CLICK5: A Fourth Turning Tale – Name That Tune…

13 thoughts on “CLICK5: A Fourth Turning Tale – Name That Tune…

  1. Here’s one for ya…

    This is the second “meme” I’ve seen in the past two days linking Covid-19 vaccines to “AIDS”, but hasn’t it been known for a while now that the Covid vaccines appeared to be causing immune deficiencies from the get-go? And I gotta wonder how this is linked to the story out of France where supposedly a dude who died from getting a Covid-19 vaccine was chalked up as committing suicide and his insurance policy payout was denied, ya know, seeing as he made a conscious decision to get the Covid-19 and was not pressured nor under any obligation to do so. Not sure if that story was true or if there was any truth in it, and to be honest that story smacked of being something a college professor put together as an exercise for their students, but real or fake, it is an interesting exercise perhaps in exploring the viability of courts/insurers taking such a path. When one also takes into account the shady shit that transacts within social media, and especially where there are those who are manufacturing metrics/ and/or generating/harvesting statistics and/or influencing (emphasis on the “flu”), yeah the more arcane information which is difficult to verify makes one skeptical as to what is actually transacting.

    As far as I know, “full blown AIDS” is caused by HIV. One can have HIV without having AIDS, but you cannot have AIDS without having HIV. The most important part of this being the “A” in AIDS, as it stands for acquired. Meaning, there’s something about your life or lifestyle which resulted in you getting “the bug”. Doesn’t matter if it’s promiscuousness sex, drug use, blood transfusion, reusing needles, inadvertent contact with infected bodily fluids, whatever…you played some role in being in a position to get AIDS/it’s not easily chalked up as “an accident” or fate or act of God or whatever. Gotta wonder if there is an exercise taking place which is attempting to link active participation “in risky behaviour” non-actionable, whilst simultaneously modifying “what AIDS is” and/or what causes it. And as far as I know, there are already a bunch of immunodeficiency diseases, not all of which may be well understood, but they’re certainly documented or have precedents. Thing is, this new Covid-19/AIDS angle

    As far as I know, it used to be that operating under false pretenses or without clear intent was highly frowned upon if not downright illegal/prohibited/heavily regulated. Especially within the areas of research, study, and advertising. Your purposes/intentions must be clear and your goals must also be clear. You cannot dream up a study “just to see what happens”, or at least without a helluva lot of oversight. Helps to keep folks for unwittingly or unknowingly participating in things they do not understand and/or participating in shady shit which could cause themselves and/or others harm, and also serves to discourage folks from dreaming up weird and potentially unethical research, studies, etc.. Asymmetry and abstraction are all the rage tho, and it’s prevalent in just about every facet of society as far as I can tell. Not that it hasn’t always been there, but it seems that efforts to control or stem participation in such things in order to protect people is out the window. In this day of aggregates and finite percentages, entirely too productive of a revenue stream to leave it untapped I guess?
    Too much at risk/too much at stake “to play by the rules”. But in truth we know that many have not operated according to these guidelines for a very long time. Operating unethically (or maybe even illegally) can have some huge returns. Maybe “leadership” or “government” is just coming out of the closet? Tired of hiding that they’ve been operating under false pretenses for some time, but is tired of expending all that effort trying to remain in the shadows and/or cover it up?
    Gotta wonder if all of this “gender confusion” stuff has created an environment where “moral confusion” or “ethical confusion” can better express itself. Put people in a quandary. Make them chose between old and new ways. The gender questions, I’d think, aren’t alone in helping to facilitate such an environment as it would appear that everything from religion to finance are also operating in some damn grey areas, and no one seems to care so long as they get paid or there is some return.
    Whatever is going on, I only know that I won’t figure it out. Whenever some bit of information is released into the wild/becomes public, and by the time that information reaches me where I can evaluate and ponder on it, those pulling the strings are already so far ahead of me and hitting me at such odd angles that I think it unlikely that I could ever provide meaningful insight as to “what it all means” or “where it’s all going”.

    Of course, it is all about money/power/possession/control under the auspices of freedom for some and captivity for others, so I guess it’s really not that difficult to figure out the direction in which desire/intent point. And when you break the game down, the actual method(s) of attainment will be as violent and bloody as they need be, so there’s that too. As long as they win, anything is on the table which will help achieve that victory.

    ^Karen Metal 4! [No Pomegranates]^

    And yeah, that last bit loops back to the shady election shit.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oh, and at the start of this nCoV-2019/SARS-CoV2 thing, wasn’t their rumors floating around that the SARS2 virus not only appeared to be manufactured/engineered/manmade, but also that it contained a block of genetic code that was exclusive to HIV?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You mean I am never going to get HIV? I don’t know what to say about that, other than I might have come out on their side if I ever had.

        It was all really terrible at the time but I no longer care for why. Time passes and so we all view things from a different stance.

        I had galloping Tuberculosis when I was thirty years old. Is there a difference?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. So that this new social media platform? If so, he gon get sued. Looks identical to Twitter.

            Nevermind tone of he worst names in history, the look alone is enough to make me not want to join. Who in the hell wants a Twitter clone? Let alone a Twitter clone that is centered around one individual. It’s like some whacked out extension of how accounts or channels work on social media platforms. Wait….wait just a minute here…is Twitter potentially licensing some of their technology and/or intellectual property?

            Sorry but I’m racking my brain to figure out why (and how) it looks identical to Twitter.

            Oh and btw, when I first saw that tweet with Don Jr, I had no idea who it was. It was the roses are red thing that caught my eye.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. I dunno. Is Twitter the new ‘Hoover’?

              ‘In the UK and Ireland the word “hoover” has long been colloquially synonymous with “vacuum cleaner” and the verb “to vacuum” (e.g. “you were hoovering the carpet”), since the Hoover Company’s dominance there during the early 20th century. Despite Hoover no longer being the top seller of vacuum cleaners in the UK, the term “hoover” has remained as a genericized trademark.’


              Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s