Tag: corpocracy

Why There Are No Whistleblowers

Defenders of the vaxx regime sometimes ask where all the whistleblowers are if the vaxxines are as harmful and worthless as skeptics say they are. They’re either a) keeping their mouths shut or b) finding themselves fired and discredited, as the recent firing of a German insurance CEO and the scrubbing of his company’s website demonstrates:

The CEO of one of Germany’s largest health insurance companies was abruptly fired last month after he released data suggesting German health authorities are significantly underreporting COVID-19 vaccine injuries. The data, released by Andreas Schofbeck of BKK/ProVita, have since been scrubbed from the company’s website.

According to Schofbeck’s Feb. 21 letter to the PEI:

– Data from 10.9 million people were analyzed.
– According to physician billing data, 216,695 were treated for a vaccine adverse effect during the first 2.5 quarters of 2021.
– Figures extrapolated over an entire year for a population of 83 million people means that 2.5-3 million people likely received treatment for an adverse effect.
– 4-5% of vaccinated people received treatment for an adverse effect.
– In his letter, Schofbeck speculated on possible causes for underreporting, stating: “Our first assumption is that, since no compensation is paid for reporting vaccine adverse events, reporting to the Paul Ehrlich Institute is often not done because of the great expense involved. Physicians have reported to us that reporting a suspected vaccine adverse event takes about half an hour. This means that 3 million suspected cases of vaccine adverse events require about 1.5 million working hours of physicians.”

Schofbeck concluded the data present a “significant warning signal” and that “danger to human life cannot be ruled out.”

However, I don’t recommend attempting to provide this sort of information to friends and family who are vaccinated in order to convince them of anything. They have already proven – conclusively – that they are literally too stupid and/or gullible to survive the hostile programmed environment of the Promethean Panopticon. The general response to the Russo-Ukrainian conflict underlines this; there is a strong correlation between vaccination status and accepting the globalist Narrative on Ukraine.

And this behavior suggests they will dutifully comply with the culling, whenever and however that happens in the future. Given what evilogy suggests about the rules the wicked follow, it appears that one must either a) belong to the wicked or b) freely submit to their demands in order to be culled. So, it’s possible that the vaxx is merely the first in a series of tests that are intended to reduce the planet’s population to the desired level while eliminating those deemed inferior from the species.

I hold at your neck the gom jabbar. This one kills only animals.

Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam

DISCUSS ON SG

Portrait of a Promethean

It’s obvious that Princess Nut Nut, the 3rd and current wife of the British Prime Minister, was being groomed for greater things from a young age despite her complete incompetence and inability to even show up at her job.

The source recalls that Lewis was soon made aware of concerns about Carrie’s work ethic. ‘A lot of people hadn’t been happy about her behaviour for quite a long time,’ they say.

‘She just wasn’t up to the job. She was never in the office at CCHQ. She was missing in action all the time.’

One source remembers: ‘Zac [Lord Goldsmith, a friend of Carrie] and Sajid [Javid] contacted Brandon Lewis and asked him not to get rid of Carrie. They lobbied for her to stay.’

But Lewis alone was not involved in deciding her future. Sir Mick Davis, the Tory Party’s chief executive, was a prime mover.

Insiders say that Sir Mick ran his section like a business. He was in charge of spending and salaries and, like any good businessman, he wanted to be sure that the party was getting value for money.

He was aware of two principal areas of concern. The first was Carrie’s commitment to her job as director of communications. The second related to the amount of expenditure she had incurred in taxi journeys that had been charged to CCHQ.

Under a long-standing arrangement, CCHQ had an account with a minicab firm. Taxis could be booked by staff using a password. The name of whoever made the booking would be logged by the firm.

It transpired that some journeys had been booked by Carrie for use in her private time. Not only that, but these bookings had been made using the names of junior members of staff without their knowledge, to disguise the fact that they were for Carrie….

Carrie’s habit of peppering her social-media accounts with bulletins of where in the world she was at any given time had, seemingly, begun to catch up with her. It’s said in the past decade, she notched up at least 40 work or leisure trips abroad and in Britain. In the first six months of 2014, for example, she made visits with friends and colleagues to Dublin, Morocco, the Cotswolds, Spain, Vienna and Moldova.

‘There were quite a few times when I wondered where she was and I was just told she was ‘off’,’ recalls one former colleague who worked alongside her at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. ‘She didn’t seem to come in very often and when I asked after her, I was told that she had a headache or was on holiday.’

Other work or holiday destinations over the years included Venice, St Tropez, Rome, the Cayman Islands, Portugal, Mustique, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Croatia, Vienna, Barbados, Greece, Tuscany, Germany, Paris and New York.

Even some Conservative MPs commented on the frequency with which she seemed to be away.

‘Delighted you’ve made it to another country for a rare change,’ wrote Paul Scully jokingly after she posted a photograph on Instagram of a beautiful Greek beach. ‘You need to get away a bit more, Carrie,’ added Nigel Adams.

‘The absence issue was quite something,’ says another source. ‘We all got the same amount of annual leave – 25 days – and her social media was looked at. ‘It was very clear that she was off more than she should have been. And she was earning a decent salary. It was about £80,000. That was very good for someone of her age and experience, which was limited actually to CCHQ and some spad [special adviser] jobs. She had very little employment experience outside Westminster.’

The source adds: ‘Sir Mick soon realised her appointment had been an error, and she was the wrong choice.’

Due to the fact that a non-disclosure agreement was eventually signed between Carrie and CCHQ, it is unclear precisely when and why the situation exploded, but it did. That Carrie is said to have spent thousands of pounds on taxis using other people’s names cannot have helped matters.

Some of Carrie’s former colleagues remain deeply unimpressed by the taxi episode to this day.

One says: ‘She’s lucky she didn’t end up in more serious trouble. I think it’s only because of where she worked that nobody wanted to draw more attention to it. It was misuse of CCHQ funds. She used the names of those just starting out on their careers. That was unforgivable.’

Not a word was leaked to the press at the time about her being forced to quit. Shortly afterwards she took up a post with Oceana, a charity that protects and restores oceans.

Never, ever, give a single dime to any charity organization. They’re nothing more than revenue nets run primarily for the benefit of the people who populate their bureaucracies.

DISCUSS ON SG

Reflections on Organizational Success

Dominic Cummings shared some practical thoughts on his commenter’s notes on the obstacles that organizational Machiavellians always pose to the core objectives of the organization:

  1. Boris types [self-servers with zero interest in the mission – VD] are everywhere.
  2. difference with Groves, Mueller, Bob Taylor et al is that they align talent with a goal and squeeze Boris types out, with extreme prejudice. some of those environments are relatively civilised, some (e.g S Jobs) less so, no doubt.
  3. near everybody is calculating about themselves but the situation around them changes calculations – if people think ‘leadership is great and i agree with the goal and i love being here and others are here for the mission’, like at PARC, then selfish calculations shrink (not disappear) to being overwhelmed by what’s important
  4. the organisations that really change the world POSITIVELY have other things that dominate – boris d stuff was in no10 in 2020 when i was there, but people knew there was something else. now they know there’s nothing else.
  5. think you’re right about a tendency to entropy! as you say… groves, mueller, taylor… all pushed out… and the succession problem…
  6. the widespread failure even to see these problems provides opportunity, but… if it were easy everyone would do it…

The succession problem to which he refers is tremendous, and it is one to which I have given considerable thought over the years. The three primary challenges that I have identified concerning it are as follows:

  1. The loyal lieutenants are never candidates to succeed the leader. The skills involved in building and leading an enterprise seldom have anything whatsoever to do with being an effective long-time loyal subordinate. History has demonstrated this again and again and again, and yet very few loyal lieutenants ever grasp that they are literally some of the worst possible successors or that their skill set is entirely inadequate for the task to which they aspire. It is imperative that they understand this: deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
  2. The leader must not hang on too long. I’ve personally witnessed several organizations go down the tubes because the leader simply couldn’t bear to give up the status of being in control, even though he observably no longer had any interest in being responsible for actively running things.
  3. Equality among successors is futile, dangerous, and counterproductive, in both management and ownership terms. About the only thing more destructive a man can do than divide the ownership of an organization equally among his heirs is to leave it to his wife or to a charity organization.

DISCUSS ON SG

How We Succeed

A comment on Dominic Cummings’s site offers an illuminating insight into why this community has successfully executed multiple projects and exceeded expectations:

When I was at business school, we once played a week long strategy game in random teams of 5. The game was played in 10 rounds and teams had to decide on maybe 50-80 parameters for each round, there were 2 rounds per day. All of the other teams made their decisions in the typical Machiavellian manner and as with any MBA cohort this is ruthless stuff to behold. Everyone was using teams decision making as an arena to position for dominance within their small team of 5.

This was fascinating to me. All of the energy in the building was focused on the “self” v’s 4 colleagues rather than my team v’s the other 40 teams.

Now everyone at business school studies dozens of business failures and turn-arounds and various other textbook examples. I was obsessed with studying hyper success, I was alone in this and people thought it was a bit wonky and naive of me. But I didn’t care for all the reasons that organisations failed. It seemed to me that failure was a bottomless pit of various reasons. Whereas the really hyper successful teams would have succeeded not only at the thing they set out to do, but I believe they would have succeeded at anything you asked them to do. People like Gene Kranz of mission control also believed this. Anyway, I brute forced the entire game with various methods which required much spying other teams and reverse engineered much of the game engine in the 3 practice rounds. We won the whole competition easily and by a huge margin… The game could have been rerun many times and I know that we would have always won every time. It wasn’t an accident, it wasn’t luck.

Interestingly hyper successful teams always seem to dissolve with entropy once their binding objective is completed. <- a discussion for another time

But they all really focused on three things i). objectivity ii). learning iii). executing

The first casualty of Machiavellianism is objectivity, AKA the truth. The truth is not useful to the individual, it is only useful to the team. The individual benefits from asymmetric information, the team benefits from universally symmetrical information.

There are so many mechanisms at play here, so many tools and control surfaces that can be abused by the Machiavellian careerist types that unless you play the game you cannot compete with them. But the result at the macro level is mediocre organisations.

You can build hyper performance teams, there is a blueprint. But you either need an intersubjective fiction (a shared mission) that is so powerful it is effectively a cult/religion, this was the case with Manhattan, Apollo and a few other cases.

Or you need a supremely powerful guardian figure a kind of god in the machine, much like Steve Jobs or more recently Elon Musk who is obsessed with the three pillars i). objectivity ii). learning iii). executing.

Both the Dread Ilk and the Bears are occasionally accused of being cults. But apparently, it is that very cognizance of a shared mission that enables both communities to effectively accomplish various activities. Although the utility of the policy of ruthlessly removing every volunteer who fails to perform even the most simple task for any reason also tends to increase the odds of success, as it weeds out most of the self-serving Machiavellians from the start.

DISCUSS ON SG

Bad News for Gamers

A former Microsoft employee explains why the recent purchase of Activision, which previously purchased Blizzard, is very bad news for gamers:

So. Question: You’re in a company filled to the brim with nerds. You have some big, impressive looking skybridges that are empty and not being used for anything in particular?

What do you do?

You fill them with classic arcade video games. Obviously. Or at least you line the sides with arcades (so there’s still plenty of room to use them as hallways).

Microsoft Main Campus. The arcade skybridges were in the buildings circled in blue.
That’s exactly what folks did.

We’re talking… maybe two dozen arcade games were in these hallways at any given time. All set to free-play, naturally.

Each game was brought in by employees who had their own personal collections. Often times because they spent more time at work (Microsoft was famous for 80 hour work weeks back then)… so bringing in some arcade games helped boost morale. Made the place feel that much more like a nerdy home.

It was this way… for years and years. The arcades graced the hallways of these buildings (and others on Microsoft Main Campus) long before my time.

File:Retrovolt Arcade 2017 – Arcade Machines 1.jpg
This is not a picture of the arcades at Microsoft HQ. I don’t have any of those, unfortunately. Source: Wikipedia
To be sure, these skybridges weren’t the only places that arcades could be found around Microsoft Main Campus. Many other buildings were known to have little clusters of arcades here and there. In this corner or that. But the skybridges filled with arcades were visually interesting. Simply… super cool.

Most of the arcades were in good working order. Some were project machines that needed a little TLC (and often got tinkered on, after hours, by some of the fellow nerds).

It was, honestly, pretty awesome. Very nerdy. A great morale booster.

Then, one day, Microsoft decided it was fed up with arcade games. An email was sent out to every building that was known to have them… that if they were not removed from Microsoft Main Campus promptly… they would be tossed out. Into the garbage….

Why do I bring this up?

Well. Microsoft just bought Activision. And, with it, Microsoft now owns some of the most important classic games in human history. Zork. Kings Quest. Space Quest. Pitfall! And so many others.

Games that are important not just to the history of gaming in general… but to those of us who were there as the video game industry grew up.

And… based on personal experience, when it comes to the preservation of classic video games… I don’t trust Microsoft as far as I can throw ‘em.

Maybe Microsoft has changed since those days. I sure hope so. But, honestly, there’s no reason to believe they have.

It’s probably a nightmare for gamers. Aside from the original Flight Simulator, Microsoft has never done games very well. Even my friend, the great game designer Chris Taylor, wasn’t able to work with them very successfully. That was one reason why I steered clear of them even after Alex St. John took Big Chilly and I out to dinner one night at the GDC in an attempt to get us to move from the Sega Katana (aka Dreamcast) to the Xbox.

The fact that Sega’s subsequent murder of Sega of America meant that accepting Microsoft’s offer would have been the right thing to do doesn’t change the fact that we were, even back in the day, extremely dubious of Microsoft’s ability to nurture game development. And the fact that Microsoft insiders share that skepticism does not bode well for the future of corporate gaming.

One of these days we are really going to have to bring together the collective game development talents of this community, from art to testing, and start producing on a truly revolutionary game. It should be possible, but the stars simply have not aligned yet.

As for Alex, well, the fate of the original Games Evangelist at Microsoft doesn’t tend to bode well either:

I’m sorry now that I stayed long enough to see what would become of it. I was trapped in the quandary of representing technology that was now being built by people I had no respect for, and feeling responsible for the enormous community of developers I had persuaded to adopt it. I stuck around after the re-org hoping to help the new guard become as customer focused as the old had been. It appeases my sense of guilt about all of this immensely to know that I died trying.

DISCUSS ON SG

Boosters 4 and 5 on the way

Shoot ’em all, Scott Adams. You know you want to shoot ’em all!

Fauci says we aren’t going to eradicate the virus and is will be like the flu, becoming endemic with seasonal pandemics. We will continue to get more variants, and we don’t know if they will elude the immune response.

Wilder-Smith says it’s likely future variants will be less dangerous, but we need to prepare for the worse-case scenario—a variant with high transmissibility and mortality. Hatchett says we should be concerned about future pandemics, even after it becomes endemic.

Moderna is expecting a new omicron version of their vaccine to go to regulators for approval in March. Moderna is also working on the new version to be released in fall 2022. Let me emphasize that. In addition to the initial two-dose series plus booster, in 2022, you will be expected to be vaccinated again in the spring and in the fall. (No mention if these new formulations will be single shots or multidose series.)

Moderna is focusing on how to make people want the vaccine. To overcome “compliance issues,” they will combine covid, flu, and RSV vaccines into a single shot for fall 2023. Fauci says herd immunity is elusive because this virus has an “extraordinary capability” to mutate, unlike viruses like the measles. Immunity from infection wanes “rather quickly.” Vaccines are “extraordinarily successful” but immunity can also wane.

Moderator asks how to “bridge the divide between believers and nonbelievers.” (This is definitely not a cult, people.) Fauci, followed by the others, laughs and then launches into a tirade against nonbelievers.

Fauci: “There are some inherent nonbelievers that no matter what you say, give you a real problem.” We should fight “the real enemy,” the virus, but instead have to fight “disinformation” on social media, which is destructive to their “comprehensive public health endeavor.”

Moderna is likewise saddened by the “misinformation.” We have to “get people to believe in the vaccines.” “The enemy is not another company or another group; the enemy has only been the virus and is still the virus.”

This isn’t going to end until everyone stops complying. So ask your friends and family this question: what is the maximum number of boosters you will take until you realize that it’s all BS? Because whether they realize it or not, Mr. Fauci already has them down for number 4 and number 5.

DISCUSS ON SG

Don’t Trust the Corpocracy

Building your own platform with the help of the corpocracy is building on a foundation less stable than sand.

AT&T’s DirecTV will drop One America News (OAN) in a move that raises questions about OAN’s future.

Court findings in October revealed that 90% of OAN’s revenue comes from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including DirecTV. So AT&T, CNN’s parent company, has funded OAN, a pro-Trump news network, almost entirely alone.

Since the findings, activist groups have pressured AT&T to drop OAN and essentially sink the network’s business model. As we predicted it would at the time, AT&T has willingly succumbed to that pressure.

“We informed Herring Network, [OAN’s owner], that following a routine internal review, we do not plan to enter into a new contract when our current agreement expires,” a DirecTV spokesperson said Friday.

Because no other major U.S. cable provider carries OAN, the network’s future as a linear channel is uncertain. As a result, OAN may now have to survive as a direct-to-consumer service.

While OAN could find a strong enough niche audience to last digitally, the network’s lawyers are not confident it will. In a 2020 court proceeding, an OAN lawyer claimed that “if Herring Networks, for instance, was to lose or not be renewed on DirecTV, the company would go out of business tomorrow.”

If you have a single point of failure, that’s precisely the point that will be targeted by SJWs. You cannot afford to be reliant upon corporations, because corporations have neither principles nor souls. They will not hesitate to betray you and your organization if they see that betrayal as being in their interest.

DISCUSS ON SG

Covid and Corporate Cancer

Covid and the vaccine regime is killing SJW-converged Big Tech. An account from the inside:

I work in Big Tech. A name you would know and have probably used before. Wanted to give a rundown of what it’s like from the inside right now.

Obviously insanely radically leftwing. BLM/LGBTQ. Trans flags hanging in office. Pronouns stated before meetings. Special affiliation groups for everyone but white men. All what you’d expect.

But COVID/WFH has totally broken people. They are fundamentally weak, often with no social support outside of work. They’re the people with no children, no spouse. Only a dog or cat for emotional support.

There’s constant talk, even now, about how hard things are for everyone. Often meetings start with going around the room to ask “How is everyone feeling?”

Literally everyone else went on sad rants about their lives. “I’m so MAD a white supremacist shot 3 black men in Kenosha!”

It’s toxic. When it got to me, I said “Good.” and then a (((lady engineer))) literally proposed that we should not be allowed to answer the question positively. I shit you not. I think it hurt her that I wasn’t as miserable as her.

She made some argument about “vulnerability”. These people not only want you weak, they want you to expose your vulnerabilities to them so they can exploit them. They may not intend this explicitly, but whatever twisted ideology they worship ends with this result.

So back to morale. Everyone is demoralized. This may surprise you, since Big Tech is extremely well paid and has been able to WFH throughout the past 2 years. They’ve been given extra days off, extra stipends, bonuses, etc. They never had to fear being laid off.

I have some sympathy, and can feel some of this myself. It’s normal and natural to work with people in-person. WFH can make it easy to overwork. You take fewer breaks, often work past normal working hours. You don’t feel connected to customers or celebrate success in person.

And as I mentioned, Big Tech is often the only social life for people. I fortunately never made it mine, but my company had all sorts of after-work activities. Sports leagues, game nights, different classes taught by employees. There was a rhythm and connectedness that’s gone.

The Great Resignation is real. Many employees are leaving for better jobs. Remote work has (so far) resulted in more job opportunities for those working in Big Tech, especially outside of Silicon Valley. And so we backfill those positions, or hire new people, all remote. We now have employees who have nearly 2 years of tenure who have never met another employee in person, and lives alone in some city away from where the office was.

This would be fine for a normal person, but again, we’re attracting the family-less urbanites scared of even meeting up with their friends at a restaurant.

The churn in jobs also has the major effect of constantly dealing with the overhead of re-assinging projects from people leaving, and onboarding new people. The new employees don’t get enough attention to succeed. And the employees that stay end up with a load of work dumped by the former coworkers, plus the responsibility of onboarding the new ones. There are many software engineers who’ve not written a single line of code in the past year.

While the Woke agitation has slowed due to the productive employees’ ability to simply log off, in addition to the tiredness of the agitators, there is more and more open rebellion regarding pay and profits.

“Bring your whole self to work” was the Big Tech mantra. Tell people about your cool hobbies, share your politics (if you’re far left only), share your sex life. This plus the feeling of distance an online-only presence creates has made people braver in speaking their thoughts.

You used to have to have the balls to knock on the CEOs office door, or schedule a meeting. Now you can fire off a nasty Slack message straight to her. People will openly write threads and comments throughout Slack bad-mouthing the higher ups at the company. And they do nothing.

It’s unreal what people will write, with no recourse.

If it were anything remotely RW, I’m certain they’d be immediately fired, but so long as they’re sufficiently LW or minority (anything but straight white man), they can agitate, complain, do no work, and continue employment.

We are going to win this cultural war. Whereas conflict is the air we breathe, the delicate snowflakes of converged Corporate America can’t even handle reading the news headlines. Whereas our morale is antifragile, and we become more determined with every deplatforming, discrediting, and demonetization, their morale is breaking under the weight of their loneliness.

The history of 4GW is the history of the side that is weaker in terms of resources, but stronger in terms of morale, reliably proving victorious. We are steadily building strong foundations on every front. They are losing their ability to even release functional products.

We will win.

DISCUSS ON SG

Never Trust the Money

The history of American sports would have gone very differently if the players who founded the breakway Players League hadn’t tried to cut corners by bringing in investors, who didn’t even hesitate to sell them out one year later.

“The seeds of the destruction of the Players’ League in 1890 were that the players had to link with capitalists,” Thorn says. “It takes capital in the end. No matter how high your concept and how utopian your scheme—in the end, that takes money.”

And the NL’s shrewd ownership knew this all too well. Spalding, in particular, knew that the NL could not survive another year of competing with the PL; just one season of doing so had been all but financially ruinous. So he saw an opportunity to divide and conquer. At the end of the season, Spalding and other NL executives discreetly approached PL investors for the teams with the weakest financial situations, buying them out and convincing them to flip with a bluff about the financial picture in the NL. Spalding made it seem as if the NL had the resources to fight the PL for as long as it needed to—scaring investors and motivating them to cut panicked deals with the NL. Once a critical mass of investors had defected, there was no hope left for the players, despite their best efforts, and their league was gone.

“It really should have put the National League out of business,” Ross says of the Players’ League. “But it was the investor-owners, the non-playing owners, who sold them out. … The investors who were not ideologically interested in this sort of league, they saw this opportunity to join hands with the National League owners, and I think that was it.”

The NL’s owners had been financially battered by the whole exercise—but they walked out empowered. They decided that it would be as if the Players’ League had never existed in 1890; any player who had been subject to the reserve clause for an NL team in 1889 remained bound to the same team in 1891. The players, jaded by how quickly things had fallen apart, did not fight back in any meaningful capacity. Ward was devastated. He soon received a new contract—from one of the same executives whom he had just fought against—and found himself subject once again to the reserve clause he had worked so hard to topple.

“The players’ fatal mistake—and this was Ward’s fault as much as it was anyone else’s—was that they trusted their financial backers,” Ross wrote in The Great Baseball Revolt. “They believed that capital would act in the interests of labor. But building a league—constructing any industry—amid a political economy in which property does not come for free, is nearly impossible without an enormous initial sum of money, something the players did not have. Unable or unwilling to fight back, the players would not overturn the reserve rule again until 1975,” when the clause was removed in collective bargaining after Curt Flood had challenged it in court in 1969.

The reason the conscious transition to a parallel economy is so vital is because most successful startups are bought out for around $10 million by “investors” and are used to fund the “growth” of the established corporations, which exist as financial predators on a regular diet of usury, startups, government contracts, and legally-protected vertical monopolies.

DISCUSS ON SG

The New Extremists

It’s so cute when normies discover social media banning for the first time.

LinkedIn is the sole judge, jury, and executioner of what constitutes “misleading or inaccurate” information and whether you violate their user agreement. They can terminate you at any time, for any reason. You have no recourse.

Because I made 3 truthful, accurate statements that some people at LinkedIn considered to be misleading or inaccurate, my account (built up over nearly 20 years) is now permanently deleted.

They could have simply restricted my ability to post. Instead, they chose to expunge my entire identity so nobody will ever know I existed. Wow. Instead of simply restricting my ability to post, they basically wiped out my entire identity so nobody can even see who I am anymore or what I accomplished. My resume is gone. My awards are gone. Nobody can even find out I ever existed.

I didn’t even get a chance to copy my profile before they wiped me out. All my contacts are gone. The record of my 7 companies I started: gone.

No one will be able to lookup my history there anymore. It’s like burning books in the library.

Wikipedia did the same thing to me. They removed the mention that I received a National Caring Award as retribution for speaking out about vaccine safety.

This can happen to you if you too disagree with mainstream thought.

America today is about conformity with mainstream thought. If you disagree, you lose your job, lose your ability to communicate, and they remove any record of your existence.

I’m now lifetime banned on Medium, Twitter, LinkedIn, and sendgrid. The reason I am not yet banned on Facebook and YouTube is because I never post there anymore. That’s the trick. Just stop posting anything that goes against mainstream thinking and you won’t be banned.

This underlines the total futility of telling people about anything. They either don’t believe you, or they simply don’t care, until it actually happens to them. They figure you must have deserved it somehow, for being an extremist, right up until the moment they discover that they, too, have been deemed extremists unworthy of participation in corporate society.

But it’s the reason that it’s so important to participate in, and prioritize, the parallel economy. Because if you think it’s bad now, just wait until they start imposing these restrictions directly through government agencies rather than just the most converged corporations.

DISCUSS ON SG