Our message on COVID-19

From day one, we had advocated a strong response to the COVID-19 coronavirus. That included shutting down the border, creating quarantines/waiting periods at ports of entry while reducing flight to commercial purpose.

The reason for our response was simple: We had a portal to see what was happening on the ground in China. We saw people in Hazmat suits, vehicles spraying sanitation chemicals up and down streets, sirens blaring ceaselessly in the middle of the night. And the cities - major metropolitan centers - had themselves become ghost towns. We saw people falling over dying, their corpses left on the street to be gathered. The situation looked pretty serious in China - resembling Ukraine after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown in 1986. So, it made sense, im our view, to work to keep whatever was causing this mayhem out. 

Recall that, at the time, there were limited studies to understand this coronavirus' contagiousness and long-term consequences. But new reports were coming out every day and, for the most part, the reports were grim. So, we advised taking the greatest amount of caution to prevent the spread. With an interest in the health and preservation of country, no other response made sense. And it just so happened that doing so provided reason to demand the policy we were already anxious to see.

For years, American jobs had been outsourced to China to lower production costs and increase profit for the manufacturer. So, with China preoccupied and out of the picture, we had the impetus to bring our jobs home and to show the importance of doing so. Meanwhile, to keep the virus out, we had the impetus to close the border, which is what we wanted anyway to stop human trafficking, gang activity drugflow and the import of "global citizens" seeking free housing and other luxuries on the taxpayer's dime.

So, no, we were not "brainwashed by the mainstream media" to believe the hype about COVID-19; in fact, if anyone remembers clearly, during the outbreak in China, mainstream media and its favorites in politics were outraged by the policy initiatives we suggested above. And the mainstream media was downplaying the likelihood that the COVID-19 causing coronavirus could be spread. Those points seemed to go hand in hand, as if to suggest the above-indicated policy was not needed because there was no reason to be concerned that the virus would spread.

If you remember correctly, around this time we were also encouraged, by these same mainstream voices, to hug those who looked Asian. The rationale was that it was "racist" to assume anyone who looks Asian might be carrying the virus from China, and so going out of your way to demonstrate that you were not about to make that assumption was to be commended. Did everyone forget about this?

Given what little was known about COVID-19 at the time, it seemed incredibly foolish to increase contact with random people; instead of isolating the virus or isolating us from the virus, such actions seemed more likely to help the virus spread and maximize its reach. This created a very interesting state of affairs where we could see what was being asked and we found ourselves wondering about the animating impulse.

Was it simply ideology? After all: in so many other areas of our lives, ideology had been a driver of policy. The consequences of following blindly, if even taken into consideration, had rarely been more than an afterthought. So why would things be any differently amidst the COVID-19 outbreak?

Perhaps the better question, which we grappled with in early 2020, was whether it could also make one so oblivious or, worse, so proudly obstinate, that they would torch the sails and go down with the ship instead of adjusting. Signaling "who we are" ideologically - not just by hugging Asian people, but by ruling out measures to defend against COVID-19 that benefit opponents of globalism - solidified that possibility. There was thus a sobering concern that perhaps if there was going to be any virus problem, they were prepared to make it a global problem so that they could deal with it on their terms, even at a stage when nobody could be certain just how dangerous COVID-19 was. That should frighten us all. 

We began to question whether there were dark plans to use the circumstances to feed a global depopulation agenda or simply crash the world economy to usher in world government. Fortunately for us, with the virus itself, there was no sincere reason to panic. And, fortunately for the globalists, they found common cause with those who scoffed at following quarantines just because, or simply assumed no reason to be alarmed because everything is always a nothingburger. In turn, the virus spread rapidly (especially amidst the tragedy of inconsistent border policy and poorly-enforced checkpoints in the late winter/early spring of 2020), giving the globalists a pretext to shut businesses down and lock us in our homes, destroy means of wealth and create dependence on the state, all the while further consolidating power and control.

In addition, the globalists had the opportunity to implement draconian policies concerning an experimental "vaccine" which we still do not know the consequences of. All this became possible once the virus had been allowed to spread, and the globalists, completely by chance of course, suddenly decided to be gravely concerned about COVID-19 and turn mainstream media into an overnight COVID-19 fear machine to justify the lockdown and vax agenda.

And so here we are. Unfortunately, that leaves many questions, the most important pertaining to what was going on with China in 2020 and perhaps influenced its response. It is possible that all of our governments are collaborating to bring about a global order; but it is also possible that COVID-19 is part of a larger chess game still being played between China and the US (and by proxy Russia). 

Say what you will about the official "bat soup market theory", but I would think the Chinese were initially concerned about the possibility of a bioweapon attack by the US to crash the Chinese economy. It would make sense in the context of China's rise, America's fall and the economic and military consequences that stem from that:


Among other things, there is the rivalry over control of Asia to consider. There is also he uncertainty of China's relationship with Russia at a time when the US was moving to strangulate Russia economically. 

So did China overreact believing it was being targeted with a bioweapon attack? Was the coronavirus unleashed just to cause that overreaction? Or was the overreaction intended to paint a picture of the danger that would cause what is left of the US global economic empire to implode, leaving China with new leverage? There are many possibilities, including that it was all a coincidence. For all the suffering, I can only hope that one day we will know the truth.