by Hewitt E. Moore

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological pressure created when one holds two conflicting “truths” at the same time. A good example would be the contradictions associated with the current Covid-19 pandemic: “If you leave your house you're gonna die!” vs  “it's just the flu, bro.”

“Experts” said 2.2 million people would die in the United States unless we did everything perfect. As of this writing, there are 100,000 deaths (an arbitrary figure based on what differentiates those who died of Covid-19 and those who died with Covid-19). Nonetheless, we certainly didn't do everything perfectly (the United States earned an “F” on their social distancing scorecard).

Naysayers will say: “Yea, but this isn't the flu, and the only reason millions didn't die was because of social distancing.” But, the architects of “social distancing” never said it would save lives. They said it would “flatten the curve” so the healthcare system wouldn't be overwhelmed:
“During an epidemic, a health care system can break down when the number of people infected exceeds the capability of the health care system's ability to take care of them. Flattening the curve means slowing the spread of the epidemic so that the peak number of people requiring care at a time is reduced, and the health care system does not exceed its capacity. Flattening the curve relies on mitigation techniques such as social distancing.”
The “expert models” are hypothetically-based attempts at predicting the future. They're almost always wrong. In the case of Covid-19, they were always wrong. Way wrong. Yet, ironically the “experts” still tell us how much they don't know about this virus, and in the same breath they tell us how dangerous it is to leave your house (a recent study showed 81% of people were asymptomatic, which potentially means a large percentage of the population has already been infected and never knew it, thus making the IFR well below that of the seasonal flu).

And remember when the US Surgeon General told Americans to “STOP BUYING MASKS!” because they were “NOT effective” and that they would actually promote the spread of the virus? Fast forward to today, and it's not only recommended, but mandated in many places.

So, what exactly changed? Was it the fundamentals of epidemiology theory? Are we to believe that epidemiologists (i.e. “the experts”) don't know whether or not masks are an effective preventative measure against respiratory viruses? This would seem to be the equivalent of a mathematics professor not knowing that 2+2=4.

Furthermore, let's not forget that any “expert” with an alternative opinion has been silenced by big tech censorship. Kinda weird how that works in our politically correct utopia, isn't it? You can't deny business to a Jew because of their religion, a homosexual because of their sexuality, or a black person because of their skin color, but you can deny business to a scientist because of his theory about a pandemic.

Sounds like anything is possible in this brave new world.

But is it possible that the “experts” needed to make sure “community spread” occurred in order to ensure there was an actual outbreak to justify locking Americans in their homes and crashing the economy? Because absolutely nobody believes this whole, “we just want to keep you safe” nonsense.

If the government just wanted to keep us “safe” they wouldn't let us drive cars, skydive, smoke cigarettes, have elective surgeries or eat McDonald's. Not to mention diversity. How many Americans have been raped, robbed and murdered by diversity over the last 50 years? Our leaders know the “color of crime,” and yet they have the audacity to tell us that “diversity is our greatest strength!” It's a non-debatable fact that America would be significantly “safer” without diversity. Just imagine for a second that Americans had the option for a vaccine that would be 75% effective against becoming a victim of a violent crime. So this isn't about “safety.”

When the actions of the system don't make sense, people logically assume there has to be an ulterior motive. Therefore, conspiracy theories are hatched. But it's not so much the actual conspiracy theories themselves that are relevant, it's the lack of trust in the system that creates an environment ripe for conspiracy theories that is relevant. The genetic fabric that insulated the evolutionary womb of Western Civilization is woven in trust. America has devolved into a low-trust society.

While it's certainly an accurate assessment to judge our leaders as deceptive by nature, their level of incompetency can't be underestimated either. People assume that their elected officials are these brilliant, altruistic people who sacrifice for the greater good. And that a career in politics isn't a choice, but a moral obligation for which they selflessly fulfill. But that's nonsense. Politicians become politicians for the same reasons a farmer becomes a farmer, a cop becomes a cop, or a carpenter becomes a carpenter.  There isn't any special skill set, or intellectual threshold required to be a politician (besides a quest for power and maybe the gift of gab).

Therefore, people also assume that their leaders are these fearless heroes that are immune to mass hysteria. As if politicians don't play follow-the-leader like everyone else. So, when people flooded the grocery stores and stocked up on toilet paper to ensure their survival, don't think that politicians weren't right there on the toilet paper aisles bumping elbows with their constituents.

The question becomes: is this a simple case of the blind leading the blind in a collective state of mass hysteria? Or is there a reasonable conspiracy theory that doesn't involve 5G, Bill Gates using the pandemic as a way to insert computer chips into our brains via vaccine, or Q-Anon's theory that the virus is a covert operation to remove pedophiles from the Deep State?

The most reasonable conspiracy theory isn't really a conspiracy. It's just an ongoing extension of what has already been happening in the West for decades. That being the destruction of the traditional family. Not so much because the elites “hate” traditional families, but because the need for traditional families has run its course.

It's important to understand that nothing is a coincidence. The middle-class came to be because kings needed armies and factories needed workers. It wasn't just some coincidental happening. Nor is it some universal law that societies have to have a middle-class.

There are two primary reasons the middle-class has become obsolete:

First, the nuclear weapon eliminated the need for armies. There will never be another mano a mano bloody trench war like we saw in World War 2, where 70 million men died. Technology destroyed the art of war. Any future wars will be based on 4th generation warfare. In other words, it will be idealistic and without borders.

Secondly, and probably even more importantly, automation will eliminate the need for a massive work force. Simply put, the majority of human workers will be replaced by machines within the next 50 years. The elites know this. Thus, they have to make preparations to deal with millions of unemployed citizens. And how do they do that? With UBI, drug legalization, and entertainment.

But what do they do with this obsolete middle-class? They systemically genocide them, beginning with the destruction of the very thing that created them: the traditional family.

They do this with a combination of tactics: social engineering (homosexuality, feminism, egalitarianism, misandry, etc), state-induced nihilism (opiates, suicides, science > religion, porn, etc) and biological warfare (pandemics, vaccines and meds that have sterilizing side-effects, etc). All which act in unison to demoralize the population, destroy the family unit and effectively lower the birth rate to zero.

Basically, what we are witnessing is systemic population control (ie genocide). And if you don't think population control is a real thing, think again:
“All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class” ~ Margaret Sanger

“Solving the population problem is not going to solve the problems of racism… of sexism… of religious intolerance… of war… of gross economic inequality. But if you don’t solve the population problem, you’re not going to solve any of those problems. Whatever problem you’re interested in, you’re not going to solve it unless you also solve the population problem.” ~ Paul Ehrlich

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ Ted Turner

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children… You have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.” ~ Al Gore

“The problem is that the population is growing the fastest where people are less able to deal with it. So it’s in the very poorest places that you’re going to have a tripling in population by 2050. (…) And we’ve got to make sure that we help out with the tools now so that they don’t have an impossible situation later.” ~ Bill Gates

“In poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.” ~ Bernie Sanders

“Basically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birth rate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate — war, famine, pestilence — find us.” Paul Ehrlich
In the past, the elites often used war as a form of population control (obviously, war wasn't just about population control, but the point being is that option doesn't currently exist). Now, without the possibility of a major war, have the powers-that-be decided to switch tactics and use biological warfare? This is quite possibly what we're seeing with the current Covid-19 pandemic. The system is performing a test run to see how society operates without a manual workforce. How well automated systems can function. The better they perform, then perhaps the sooner we will have another pandemic. And the next one might just be the real thing. They've already prodded citizens with a trial virus, that they know isn't that deadly (CDC estimates 0.26% IFR). So, when the next one comes, there will be a lot of people who just don't take it serious.

The first thing I thought when this all happened was that if this isn't the real thing they will never be able to pull this off again. One would think those in charge had the same thought.

So the questions remains: is the Covid-19 pandemic part of a conspiracy, or just the consequence of incompetency?

Note: Links to our site are banned on Facebook, so if you wish to share this article there please use the identical version available at this site. You can support us by buying the following books: Interviews & Obituaries and Under the Nihil