't talking about it and why such flagrant abuse of the public would go completely unaddressed. Was there even a press conference? They seem to have gone quietly into the night with nay comment from any company representative or government official.
What about Moderna? They managed to incur a criminal resume before even bringing a product to market, can you imagine that? Another great candidate for legal impunity! Moderna had collected a large sum of venture capital over a protracted period and now it was put up or shut up time. Covid19 was the big dance, the inauguration for which investors had patiently waited, their first rodeo so to speak. They were right there next to the big boys for their prime-time debut.
They went from making $803 million in revenue in 2020 to $18.5 billion in revenue the following year. Pretty lucky opportunity for a company with a criminal background that never brought a product to market, wouldn't you say? A big profit-making boondoggle with total legal protection to go along with it? According to the sheepdog of the Democratic party — Bernie Sanders — Moderna received $2.5 billion in taxpayer money to launch their version of the dangerous and completely ineffective covid vaccine (Sanders unfortunately described it as a legitimate vaccine and failed to mention that it's a negative efficacy product). Shortly after being involved in this massively profitable mendacity, Moderna CEO Bancel jumped ship and received a sizable $926 million "golden parachute." Disaster capitalism at its finest, but Naomi Klein has been conspicuously missing in action.
Then of course there's Pfizer. Pfizer had been involved in the largest healthcare fraud settlement ($2.3 billion) in the history of the Department of Justice. It was a long list of charges including falsification of data, bribery and general willingness to harm the public. You would think such a thing would disqualify them from a government contract injecting literally unknown substances into people's bodies. And, yes, the total list of ingredients were and are unknown, because of course it goes without saying that corporations and their need to conceal their secret formulas for the purpose of maintaining an advantage in the marketplace naturally exceeds any regard for our right, as citizens, to informed consent. Profit over people, sound familiar?
Pfizer requested to conceal their documents for 75 years and a judge gave them one year. (Why can't they just disclose all their documents right there on the spot considering what they're doing is a "public health" project?) It turns out the contents of those documents are absolutely horrific. They knew they were putting pregnant women and babies at risk and promoted these injections to pregnant women anyway. They knew about a wide range of side effects (the widest side effects profile of any medication in history), literally pages and pages and pages of side effects, listing various forms of thrombosis, a wide range of autoimmune disorders and potential injury to every organ system. Safe and effective? What a flagrant lie that turned out to be.
(While the Pfizer document dump is massively significant and Naomi Wolf and Daily Clout should be commended for their effort in unpacking the 80,000 pages of content, we need to be brought up to speed in regard to the internal documents of the other two major players in the U.S.: J&J and Moderna.)
Not only are we not obligated to trust the government, I recommend that you don't. Recent history alone indicates the U.S. government is not trustworthy and not competent. The government is rife with corruption, as are major corporations. Just as Malcolm X said that to defend oneself is an expression of intelligence, it is intelligent to distrust governments and large corporations. Especially the U.S. government, and especially pharmaceutical corporations.
We're supposed to stick up for ourselves, our families and our communities. A private employer should not be allowed to ask you (coerce you) to have an invasive medical procedure performed. The children in New York state were mandated to take these injections to participate in sports and other activities. That not only speaks to an inappropriate power relationship, it's criminal. Informed consent should not be glossed over under any circumstances. Medical procedures should not be issued outside of train stations and at various pop-up locations. We should never be forced to consume any particular product (least of all in the form of an invasive medical "intervention") and we should never be forced to interact with one or another corporation. We hit a lot of lows during covid. Now, the same people who were the most obedient and compliant are the people who want us to quickly forget everything that recently happened. But that's not how it works. History has just transpired, and it needs to be accounted for. It needs to be understood and grappled with. If the ruling class feels they can abuse us so flagrantly and count on our acquiescence, we can expect more such exercises in the near future. There needs to be, first of all, legal repercussions for the vast crimes committed. Future generations, starting with the next generation, need to be protected from the possibility of these types of transgressions against their sovereignty and health ever occurring again. There should be a moratorium on all medical mandates because trust has been broken.
The rulers cannot continue to think they have the right to inject us at will, muzzle us at will and confine us to our homes at will, whenever they declare emergency. One of the great tragedies of what occurred during covid was that the masters of mankind, the stars of decision as Guy Debord would call them, were able to force us into non-liability packs with felonious corporations. The only way they were able to achieve that end is because we let them. They've tested the waters and they were thrilled by the level of compliance, obedience and outright stupidity they witnessed. They're not going to take their ball and go home. They will most certainly continue to play their game of domination.
It's true, there are truly absurd conspiracy theories out there, some are quite ridiculous indeed. Far more ridiculous, however, is that there was practically no discussion whatsoever about whether or not it's a good idea to give impunity to corporations with criminal backgrounds. It's absurd, it's ridiculous, it's silly, it's wacky, it's “coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs” crazy that so many people, and ultimately we as a society, didn't stop to consider the possible negative outcomes that could result from an arrangement so unfavorable to the public.
Spot on~! So happy you took this from a bullet point to an essay for more impact. Its like t a l k i n g
s l o w l y t o e m p h a s i z e a p o i n t t h a t d e s e r v e s i t s o w n l i g h t ! "we" gave LEGAL IMMUNITY to CORPORATIONS that have serious felonious histories to rush a one size fits all negative efficacy medical 'product'! that EVERYONE is supposed to take.... TOTAL INSANITY!!!
Intelligent, thoughtful, and down right honest. The TRUTH is not subjective, it's just the truth.