It sounds like you are discussing how to repair world culture, and none of us are on the same page.
> > > > We all know now what COVID-19 (nCov, Coronavirus) is.
> > >
> > > No 'we' don't. 'covid' is a global fascist PSYOP, but you prentend to not know it.
> >
> > That is a very real working hypothesis I've been working on. I tend
> > to see that Satan is behind it, but it is effectively
> > indistinguishable.
>
> OK Marxos, a jot of homework for ya, please do tell us where the word Satan comes from, and don't chicken out on us either.
It likely comes from the shibboleth named "GOD" produced by Christians
and their errors,
> > What the punk-stasi is saying is that by looking for cases you provide
> > legitimacy to it. And legitimacy in a propaganda campaign is
> > advocacy, for that is what the propagandist seeks.
>
> That is true, and further, that somewhere high up, some smallish number of actual humans actually discussed and at one point actually decided to run this massive virus drill, and to run it as realistically as possible.
Such people are real people we can talk to. And when they go away they may be replaced by something more extreme, because of the trackable, understandable, enumerable cultural pressures making the situations.
You see here one of the merits of the coronavirus scare: you are thinking about why it is was made, and asking others to.
Well, there is one other possibility. It was witnessed by myself:
the "cabal" at the top of the "illuminati" and the all-seeing-eye was
actually a machine (hence the term shibboleth) ran by prophesy that
had already been circumvented and co-opted, yet still intact. This
was holding the right side of the thing. After liberals erected gay
men as superior to GOD, the media machine was held by them (for the
servce of MAN, perhaps, yet still....).
> > > surveillance already exists and you're RECOMMENDING that it be used to deal with a non-existent 'threat'. You are SUPPORTING surveillance by pathetically lying about its 'usefulness'.
> >
> > While there might be a case for surveillance in some benevolent
> > society, it is WAY too much power to the governors in a cracked
> > society like this. But IF THERE IS SURVEILLANCE, give access to the
> > People to balance and check the power being given to government.
>
> Hard to disagree that folks have a right while in public, to make recordings of what they see and hear...
Except, that the tech used to do so (including the optics) is beyond
most men and women's abilities to produce or explain. That means that
it is a higher force that they're using to get those capabilities.
Your phrase "higher force" is misleading for readers here who believe they understand or could understand the workings (which we all could but is unwise to do).
I'm imagining people upset at having someone give or teach them to build a device that shows where all the tech is and offers a way to disable it, because they are so scared of tech already. In my area so many people have cellphones they would have no qualms about implanting a nanitegrenade in their children and their brains if a trusted source said to.
For technodominant cultures, natural intuition and experience, which can be enumerated, tracked, and understood, but are disregarded, seem like magic. But many more people get hurt when technodominant people are scared.