However, if a cyber attack does happen a few years from now that takes out the global financial system... it'll definitely make me a little queasy.
So we should be weary about any company that runs disaster recovery exercises? We just saw another AWS outage take many significant services offline a couple weeks ago.
Which I think is a very cynical take - but I'm not exactly thrilled with some of the statements of these organization's leaders.
Just like most conspiracy theories, the idea just doesn't make sense once you get past the sensationalism. What kind of power are they seeking that they don't already have?
But also you should realize that after attaining a certain level you cannot be bribed anymore and can only be blackmailed
Whether you feel it was planned or not, the lockdowns did pretty much halt the velocity of money. Sure they printed a ton of social care money, but again the inflationary trap had already been set, it was the velocity that needed to be killed to buy some time.
This idea extends the concept.
I am glad that systems are actively and preemptively tested so that issues can prevented. It is the duty for some body in society to do so and I would be incredibly angry if no one felt responsibility to do so.
Whats sad to me is that entities with a vast history of conducting outright conspiracy get defended as if those of us skeptical and cautious about their true motives are just being cynical. What the financial elite have planned is not even close to just regular old corporate IT department red-teaming... so I find this framing naive at best.
"The COVID-19 crisis has since been cited as the main justification for accelerating what is termed the digital transformation of the financial sector and other sectors, which that the World Economic Forum and its partners have promoted for years. Their latest prediction of a doomsday event, a cyberattack that stops the current financial system in its tracks and initiates its systemic collapse, if it came to pass, would be the final, necessary step required to bring about the Forum’s desired outcome of a widespread shift to digital currency and increased global governance of the international economy.
Given that experts have been warning since the last global financial crisis that the collapse of the entire system was inevitable due to central bank mismanagement and rampant Wall Street corruption, a cyberattack would also provide the perfect scenario for dismantling the current failing system, as it would absolve central banks and corrupt financial institutions of any responsibility. It would also provide a justification for incredibly troubling policies promoted in the WEF-Carnegie report, such as a greater fusion of intelligence agencies and banks in order to better “protect” critical financial infrastructure." [1]
"A massive cyberattack, such as that simulated at Cyber Polygon 2020, would allow faceless hackers to be blamed for economic collapse, thus absolving the real financial criminals of responsibility. Furthermore, due to the difficult nature of investigating hacks and the ability of intelligence agencies to frame other nation states for hacks they in fact committed themselves, any boogeyman of choice can be blamed, whether a “domestic terror” group or a country unaligned with the WEF (for now, at least) like Iran or North Korea." [2]
"Ultimately, what WEF-PAC represents is a global organization that aims to neuter anonymity online, whether for financial purposes or for browsing and other activities. It is a global effort combining powerful governments and corporations that seeks to usher in a new age of surveillance that makes such surveillance a requirement to participate in the online world or use online services. It is being sold to the public as the only way to stop a coming “pandemic” of cybercrime, a crisis taking place largely in murky parts of the internet that few understand or have any direct experience with. Having to rely on State intelligence agencies and intelligence-linked cybersecurity firms for attribution of these crimes, it has never been easier for corrupt actors in those agencies or their partners to either manufacture or manipulate a crisis that could upend online freedom as we have known it, something these very groups have sought to implement for years." [3]
1. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/04/investigative-reports/w...
2. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/02/investigative-reports/f...
3. https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/07/investigative-reports/e...
This is a truly simian approach at pointing the finger at people who plan on preventing disaster because simply uttering its name causes it to be.
That’s not to say I often agree. But it’s a really interesting exercise to explore their theories. You’ll often learn an abundance yourself.
I did that recently regarding the election hacking claims: https://austingwalters.com/mike-lindell-and-china-hacking-am...
I ended up narrowing down who it was who was perpetrating the claims and validated my theory it’s probably BS.
In this case, the WEF and IMF have a lot of the same participants and have run hacking simulations. That seems reasonable to me imo. That said, it’s fairly clear why people believe there’s a conspiracy with the IMF —
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1275693/Henry-Kissinger-Who-con...
There’s probably something there, but it’s not clear the cyber attack simulations are anything related to a conspiracy. China and the west’s adversaries have a pretty clear incentive to replace / destroy the IMF. They could do that via hacking.
Both global pandemics and cyberattacks are plausible events. This is the true cause of both the simulations and the events occurring. It is incredibly improbable that the IMF thinking of them and simulating them had anything to do with them happening.
We need strategy that has the ability to be flexible. It needs to be based on outcome. These simulations incorrectly teach people that the strategy is the goal, instead of aiming towards an outcome. For example, reducing hospitalization and deaths isn't the goal with current covid policy. The goal is to vaccinate as many people as possible.
People running these simulations are obviously focused on outcomes, that's why you run these simulations in the first place. Simulations allow you to find flaws in your preparations, but it doesn't make your preparations flawless. You try to minimize your outcome downside risk .
It is not obvious that these people who run these simulations are focused on positive outcomes on behalf of the population.
Historically the point of vaccines have been to prevent transmission. The covid vaccine is distinct on this.
> If you can prevent that, then you can likely limit or eliminate the spread.
That doesn't make any sense. Mitigating serious illness puts no downward pressure on transmission.
And in fact, if someone's symptoms are reduced and they don't need to test because they aren't required for vaxxed, it may even encourage spread.
You are right that this could be offset because there is no isolation happening in case of an unknown infection.
> Doctors have widely been prevented
citation needed I guess. Again, lots of stuff is being looked at (and some integrated in treatment recommendations), not just "Pfizers own new drugs".
Lol no, obesity is one of the biggest factors in covid mortality
You said you are in the US in another comment. I took 3 minutes to google some big US news sites. They all had multiple articles on the topic from spring 2020 until now. Your criticism is false. Some random examples:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/health/coronavirus-patien...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/04/coronavirus-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-obesity-ri...
https://www.foxnews.com/health/study-links-coronavirus-morta...
https://www.foxnews.com/health/obesity-increase-coronavirus-...
https://www.foxnews.com/health/is-americas-high-obesity-leve...
The above statement contradicts most/all studies on the subject. A few randomly selected sources:
- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/excess-weight-can-increas...
- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8073853/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33463658/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughl...
> Wide spread testing of asymptomatic people
Yes, those are very new. If the previous generations had that capacity they wouldn't think twice about doing it, but they didn't so it's new.
> lockdowns, travel restrictions, medical passports
Those are right there since ancient Rome times.
First of all, previous pandemics like bird flu had fast infection but it was known to the experts and easier than COVID-19 to handle. But COVID was unknown and it took more time to respond properly and actually there's still more unknown things that the responses cannot be validated. It's hard to respond unknown unknowns.[1]
Second, the strategies are great on paper but when it comes to implementing them, it is all about the politics. The politics of funding the research institutes and academic institutions, the structure of the nation's health care system, economic situation and use of state budget to support people in the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, the policies to allow human movement such as lock downs and restrictions... When it comes to actions, it's just the decision of the politicians.
Third, the strategies are created with stakeholders based on previous experience. And when they exercised, they are based on either previously occurred issues or predictions of the experts/participants of the strategy. You cannot be prepared for everything so you create many different feasible scenarios and exercise them. And they are limited by the capability of the participants.
Finally, strategies are already flexible because they are not binding for the states. A government can change the strategy on the go. A government can also totally ignore the current strategy for its political agenda.
This is the crux of the current failures. Many politicians seem to be making decisions based on the consensus of the loudest in their constituencies and select experts who mirror them rather than people who have studied epidemiology.
The Great Barrington Declaration advocated more traditional responses for prioritizing the protection of those most at risk prior to the vaccines. The public discussion around this was almost entirely based on optics, and the term "herd immunity" was demonized and considered too non compassionate. It was treated like a political language exercise rather than a public safety issue. Now that term has quietly reentered discourse without much acknowledgment of what was stated by those epidemiologists because reality isn't permitting any other end state. Yet many of the original policies which the declaration advises against are still being repeated and still failing, I think in large part to save face.
Many people recognized the problems with the current policies and advocated better ones very quickly. The amount of unknowns were mostly only an issue for the first few months. Once the demographic data came in a sensible response should have been (and was to many) fairly obvious. But sensible policy acknowledges a certain unavoidable risk, and the optics of that isn't allowable in our current political climate, so we advocate delusional fantasies instead.
Those trained in fields like epidemiology and pandemic response who know what they're doing and see the failures should continue to refuse to sign their name to bad policy and publicize their issues with it. That's what the Great Barrington Declaration was and what some who have resigned from certain positions at the CDC have done.
The main justification for bad policy has been "the support of experts". Public health experts are having their field tarnished dramatically by being leaned upon in name by people that are ignoring their actual advice. They should stop allowing it. They have the most power to hold irresponsible politicians accountable, and should exercise it. The amount of good disaster management strategy that was thrown out because it had the potential to look bad and was more difficult to implement than ineffective measures (like designating certain areas safe spots for at risk people and providing spaces for them to shelter during spikes) should be more publicized.
For anyone who hasn’t read through John Hopkins simulated SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 it’s pretty interesting [0]. They discuss controversies concerning medical treatments, anti-vaxxers, and strategies to engage in propaganda wars on social media. Disclaimer: not wearing a tinfoil hat, no the report isn’t part of a conspiracy to railroad the population into vaccines, but it does reveal a certain ineptitude and bad faith.
[0] https://jhsphcenterforhealthsecurity.s3.amazonaws.com/spars-...
Personally, I'd prefer a timeline in which Jim Phelps isn't a traitor though, and in which the IMF operated more on teamwork than on depending on heroic acts of a single operative.
I know "misinformation" was being thrown around for years. The Mueller report and 2016 election are great example of the media spreading misinformation. Most of the Russia-gate stuff has been debunked by now including the Steele dossier recently. I actually believed a lot of that stuff at first because I hated Trump so much.
In case you missed this: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/analyst-...
The risk of a pandemic was clear enough that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagion_(2011_film) got made about the same time. It ticked pretty much all the boxes - China as origin, people thinking it's a bioweapon, contact tracing, politicians reluctant to take quarantine measures, panic buying, unrest, bat-borne virus, conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers, etc.
It's a hell of a movie to watch in 2021.