Global Heist That Went Viral


As most of you will have recently concluded, our minds (and emotions) are being (deliberately) buffeted and challenged by a deluge of claims and counter-claims, contradictory theories of all kinds, and numerous speculations (with some of those being promoted solely to advance self-serving, hidden, and cynical agendas).

There’s nothing wrong with speculating, so long as you first have enough facts to juggle with or so long as you already know how to go about looking for them, and any supporting evidence. Speculation is a natural and often-times necessary process because this is a sure fire way to initiate a healthy reasoning process. Speculation simply means:

A hypothesis [concept not yet verified] that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Three Ways To Reason:

Reasoning [i.e., exercising your innate capacity for independent rational thought] is the process of using existing knowledge to draw conclusions, make predictions, or construct explanations. The three core ways of reasoning are deductive, inductive, and abductive. Counterfactual Thinking (Brainstorming) and Intuition are two other important approaches, but academia is sustained mostly by the three formal approaches described next.

1) Deductive Reasoning starts with the assertion of a general rule and proceeds from there to a guaranteed specific conclusion. In other words, deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application. In deductive reasoning, if the original assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

2) Inductive Reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen. Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way of knowing all possible evidence has been gathered, and that there now exists no more shreds of unobserved evidence that might otherwise invalidate the hypothesis.

3) Abductive Reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Abductive reasoning yields the kind of daily decision-making that does its best with the information at hand, which is often or usually incomplete. A medical diagnosis is the most common application of abductive reasoning: given this set of symptoms, what is the diagnosis that would best explain most of them? Likewise in a Court of Law, when jurors hear evidence in a criminal case, they must consider whether the prosecution or the defence has the best explanation to cover all the points of evidence. While there may be no certainty about their verdict, since there may exist additional evidence that was not admitted in the case; they make their best guess based on what they know.

Therefore, the entire Corona Virus / Covid-19 / WHO Pandemic / Global Lockdown issue is best assessed via the plentiful use of Abductive Reasoning.

INFO ON REASONING ADAPTED FROM: Dedicated webpage of Butte College | 3536 Butte Campus Drive, Oroville CA … click here to view.


We Can Construct A Safe Harbor With “Perspective”:

Some of you will have already seen this well-conceived infographic during your online travels. Whatever the case, just give it a good looking over so you can be reassured this Covid-19 “pandemic” is, in the greater scheme of things, relatively insignificant when compared to a string of far more serious pandemics/epidemics that humanity (esp. Europe) has already faced and survived.



Professor Knut Wittkowski, for twenty years head of The Rockefeller University’s Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design, says that social distancing and lockdown is the absolutely worst way to deal with an airborne respiratory virus. Further, he offers data to show that China and South Korea had already reached their peak number of cases when they instituted their containment measures. In other words, nature had already achieved, or nearly achieved, herd immunity.[3 April 2020]

Courtesy of Mike King over at, here is a quick summary of Prof. Wittkowski’s cautionary explanation and advice:

  • Various viruses come and go each year — disappearing only after about 80% of the population self-inoculates by actually catching the virus. This is known as “herd immunity”;
  • Most carriers will never exhibit disease symptoms, and will never even know they had “the bug”;
  • The policy of “social distancing”prevents the otherwise necessary and desirable rapid spread of the virus in order to achieve “herd immunity”;
  • Children especially need to be in school spreading the virus among themselves as it is generally harmless for those with “freshly minted” immune systems;
  • “Flattening the curve” will actually prolong the virus life cycle. A rapid spike followed by a rapid plunge is epidemically most preferable;
  • Going OUTSIDE — not “sheltering in place” prevents / kills respiratory viruses. Having so many people locked in their homes will actually strengthen the virus;
  • The related policies of “social distancing” and “sheltering in place” could lead to a second wave of infection when we do go back to work and school because the nature-mandated herd immunity was never achieved. Wittkowski then cites an analogy that features his “kidnapped clothes” at the dry cleaners scenario;
  • The testing of asymptomatic people is a waste of time and money!
  • Self-isolation and economic losses will contribute to higher rates of depression, weight gain, and poorer general health;
  • The revised death projections (for COVID-19) are in line with deaths related to the annual flu season;
  • Corona-related deaths in countries that did not impose “social distancing” policies or school closings are not any higher than normal flu-related death rates;
  • Had it not been for non-stop media hype, no one would have noticed anything different or unusual this year;
  • Government-funded “scientists” ought to be viewed with suspicion.

NOTE: You will soon realize — after working your way down to Jon Rappoport’s excellent MP3 podcasts — that the great assumption now being “sold” (worldwide) is that the symptoms being observed or diagnosed can be rightly attributed to a single, new, virus (officially) named “SARS-CoV-2” for which no reliable (i.e., non-controversial) detection test has yet been established. According to Czech sources about 80 percent of the 150,000 portable, quick coronavirus test kits China delivered to the Czech Republic during March 2020 were faulty. [ source ]

MIND TRICK: Another major assumption — or “mind trick” being played upon you, and billions of others — is that a single medical condition (i.e., set of symptoms) can and should always be attributed to a singular cause (virus) for which a specific vaccine “must” then be developed while accompanied by great media noise and fanfare. To maximum their profits, all the medical cartel need do is “rinse and repeat” this emotion-laden pantomime each and every time a new malady emerges from somewhere, or even nowhere. The faster (((they))) can move while the Media Corporations and Government sponsored “experts” generate maximum fear and hysteria … the greater their potential profits.



Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek describes how death certificates are being manipulated in ways that have clearly been designed to inflate the “COVID 19” statistics. Dr. Bukacek is a longtime Montana physician with over 30 years’ experience practising allopathic medicine under the standard scrutiny of America’s CDC. Signing death certificates is a routine part of her job.



Stanford University professor Dr John Ioannidis lifts the lid on our worrying lack of reliable data. As the coronavirus pandemic tightens its grip across the world, is the medical and political reaction a fiasco in the making?

We have gone into a complete panic state.

This esteemed professor believes an exaggeration of the virus’ mortality rate could lead the world to a fatal scenario: a lockdown lasting up to 18 months.



Denis Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Known for applications of physics education research. Published over 100 scientific articles in the areas of metal physics, materials science, measurement methods, and earth and environmental science, and many social commentary essays.

Viruses and living beings have co-evolved for 4 billion years, many different viruses are simultaneously carried by the animal and human populations, and the human immune system is a complex and powerful evolving entity that you do not want to circumvent or mess with using financially-motivated global interventionist policies developed in a near-total science vacuum. [6 April 2020]



Jon Rappoport —  a well-known and esteemed independent journalist, researcher, and blogger (website) with over 40 years experience — patiently explains the component parts of this Global Heist … in these three (3) clear and easy-to-follow, audio episodes.





α ω



Periodically I Publish (For Thinkers) A Multi-Topic Newsletter. Would You Like to Subscribe?

Write a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s