One of my major questions throughout life has been whether the bad things that happen around us are a result of a secretive group of bad actors (e.g., an organized conspiracy) or are simply a naturally emergent phenomenon that would occur regardless of which group was in power behind the scenes. The reason this is fundamentally a difficult question to answer is that in most cases, a compelling argument can be made for each, so ultimately, the interpretation you choose comes down to your own biases. In my own case, I still am not sure which is at play.

For instance, I frequently see policies be enacted in a coordinated fashion that lead to a clear outcome, and then watch as the years play out, that every institution works in unison to ensure that outcome comes to pass, and as such, when I see the opening moves, I tend to assume the ultimate outcome will follow (which, for example, is why I knew there would be vaccine mandates at the start of 2021).

Note: as it’s a bit of a tangent, I included a recent fairly impactful example of one of these coordinated campaigns at the end of the article.

Conversely, I often ask people directly connected to the government who is actually making the decisions that affect all of us, and one of the most informed people I know simply shared:

You can always point a finger at a specific agency or person, but the reality is that as the government gets bigger and bigger, more and more fiefdoms will emerge within it, and those groups will fight for their own interests at the expense of everyone else.

Note: many Federal agencies depend on obtaining congressional funding and, therefore, will engage in stunts to ensure that funding is allocated to them. For example, the CDC will routinely hype up inconsequential “pandemics” each year, as this nationwide drama allows them to obtain more funding.

Everyone has specific government agencies they dislike. One of mine has been the CDC because the CDC always promotes and protects vaccines (regardless of how egregious the vaccine is), criticizes integrative medical therapies, and promotes disease management strategies that are not very effective (e.g., masking for COVID).

It hence should not come as a surprise that the CDC has a longstanding history of corruption, did a variety of unscrupulous things to promote the COVID vaccines and in the present moment, has been the most resistant agency to the MAHA policies RFK Jr. has been working to enact (which in addition to being shown through news reports has been shared with me by people directly connected to the H.H.S.).

The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with bio-pharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.—Marcia Angell MD, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

In turn, if you browse their website, you will frequently encounter this CME disclaimer:

“CDC, our planners, content experts, and their spouses/partners wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services, or commercial supporters. Planners have reviewed content to ensure there is no bias. CDC does not accept commercial support.”

One of the primary ways the CDC legally takes bribes is due to a 1983 law where Congress authorized the CDC to accept gifts “made unconditionally…for the benefit of the [Public Health] Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” Following this, in 1992, Congress established The National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, allowing the CDC to obtain additional funding for its work. Two years later, it was incorporated to “mobilize philanthropic and private-sector resources.”

Note: other Federal agencies, including the CIA and the NIH, have similar foundations (that are not subject to legal oversight such as Freedom of Information Act requests with many foundation directors later getting lucrative pharmaceutical employment).

Not surprisingly, the CDC Foundation has been accused of egregious conduct since its inception and has received nearly 1 billion dollars from corporate “donors” (criticisms include a scathing editorial in one of the world’s top medical journals). Some of the best examples of this corruption are documented in a 2019 letter to the CDC from a group of non-profit watchdog organizations. To quote part of it:

In 2011, Type Investigations reported that Exponent Inc, a firm that performs research for the pesticide industry, gave $60,000 to the CDC Foundation for a study to prove the safety of two pesticides. “We have a professional money-laundering facility at the Centers for Disease Control Foundation….They accept projects from anyone on the outside,” said James O'Callaghan, a researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Between 2010 and 2015, Coca-Cola contributed more than $1 million to the CDC Foundation. It also received significant benefits from the CDC, including collaborative meetings and advice from a top CDC staffer on how to lobby the World Health Organization to curtail its efforts to reduce consumption of added sugars.

The BMJ also reported on contributions from Roche to the CDC Foundation in support of the CDC’s Take 3 flu campaign, which encourages people to “take antiviral medicine if a doctor prescribes it.” Roche manufactures Tamiflu, an antiviral medication for the flu [for reference, Roche was able to convince governments around the world to stockpile hundreds of millions of dollars of Tamiflu while refusing to release any of their clinical data—and it was eventually concluded that the benefits of the drug are negligible, while significant harms result from the medication].

These “donations” in turn often shape the “impartial” guidelines we are expected to follow:

“In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26 million to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection.”

Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers. A report by the Office of the Inspector General found that CDC’s external advisors played an influential role in decision-making for the federal government and that there was a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program with 97% of disclosure forms filed by advisors found to be incomplete, and 13% of advisors who participated in meetings not filing any disclosure at all.

Note: key funders of the CDC foundation (detailed here) include Act Blue (a key Democratic political advocacy group), key vaccine organizations such as GAVI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the major vaccine manufacturers (e.g., Pfizer, Moderna, Merck and J&J), and tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and PayPal.

Recognizing these concerning trends, employees of the CDC in 2016 anonymously complained to their leadership regarding the agency’s corruption:

It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests…What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.

Recently, the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) has been implicated in a “cover up” of inaccurate screening data for the Wise Woman (WW) Program. There was a coordinated effort by that Center to “bury” the fact that screening numbers for the WW program were misrepresented in documents sent to Congress; screening numbers for 2014 and 2015 did not meet expectations despite a multi­million dollar investment; and definitions were changed and data “cooked” to make the results look better than they were. Data were clearly manipulated in irregular ways. An “internal review” that involved staff across CDC occurred and its findings were essentially suppressed so media and/or Congressional staff would not become aware of the problems.

Finally, most of the scientists at CDC operate with the utmost integrity and ethics. However, this “climate of disregard” puts many of us in difficult positions. We are often directed to do things we know are not right. For example, Congress has made it very clear that domestic funding for NCCDPHP (and other CIOs) should be used for domestic work and that the bulk of NCCDPHP funding should be allocated to program (not research).

Why in FY17 is NCCDPHP diverting money away from program priorities that directly benefit the public to support an expensive [global health] research that may not yield anything that benefits the [American] public?

Finally, the CDC’s dealings with corporate interests had drawn scrutiny and concern from Congress:

In February 2019, Congresswomen Chellie Pingree and Rosa DeLauro wrote the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services calling for an investigation of CDC’s interactions with Coca-Cola. They noted that the evidence shows “a troubling pattern of the company using access to high-level CDC officials to shape debates over public health policy directly involving the nutritional value of its products.” The congresswomen requested that the Inspector General “determine whether there is a broader pattern of inappropriate industry influence at the agency, and make recommendations to address this issue.”

Unfortunately, due to the politicization surrounding COVID, all of this was swept under the rug, the requested 2019 investigation was never conducted, and the (fairly recent) story was largely forgotten.

Much in the same way, I always wonder to what degree events are “natural” vs. “orchestrated.” I also often wonder to what degree conduct I find reprehensible is due to corruption or simply ideological fixation, once again finding it’s ultimately hard to say, as such a strong case can be made for each conclusion.

For example, in the case of vaccines, while clear financial conflicts of interest can be shown in certain cases (e.g., what I showed above with the CDC), I find the zealous adherence to all vaccines being “safe and effective” tends to be ideological in nature, as believing in vaccines has been instilled as a core belief of anyone affiliated with “science” or “medicine.”

Initially this can be quite subtle, but in time, that ideological bias quickly adds up. This is because (as mentioned before) most things aren’t clear cut, so depending on what one is biased to notice, one can rapidly be left with a world view where all “the evidence” supports their position, even if a great deal of it does not.
Note: one of the major problems in human society is that human beings typically cannot be fully aware of all the information they are exposed to (as there is an overwhelming amount of it). As a result, they typically will filter their perception of reality to concentrate on the things that give “value” to them, which typically are what conforms to their existing biases. Because of this, people will often become absolutely certain their interpretation of reality is correct, even if many (with different biases from them) have diametrically opposed interpretations of reality.

In the case of vaccines, this is a critical concept to understand as evaluating the actual risks and benefits of a routine vaccine requires you to assess:

•What percent of the unvaccinated population is likely to get the infection.
•What percent of those infected will have a moderate or severe illness.
•How effectively the vaccine prevents those vaccinated from catching the illness or developing moderate or severe complications from it.
•How long the vaccine’s effectiveness lasts.
•How long does it take the infection to become resistant to the vaccine (making it useless).
•What are the consequences of the vaccine triggering a mutation in the infection.
•How likely the vaccine is to cause an acute moderate or acute severe reaction.
•How likely the vaccine is to cause a chronic moderate or chronic severe reaction.
•Who is at risk of having a more severe reaction to the vaccine?

Each of these is quite a task to figure out, and as a result most of the relevant points for each of the above simply are not taken into account when deciding upon a vaccine recommendation. Rather, a few points (typically highlighted by a pharmaceutical marketing division) are focused on, and the interpretation of the vaccine’s risks and benefits are seen through that lens (e.g., “cervical cancer is deadly” and “the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer), while pieces of evidence which challenge the predetermined conclusion (e.g., evidence of vaccine harm) are dismissed and filtered away.

As a result, many vaccines are on the market where their risks clearly and unambiguously outweigh their benefits, while in parallel, vaccines are viewed as a homogenous entity despite some (e.g., the HPV and COVID vaccines) being much more dangerous and unnecessary than many others.

Note: as many people have requested, I have provided a concise summary of the risks and benefits of each childhood vaccine here.

Because of this “ideological filtration” many everyday proponents of vaccination are completely unaware that severe neurological or autoimmune injuries are a frequent complication of vaccination. As such, when confronted with that evidence, they use a variety of mental excuses to dismiss those injuries such as them being “anecdotal” “one in a million” or an “unrelated coincidence”—even when person after person begs them to acknowledge the injury.

Recently, we’ve seen this dynamic play out with the COVID vaccines (as the marketing for the vaccines made those on the Left, be strongly identified with supporting the vaccines), which has led to the extraordinary situation where many injured by the vaccines either won’t talk about it publicly (for fear of social ostracization) or won’t even acknowledge it.

For example, as I show here, 4 Senate Democrats who pushed the COVID vaccine had highly unusual neurological injuries all strongly linked to the COVID vaccine, yet none of them have recanted their support for it (rather, only a few Republicans like Representative Nancy Mace have publicly acknowledged their injury). Likewise, a Senate aid I spoke to shared that other Senators have had vaccine injuries, but none will publicly admit it, and at best instead have focused on getting treatment for “long COVID” (e.g., Tim Kaine—a strong HPV vaccine proponent—has used his struggle with long COVID to advocate for research into the disease).

As much of the opposition to acknowledging vaccine injuries appears to be psychological rather than financial in nature, Ron Johnson (due to him recently becoming chair of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations) recently held an excellent hearing (I would advise watching) which focused on allowing those who had been injured by vaccines and then abandoned by the medical system to tell their stories.

This hearing, in my eyes, accomplished two key goals. First, it provided a critical voice for this issue as official hearings like this almost never happen (e.g., 25 years ago, Congressmen Dan Burton gave parents of children who developed autism following vaccination to testify, and prior to that, in the lead up to the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act, parents of vaccine injured children testified). Second, it forced Senators who were vocal opponents of increasing vaccine safety (and hence in denial that injuries occurred) to directly confront the reality of them—in turn leading to one prominent opponent to somewhat change his position during the hearing.

Note: the Senate aide I spoke to shared that many who oppose RFK’s vaccine efforts do so primarily for ideological reasons (e.g., being trained as an MD) and hence that a significant focus needs to be placed on educating them and exposing them to events like Senator Johnson’s hearing.

A popular tactic for taking advantage of people is to have an impartial and trusted “third party” implement your policy for you (e.g., one of the long standing frustration of the environmental movement is that polluters will make “non-profits” with names implying they advocate for the environment which then do all they can to facilitate environmental pollution).

This tactic is used throughout the medical field (e.g., “experts” will frequently be paraded across the mass media who advocate for a pharmaceutical company’s agenda, and [industryfunded] medical journals will typically only publish studies that support the pharmaceutical industry).

One of the most common ways this is done is by appointing “impartial” committees of experts who then author authoritative guidelines everyone is expected to (and often has to) follow. Since the appointment process is at the discretion of a federal bureaucrat, this inevitably results in appointees having massive conflicts of interest, consequently voting for policies that advance pharmaceutical interests (e.g., remdesivir was push on America because the committee members that chose COVID treatments were taking money from Gilead, and a similar situation occurred with statins).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is the group the CDC delegated to create its vaccine schedule, and as you might expect:
•Almost every member on it has financial conflicts of interest (which was a key justification for why RFK recently replaced the ACIP members with ones who did not).
•ACIP, give or take, always votes to add the vaccines presented before them to the immunization schedule and virtually never withdraws any.
•ACIP always ignores anyone who presents evidence of vaccine injuries (e.g., as they are “anecdotal”).
Note: in the one case I know of where ACIP voted against a vaccine recommendation (COVID boosters for adult workers), the CDC simply overruled them.

Given all of this, one aspect of Ron Johnson’s hearing specifically caught my attention, a witness brought in by the vaccine supporters who dramatically shared the tragic story of her infant sister dying from the flu (to underscore how important vaccines were) and the loss and anguish they experienced from the process, after which she said:

My parents' strength is something that I will always admire. Though I was too young to realize it at the time, they turned their grief into action. In the time before Facebook and social media, they found other families they found other families all who had lost a child to the to flu.

They came together, worked hard, and we still work each day to keep this unnecessary tragedy from happening to other families. When Jessica and Emily and Amanda and Alana died, the flu vaccine was not recommended for their age group.

Our families changed that. They went to the CDC. They testified in front of the advisory committee on immunization practices, which many know now as the ACIP.

And it wasn't easy, but ACIP listened. They changed the recommendations to where it stands today, that everyone six months and older get an annual flu shot. This is how my family honors Jessica.

To me this was quite noteworthy as this decision was made entirely off of an anecdote that ignored the fact roughly 100 “flu related” deaths occur in infants between 6-12 months of age each year (many of which are not due to the flu), or that thousands of reactions to the flu shot (including deaths) have been reported to VAERS, a system which is estimated to only capture 1% of vaccine injuries.

Likewise, this anecdote reminds me of what happened with the Menveo meningitis vaccine. Briefly:

•Roughly 113 cases of meningococcal disease occur in children under 1 each year, while in children 1-2, it becomes even rarer (0.6-1.1 cases per 100,000 children).
•Around 20% of those occur from a meningococcal strain covered by Menveo.
•About 6-10% of those cases are fatal.
•Data showed that around 90% of vaccine recipients developed protective antibodies for the targeted meningococcal strain.

Briefly, what this all means is that you had to vaccinate roughly a million infants to prevent one case of meningitis (and even more to prevent a death), at which point, beyond it overall being more like to cause harm that benefit, since each vaccine costs 100-500 dollars, it’s not the best return on health dollars.

Note: total cases of meningococcal disease have actually increased since the vaccine was introduced, again showing minimal public health benefit.1,2

Given all of this, the justification for adding Menveo to the infant vaccine schedule was quite weak. However, to quote a 2013 article:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted today to recommend (13 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain) the meningococcal conjugate vaccine MenACWY-CRM (Menveo, Novartis Vaccines) for use in infants and young toddlers who are at increased risk for meningococcal disease.

Two [industry sponsored] parents of children who had died or suffered debilitating effects from meningococcal disease pleaded with the committee to make the vaccine available to all children, and not just those at high risk.

The committee also voted (14 yes, 1 abstain) to include the MenACWY-CRM vaccine in the Vaccines for Children program.

I mention all of this because while any evidence of vaccine harm presented to ACIP is always “anecdotal” and dismissed, the harm from not vaccinating is immediately taken into consideration for implementing policies, even if it is incredibly rare.

The medical field has historically been extremely resistant to adopting any type of change. Evidence-based medicine, in turn, was originally created as a means to finally overturn dogmatic and harmful traditions in medicine. While it was initially quite helpful, it gradually became co-opted once the industry realized it could define what the “best available evidence” was and then monopolize every source of publication for that evidence, while simultaneously discrediting any conflicting evidence as “not credible.”

Because of this, medicine gradually regressed to its previous dogmatic state, and it has again become very difficult to overturn harmful medical practices which have pharmaceutical money behind them (and hence why newsletters like this one flourish as dissenting health information which should be readily available is instead censored from most media sources).

Note: in many cases when trying to determine if something bad is orchestrated or an emergent phenomenon, I find that both are true, specifically, a group which wanted to promote an agenda (e.g., pushing the COVID vaccine) identified a few pressure points they could influence at the top of the pyramid (e.g., CDC guidelines) which then caused everyone else to willingly adopt that agenda and advocate for it. Our existing system is set up to support this form of social control (as most people defer to the crowd and hierarchy and hence the levers that can influence them are easily available). Fortunately, the rise of the independent media is making this model much less viable (which amongst other things, is why we are now seeing a massive loss of trust in vaccines that the medical industry has depended upon for decades.

Beyond buying out the evidence, one of the most remarkable sleights of hand the medical industry has managed to accomplish is convincing people that they no longer need to “see the data” and instead can simply “trust the experts to accurately present it to you.” This in turn, completely invalidates the basis of evidence-based medicine and restores it back to the old dogmatic system where we simply trust the experts—but remarkably, very little attention has been paid to this issue. Instead, we are simply put into a position where we have to assume any data summary presented to us has likely been doctored to support its sponsor’s message (as most are).

During COVID, the public became much more aware of this problem, as in lockstep, every group that had the data to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the vaccines told us they were “definitely safe and effective” but for one reason or another, would never give the data.
Note: Steve Kirsch spent years trying to obtain this information, and with considerable effort, gradually unearthed those datasets (e.g., through whistleblowers) that all showed the COVID vaccines were not “safe and effective.”

One of the greatest offenders in this regard was the CDC, and eventually through lawsuits, we were able to show that they had clear evidence the vaccine was harmful, but in the curated publications they shared of it, those harms were concealed.

When seeking drug approval or vaccine recommendation, there are several boxes that must be checked to ensure “safe and effective” products reach the public. However, meeting those standards is again quite subjective (e.g., they are used to stonewall alternative medical products from ever being approved). As such, if something supports the medical industry, its boxes are subjected to minimal scrutiny (e.g., in the leaked European application for Pfizer’s vaccine, Pfizer was simply allowed to give a brief rationale for skipping many of the required safety studies—many of which later were shown to be major issues with the vaccine).

Because of this, during ACIP meetings, the CDC, without providing its data, will often give a brief statement asserting the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, which the ACIP takes as a definitive truth (even if mountains of testimonies say the vaccine is actually harmful).

Note: there is also a longstanding issue with the CDC refusing to ever give access to its “Vaccine Safety Datalink” database, which would prove if vaccines are safe and effective.

Recently (through an immensely controversial move), RFK changed ACIP to be composed of more moderate voices who did not have major conflicts of interest. I hence watched their first meeting with interest and noted that despite the world having dramatically changed, the CDC’s method of approaching these meetings had not.

Specifically, they continued to assert:

•Infants were at high risk of becoming severely ill from COVID (to justify the vaccine being put back onto the schedule for them) despite existing data showing very close to 0 infants are dying from COVID.

•That positive COVID tests at admission correlated with COVID causing their hospitalization (“86% of adult hospitalizations during that time period were likely attributable to COVID-19”).

•That they still had no explanation for why COVID had evolved into variants that were resistant to the vaccine (a concern which was known with the vaccine from the start, as it used a single rapidly mutating antigen).

•According to the CDC’s private database (we can’t access) and many other systems their around the clock analysis (we can’t review) has continued to conclude that there was no statistical proof the COVID vaccine caused many of the injuries people attributed to it (e.g., death, venous thromboembolism, seizures, strokes, bell’s palsy or any issues in pregnancy such as miscarriages) and that the signals suggesting otherwise in databases we can access are “false positives.”
Note: I was most surprised by the CDC asserting their analysis “proved” the COVID vaccine was not associated with abnormal menstruation—one of the most common and widely demonstrated side effects of the COVID vaccines.

•That while a risk of myocarditis does exist, the risk is very low, and that 83% percent of those afflicted fully recovered in 90 days. In contrast, a study the CDC failed to mention found that at 12-18 months, 35% reported persistent symptoms, primarily chest pain, palpitations, or fatigue, 13% remained on medication, 8% restricted exercise (mostly self-initiated), and 5.6% required hospitalization.
Note: Ron Johnson’s previous hearing provided proof the CDC deliberately withheld data showing COVID vaccines caused myocarditis to protect the vaccine program.

•That the CDC had no way to track longterm complications from the COVID vaccine, as over time “more and more confounding variables are introduced” and that the CDC would welcome any advice ACIP had on how those complications could be monitored (which effectively means the CDC has no intention of ever acknowledging any longterm complications from the vaccines).

During COVID, the ACIP meetings became a morbid hobby of watching a slow motion train wreck, as we knew nothing we did could derail them pushing the COVID vaccine along, but at the same time, we couldn’t turn our eyes away from it, as we did need to know what depressing vaccine policies were in the pipeline.

At that time, ACIP and the CDC were still shrouded in their halo of “objective expertises” so it was immensely difficult to challenge what they were doing. Fortunately, because of how much they overstepped their authority, much of that trust was lost (e.g., now only 61% of Americans trust the CDC). As such, more and more people are becoming willing to question what they are doing (e.g., what the CDC said was absurd). Since a great number of people watched this ACIP meeting, many reached out to me with serious concerns or disbelief about what the CDC had said.

In short, like many Federal Agencies, the CDC is continuing to operate as its own fiefdom, and it is for that reason they are continuing their longstanding playbook and continuing to gaslight the vaccine injured. However, we now live in a new era where these types of lies can no longer resist scrutiny, and we are on the verge of having broad swathes of the population, who had previously filtered away and dismissed “unorthodox” views on vaccination, become receptive to them. As such, we now have an extraordinary opportunity to expose this gross malfeasance and allow the other side of the story to be finally heard.

Click below to share this post!

Share

Refer a friend

Give a gift subscription

Lastly, as mentioned above, I frequently observe multistep processes play out over years if not decades. Yesterday, I finally found proof corroborating something I had long suspected, which I feel is helpful as it illustrates how these sequential events unfold around us.

Specifically, one of the most contentious issues in recent times in Europe has been the massive influx of refugees from Africa and the Middle East over the last decade, as many feel the crime and economic cost it has inflicted is an existential threat to their nations, which has resulted in both widespread protest and right-wing political parties rising to power which previously had no chance in the electorate.

When Hillary Clinton served as Obama’s Secretary of State, she made some highly controversial decisions. Specifically, an attempt was made to topple various governments in the Middle East through inspiring public protest against the existing government and funding rebel groups to take out Assad, creating the Syrian civil war. At the same time, this was also done to Gaddafi, who was eventually removed from power through an extremely controversial bombing program (many in the State Department opposed), which Hillary later infamously bragged about in an interview.
Note: the primary opposition to toppling Gadaffi came from the fact it was well recognized it would be followed by perpetual chaos1,2,3,4,5,6 (e.g., there has civil war or smaller conflicts ever since) and because Gadaffi had already voluntarily surrendered his WMD’s to the USA and become a partner in the War on Terror (sending a terrible message to any other country considering surrendering them).1,2,3,4

In war, a common strategy is to target an enemy at multiple points, thereby corraling them into a designated area (e.g., a kill zone). As such, beyond being quite disturbed by what I saw occurring (particularly in Libya), something else caught my attention.

One of Gaddafi's primary leverage points with the Western World was that he provided border security for Europe by preventing Africa immigrants from being able to cross into the Mediterranean and Europe, and knowing that Europe did not want to have to deal with an influx of refugees, used the threat of that happening to keep him from being taken out of power. As such, it was quite noteworthy that at the same time a northern corridor of migration was being opened (from Africa), a Western one (from Syria) was being opened as well, particularly since the US’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were already creating a refugee crisis.

Not long after in 2015, a haunting picture was taken on a beach of a Syrian refugee boy who had died in a boat that capsized. The entire global media promoted it (indicating there was a coordinated campaign behind it), and it rapidly went viral. Before long, many Europeans I knew, who had previously held a longstanding opposition to flooding the country with immigrants, became zealous supporters of it. Based on this, I was relatively certain that all of this had been deliberately orchestrated and that in the years to follow, more conflict and instability would ensue. However, despite this, the media and governments would not back down on the policy. I mention all of this because today one well-known 𝕏 researcher determined that the entire push for accepting refugees in Europe was funded by the United States, and hence all part of a much broader “conspiracy.” This in turn parallels many of the controversial “open border” policies during Biden’s term which occurred alongside significant work from NGOs to facilitate the migration into the United States.

Note: in situations like this, I find it’s normally impossible to know exactly why these coordinated campaigns occur (as many different theories exist to explain the motivations behind them). However, even so, you can generally tell what the playbook is, and as such, I prioritize discerning what is likely to happen rather than trying to know exactly why it’s being done.