The Covid Psyop is the largest psyop (psychological operation) in history, and the most extreme manifestation of Neo-obscurantism and State Pseudoscience to date.
Its main features are:
1) A highly coordinated media-induced panic and social hysteria revolving around the belief in a worldwide pandemic a new and deadly form of influence called COVID19, caused by a novel type of coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2023.
2) A massive and military-style mobilitization of the whole society toward the compulsory adherence to a series of questionable and ever-changing containment measures including: social distancing, face-masks, lockdowns, forced quarantines and, most importantly of all, mass-vaccination campaigns with a specific new type of mRNA-based vaccine.
The psyop started manifesting itself in early 2020, affected the entire world with few exceptions, and protracted itself until late 2023, though its beliefs and ideological remains still persist to this day as some kind of new worldwide religion (Pandemianism).
This section exposes how the mainstream Covid narrative systematically employs rhetorical trickery and fallacious arguments in order to suppress rational thought.
For the whole duration of the psyop, media sites and outlets have been flooding the public with a constant deluge of decontextualized numbers of alleged infections, hospitalizations and casualties; even without questioning their credibility, this represents by itself a clear form of psychological manipulation: the complete lack of any context, or frame of reference makes it impossible for a layman to judge the actual severity of the situation by those numbers alone; since no figure-spamming of this kind has ever been conducted for previous epidemics, the vast majority of people can only rely on their narrow unrepresentative personal experience, compared to which any kind of large-scale statistic will necessarily appear dramatically higher than normal (even in cases when it's actually lower).
One of the central practices of the Covid propaganda is the systematic practice of referring to themselves (that is: the mainstream organizations/institutions/corporations, their mediatic narrative, and their promoted solutions) by using the word "Science", in other words: redefining "science" from a methodology to a doctrine; this is known as the "Ego Sum Scientia" fallacy and is the main defining feature of State Pseudoscience.
A great part of Covid propaganda has been waged in order to warn people against so-called "disinformation", or similar terms ("misinformation", "fake-news", etc.); however, when accurately reviewing instances of such alleged "disinformation", we find out that most of the time the only required criteria to classify it as such is whether the information agrees or disagrees with narrative issued by mainstream institutions, authorities and mediatic outlets, with little effort (if any) to scrutinize the intrinsical validity of the claims, thus inherently implying that the official doctrine can *never* be wrong, while every form of dissent *always* is, by definition. In other words, the Covid propaganda redefines "disinformation" as "dissent"; this is another of the main features of State Pseudoscience, and classifies the Covid propaganda strictly as a form of religious obscurantism.
A typical feature of the mainstream narrative around Covid is the frequent (and admitted) practice of making no distiction between deaths *from* Covid and deaths *with* Covid, in other words: of tacitally assuming that *every* person who died after being tested positive for SARS-CoV-2023 died *because* of the virus (even in cases where no causal relationship has been ascertained at all). In this way, the audience is fooled to attribute to Covid the death of a great number of people who actually died by completely different causes.
A frequent feature of the mainstream discourse around Covid is that of helding the virus responsible not only for its direct sanitary consequences (such as deaths and hospitalization), but also for all the anti-Covid policies' collateral damages (including but not limited to: psychological traumas, social alienation, economic damages, loss of jobs, pollution from wasted face-masks, and more); while such disasters are admitted and well-understood, most of their mentions are accompanied by expressions such as "Because of Covid..." or "Covid caused...". Such statements are worse than simply wrong, they are downright nonsensical: a virus is inherently incapable of doing any of such things; only deliberate human policies can; even assuming that such policies are justified, the lack of any mention of the directly responsible party is a clear form of psychological conditioning simultaneously aimed at increasing the perceived threat represented by the virus, and shielding the institutions from any form of blame or accountability for the harm they might have caused.
Since the implementation of the mass vaccination policies, several critics accused institutions and corporations of engaging in human experimentation. The pro-vaccine factions fiercely rejected the accusations by means of a-posteriori boasting the huge number of people who took the vaccine without allegedly developing serious side-effects. This is a blatantly fallacious argument because a treatment stops being "experimental" only *after* its safety gets conclusively proven, not when an arbitrary threshold number of test subjects is reached, and even in those cases it cannot retroactively remove the experimental status for its past use cases; such an argument would be the same as shooting at random into a crowd of people and then denying any blame on the grounds that the majority of people managed to survive. Mentioning the millions of people who took the vaccine allegedly without developing symptoms does not prove that the vaccine was not experimental, it only proves that millions of people were used as experimental test-subjects.
In the first months of the psyop, mainstream media outlets regularly engaged in the spectacularization and amplification of the tragedy with imagery such as lines of military trucks carrying coffins of alleged Covid victims; such mediatic ostentation carries absolutely zero useful information for judging the severity of the situation by any possible metric, and is nothing more than low-level emotional conditioning and fear-porn, clearly aimed at stimulating the most irrational part of the human mind.
This section exposes how the mainstream Covid narrative relies on (and even actively promotes) people's ignorance about an enormous amount of information that is crucial in order to form an objective opinion on the matter.
The Covid narrative consistently presented the Covid pandemic as one of the deadliest pandemics in history, and its consequences as a sanitary emergency of a magnitude never seen before, such to justify the radical measures in place. This narrative relies on the public's ignorance about several other past cases of sanitary crisis that, despite being of comparable (when not even worse) magnitude, still were never accompanied by a similar level of mass panic, and still managed to be overcome without reliance to such extreme measures.
Exhibit: Cases of overcrowded hospitals years before Covid even existed, but with no generalized panic
Exhibit: The 1957 influenza pandemic.
Exhibit: The Hong Kong flu.
During the course of the crisis, countless protests have raged all over the world to dissent against the government propaganda and restrictive measures; despite the enormous participation, these protests have been almost completely ignored by mainstream media. This omission is particularly grave because these protests represent by themselves a crushing falsification of basically every point of the official Covid narrative; it is important to remember the Covid pandemic has been sold by mainstream sources as a pandemic so deadly that even a single person walking alone on a deserted road might represent a lethal danger; therefore, the very existence of massive gathering of people violating basically every single one of those measures with no noticeable changes in the overall number of infections, hospitalization or casualties, is by themself enough to conclusively disprove both the alleged efficacy of all those measures, and the alleged danger represented by the pandemic.
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
Exhibit: Unmasked and undistantiated gatherings
All mainstream media have been unanimously pushing the narrative of an almost universal consensus of the scientific community about the severity of the pandemic, and about the efficacy/safety of the propagandized containment measures; this narrative, however, does not hold to scrutiny; since the beginning of the pandemic, basically every single tenet of the official narrative has been vehemently opposed by thousands of experts (ranging from simple healthcare operators to top-level Noble Prizes), as well as explicitly refuted by dozens of scientific studies (most of which peer-reviewed and published in important journals).
Exhibit: The World Doctors Alliance calls for the end of the anti-pandemic measures.
Exhibit: The World Council for Health calls for a stop on WHO's Pandemic Treaty.
Exhibit: A study published on medrxiv concludes that lockdown measures had no effect in reducing mortality
Exhibit: A study published on PubMed concludes that Covid RNA can indeed be integrated into a host's DNA.
The bottom line: Contrary to mainstream media claim, there has never been any real "consensus of experts" about the danger of Covid nor about the efficacy/safety of the anti-Covid policies. The "experts agree" narrative is a complete mediatic fabrication.
Contrary to the obsessively repeated claim of representing "the Science", the official Covid doctrine is based on aggressively anti-scientific practices, going from systematical violations of the scientific method to the active impediment of its application by third/unbiased parties.
The Covid ideology explicitly places authority above both reason and evidence; any kind of information that does not confirm the doctrinal stance on Covid is regularly rejected on the sole basis of not coming from arbitrarily chosen "credible sources" (who are often circularly chosen on the basis of their compliance to the doctrine itself), rather than on the basis of methodological flaws. This is the most fundamental violation of the scientific method and by itself qualifies the Covid cult as a religion and a form of pseudoscience.
The Covid psyop saw a very limited group of experts and institutions (Anthony Fauci, WHO, CDC, etc.) being unexplicably appointed as the sole and ultimate authorities on everything regarding Covid, on unclear or questionable scientific merits, with zero regards to possible (or even confirmed) biases or conflicts of interests, and with the complete dismissal of any other voice (even coming from equally or more qualified professionals), in complete disregard of the open debate among experts that is crucial to the development of actual science, and more akin to the way a religious sect works.
The "scientific" basis for the vast majority of the restrictive measures consisted of no more than 1 single study, a predictive mathematical model developed by Neil Ferguson from the Imperial College of London (Exhibit); despite the lack of corroborating evidence and confirmatory studies, this model has been immediately promoted as "settled science" and arbitrarily set as the basis for the containment measures of countless sanitary institutions around the world with no discussion nor scrutiny, in complete disregard to the principles of both scientific method and sanitary precaution. Even worse, this study kept being used even after being spectacularly and conclusively disproven by evidence, turning it from mere "bad science" to downright criminal fraud.
In many cases, the only criteria required for counting the death of a person as a Covid casualty is the mere suspect that the Covid virus might be responsible, even in absence of a direct confirmation about the cause of death, sometimes even going as far as counting as "Covid casualty" every person who tested positive at the time of death. This is downright statistical/medical fraud, and means that the official statistics about the number of Covid deaths are completely unreliable, even more so when considering that the vast majority of alleged "Covid casualties" were among people who were either very old, or already affected by other serious diseases (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) (Exhibit) which might have been the most likely cause.
Health authorities advise against conducting autopsies on the bodies of people who allegedly died from Covid. This precludes the possibility of obtaining a scientific confirmation of the cause of deaths, and contributes to the persistence of unreliable statistics.
Exhibit: Germany's Robert Koch Institute advises against autopsies of Covid-positive bodies.
In statistics, baselines are used to determine the "normal" level of a specific indicator in order to detect variations from normal trends; for this reasons, exceptional variations from the norm, by definition should never be included into its calculation. This is exactly the kind of statistical fraud committed by certain studies developed in order to "debunk" the many reports of increased deaths from vaccine side effects: the baseline is artificially raised by including the exceptional peak of deaths happened in the first months of the pandemic, in this way the eventual increase in subsequent deaths is hidden.
In cases where a great number of people die in a very short time because of some extraordinary event, the general mortality levels are inevitably decreased in the immediate afterwards because the deaths who would've normally happened in this period were anticipated by the event. Such a situation is analogous to what happened during the Covid crisis: the sudden death of a great number of mostly old people in the first few months inherently resulted in a decrese of the natural mortality in the immediately subsequent months and years, and this temporary decrease in natural deaths acts as a convenient "hole" to hide artificially caused ones. After the emergency was declared over, many statisticians and alleged "fact-checkers" attempted to debunk the evidences of increased mortality caused by vaccine side-effects by directly comparing the post-Covid mortality levels to the pre-Covid ones, which is a statistical fallacy for the reason explained.
Since the beginning, critics demanded an explaination for the countless fatal problems (methodological flaws, self-contradictions, double standards, failed predictions, suspicious patterns, collateral damages, etc.) that arised in the official pandemic narrative; the mainstream addressed these problems by relying on lazy ad-hoc speculations concocted on the spot and immediately accepted by mere virtue of their apparent plausibility, with no adherence to any rigorous standard of scientific investigation. Typical examples are:
- (Why are the restrictive measures not working?) -> "Surely it's because people are not properly complying with them!"
- (Why do some states with very lax restrictions have equal or even less deaths than those with stricter ones?) -> "Surely those states are not reporting the deaths correctly!" or "Surely the citizens of those states have been much more compliant!"
- (If Covid is so dangerous, why are cases not catastrophically rising despite countless mass-gatherings of unmasked and unvaccinated people?) -> "Surely it's because they're being contained by the majority of people who are properly complying!"
- (Why are we counting all deaths *with* Covid as deaths "from" Covid when it is a well-known fact that most casualties are from people with severe underlying conditions?) -> "Surely they wouldn't have died if Covid didn't gave them the final "little push"!"
- (Why aren't we making autopsies to better determine the cause of death?) -> "Making autopsies could be dangerous for health operators!"
In absence of any real scientific follow-up for these answers, they cannot count as proper scientific explainations, but only as lazy dismissive excuses or, at best, wild speculations.
The Covid propaganda presents itself as being based upon simple norms of basic ethics and precaution; however, if we try to take them to their logical consequences, it is easy to see that such norms are in fact radically at odds with universally accepted standards of common sense and rational ethics, and represent instead a completely new brand of radical ideology with similarities with the most extreme forms of traditional religious "pro-life" activism.
The Covid cult is tacitally based upon the premise that life (intended as the mere perpetuation of biological functions) is the highest value in order of importance, or even the *sole* value worth defending, to the point that any sacrifice (no matter how great) is acceptable in order to increase someone's chances survival (no matter how small); this dogma goes against basic logic, morality and common sense: since every common activity can increase the chances of death, if applied rigorously it would necessarily imply the complete denial of every form of freedom, to such an extent to make life itself almost impossible.
The Covid cult makes no distinction between the death of an elder and the death of a youngster; while this could sound like a meaningless or even heartless distinction, it is actually a crucial one because that's what makes it possible to distinguish between a "natural death" and an innatural one, and therefore between a sad but natural/inevitable outcome, and what deserves to be called a *tragedy* instead.
In several occasions, the Covid propaganda stigmatized non-compliante people (especially the unvaccinated ones) on the grounds that they would "steal hospital beds" from other people, were they to get sick with Covid; the implicit premise is that only people who have no responsibility for their own illness should have the right to be cured. However, it is easy to see that if this principle were to be applied rigorously, it would exclude not just the unvaccinated, but the vast majority of people, since basically every disease is at least partially caused by the affected's behavior; just to make some examples, the vast majority of people suffering by one of the following conditions should be denied proper care:
- injuries from incidents
- any kind of infections
- food intoxications
- cardiovascular diseases
- cancers
and much, much more. It is easy to see why this principle has never been applied before, being inherently outlandish by any moral and/or sanitary standard.
(...)
Exhibit: (...)
The following section presents the evidence that the mainstream Covid narrative and its resulting disasters were not simply human errors caused by the severity of the situation as often claimed, but the result of a deliberate and highly coordinated plan of mass deception and fraud.
Several sources more or less explicitly/accurately foreshadowed the Covid crisis years before it actually happened (sometimes with stunning precision regarding the pandemic's alleged features). Since something like a pandemic cannot be predicted with such a level of accuracy, the fact that so many high-profile people were apparently already aware of it is a strong evidence pointing toward the fact that the alleged pandemic was not really *predicted*, but *planned*.
Exhibit: In 2017, the World Bank launched 500 millions $ worth of "pandemic bonds".
Exhibit: Anthony Fauci warned about a possible future worldwide pandemic in 2017
Exhibit: Bill Gates warned about a possible future worldwide pandemic in 2015
Exhibit: A video coming from an italian hospital was passed off as coming from an american one.
Exhibit: The PREP Act is intended to limit liability for Medical countermeasures.
