It was an otherwise normal day in 1969 when I found the book. I was a student in Vienna for my junior year of undergrad. Like most students, I had a room with a Hausfrau, normally an elderly lady who rented out rooms to students. I shared a room on Hauslabgasse in the 5th District with an old high school classmate.
Our Hausfrau, born in 1900, was a member of the old minor Austrian Nobility. Both World Wars had been hard on her. She had served in the German Kriegsmarine occupying the Channel Islands and came back to a war-torn Vienna, but made her own way. She was a survivor. I admired her for that. But she also had a certain affection for the “good old days.”
There was an old ornate bookcase in our room. As I was examining it, I found a hidden compartment that contained a copy of Mein Kampf. It was a handsomely bound copy and obviously cherished. As I thumbed through it, I wondered how people could have been so blind. Hitler had laid out, in detail, exactly what he planned to do. And he did it. How could the world have missed it?
Perhaps we need to fast-forward to today in order to understand it. Starting in 2001, a series of simulation exercises were conducted under sponsorship of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. It began with Dark Winter dealing with a smallpox epidemic and continued with Atlantic Storm in 2005, Clade X in 2018 and culminated with Event 201 in November 2019.
This succession of planning events creates a time series of information. They are the dots that, it seems, someone or some entity is daring us to connect. Who might this be?
Well, The Center for Health Security at Hopkins, for sure. Tom Inglesby and Eric Toner are there. Inglesby even connected the events, saying “The events have a long fuse!” What exactly did he mean?
The World Economic Forum is there. They even published The Great Reset in July 2020, amazingly soon after Covid hit. This seems to be an awfully short time to get the book in print. Gates is there, with GAVI which was started even earlier, in 2000!
I can’t remember if it was Anthony Fauci or Rick Bright who articulated in the video versions of Event 201 that this would be a terrific opportunity to push vaccines. It’s all out there for everyone to see, just like in Mein Kampf!
Steven Kritz, MD, made the point in an email chat that, “For the first time ever, it was a MAN-MADE virus that caused a world-wide outbreak!” If it was man-made, it had to have a purpose. Was it simply the “sword and shield” approach stretching back to the bioweapons program of the Third Reich? Kurt Blome’s research on bioweapons was the Sword and that of Walter Schreiber on defense to those weapons was the Shield. The whole episode of their research in Nazi Germany as well as the possible transfer of this concept to The Department of Defense Research and Engineering Enterprise, is outlined in Operation Paperclip.
This is all the more interesting with the assertion by Marine Major Joseph P. Murphy to Project Veritas that supported that Sword and Shield scenario and the fact the Department of Defense controlled Operation Warp Speed.
Was it a money-making scheme of Big Pharma? Well, that is certainly plausible given the Project Veritas recordings of the Pfizer executive trying to impress his date and spilling the beans on the vaccine program. By the way, what happened to Project Veritas after all of these revelations? Did James O’Keefe finally poke the hornet’s nest too strongly? You be the judge.
So, what ties The Center for Health Security, The Department of Defense, The World Economic Forum, Big Pharma, Fauci, Gates etc. together? Is it merely a consortium of individuals and entities who realized they had a common interest, or is something else behind it all, calling the shots? Was it just a matter of us not being able to connect the dots? Or was it more like the case of my Hausfrau in Vienna more than 50 years ago, where the dots were not only connected but cherished by those few who knew the truth?
I don’t know…But it needs to be explored.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: Brownstone Institute Read the original article here: https://brownstone.org/