Why did all the corporations, including airlines and hotels bow down to the lockdowns?

[langdj]

Interesting theory as too why no CEOs put up a fight to the lockdowns. Spoiler it involves are BlackRock and Vanguard

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01 ... lockdowns/

[Triplethought]

Interesting theory as too why no CEOs put up a fight to the lockdowns. Spoiler it involves are BlackRock and Vanguard

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01 ... lockdowns/

I don't buy this theory. Corporate CEOs bowed to the lockdown because the guys with guns (i.e. the governors of their state) said they had to. Also (in my case) because they were worried about lawsuits (all I need is to be sued by employees and customers who were put at risk and caught Covid). THOSE are the 2 main reasons I shut my businesses down for a few days (the employee lawsuits were what I was most worried about). After I got letters from the government confirming my businesses were "critical to the community" I was less worried and opened them up.

The small hospital boards the "big 3" sit on are probably more about philanthropy. I doubt a board seat of a children's hospital represents significant income for them and so I'd hardly call it being wired into medical America

Lastly, I don't believe these 3 guys represent the kind of "quake in your boots" type of power in America that's being attributed to them. Imagine Buckley of Vanguard wanted to "punish" Exxon's stock by selling all Vanguards holdings. It's not vanguard's money it's their clients. Can you imagine him trying to explain to all his brokers and clients that they need to sell one particular stock held inside ETFs, mutual funds, index funds? How would he do that when you have index funds whose very design (and filing with the SEC) is to hold one of every stock on the S&P? I think it's silly to think he would (or could) do that. I have no doubt he is influential by virtue of some voting rights but he ain't THAT influential. As a Vanguard client who owns Exxon stock I am the one who votes on Exxon's board of directors NOT Buckley. I don't know what voting rights he has that the author is referencing.... Maybe he can for an index fund but I'm not sure that's even true.

[SOL]

Interesting theory as too why no CEOs put up a fight to the lockdowns. Spoiler it involves are BlackRock and Vanguard

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01 ... lockdowns/

The explanation is simpler. It was a good way to make money using hysteria. You will be surprised at how effective mass hysteria is. Try going into a raging mob and see how your thoughts start to change. This is why many individuals that were part of a mob will say they did not know what overcame them. Now Social media allows big players to use the same tricks that they use when dealing with mobs. Social media is like a virtual mob.

At the bottom of all this or the top depending on what angle you look at it. Money is the main driving force. we said this many moons ago, as the money supply increases the amount of crooked, and wicked S**T will continue to explode. As of 2020 the big players made it official, mere mortals are worth less than paper

[Budge]

Interesting theory as too why no CEOs put up a fight to the lockdowns. Spoiler it involves are BlackRock and Vanguard

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01 ... lockdowns/

The explanation is simpler. It was a good way to make money using hysteria. You will be surprised at how effective mass hysteria is. Try going into a raging mob and see how your thoughts start to change. This is why many individuals that were part of a mob will say they did not know what overcame them. Now Social media allows big players to use the same tricks that they use when dealing with mobs. Social media is like a virtual mob.

At the bottom of all this or the top depending on what angle you look at it. Money is the main driving force. we said this many moons ago, as the money supply increases the amount of crooked, and wicked S**T will continue to explode. As of 2020 the big players made it official, mere mortals are worth less than paper

The mass hysteria of a mob, or even an enthusiastic convention crowd is more infectious than omicron.

[Yodean]

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.co ... d&afid=362

*****

Free, but you do have to supply an email address.

On balance, pretty good, particularly the 2nd half - goes into the HIV story. May be quite relevant as HIV and similarly all sorts of different immunodeficiency syndromes will/are likely to make a comeback.

[SOL]

IS THE COVID VACCINE KILLING PEOPLE?


While the timing of vax and spikes is indicative does anyone have the data as to causes of death to be specific as to why the spikes ? Is it vax or is it coincident to spikes in new covid strains? Were all the excess deaths vaxxed? If so what was cause of death? I have no view on this, just like to see the specific data to know a specific answer and not assume a correlation. I learned that specifics are needed in stat class at Wharton

Matt’s response:

I didn’t go to Wharton, so I can’t speak to their statistics curriculum. But when I went from the Long Island School for the Gifted (elementary school) into a Catholic prep school, it took about two weeks for some confused and very frustrated nuns to put me into “Special Ed” class. A class which I shared for a year with 3 other “students”, one of which communicated by chewing on a bell attached to his wheelchair. It was in that class that I learned that I had to train my brain to stop multitasking, slow down and speak linearly when communicating with others, or else they will (rightly) assume that I am retarded.

So from the top.

We knew within the first two months of the pandemic being declared that the spike protein was cytotoxic, meaning it kills mammalian cells that it comes into contact with en vivo. In fact, SARS-Cov2 the virus itself, aside from the spike protein on its exterior was virtually inert and harmless. The disease we know as COVID-19 and all its corresponding symptoms resulting from infection and viral replication of SARS-Cov2, is caused in its entirety from the spike protein. Spike causes the symptoms, Spike causes the damage. But like all other viral infections, its severity was based on viral load and its duration was days to weeks, depending on how fast a persons T macrophage cells got on top of it.

T macrophage cells are the immune cells that go around and eat infected or cancerous cells or any cell not doing its job. Those T-mac cells then excrete tiny bits of virus, protien chains and amino acids that are not native to the body, as waste. Those foreign protein chains (virus bits) are what’s called antibodies and they are hoovered up by a different kind of T cell commonly refered to as Memory T-cells. Their job is to Imprint those unique virus bits, so that if they are ever encountered again in the future, the body immediately rallies an army of T Macrophages and sends them to the site where the detection happened and they kill everything. AKA a cytokine storm.

So with that context in mind.

SARS-Cov2 Is made up of some 70 odd unique protein sequences one of which is spike, and each sequence made up of even more unique amino acid chains. So throughout the 70 year history of vaccineology, the standard process has always been to find a unique viral protein that is completely harmless and non toxic, replicate it by the trillions and attach them to inert or dead OLD virus, something harmless that only affects donkeys for instance. Hence the term Retro-Virus vaccine. But this time was different. This time, the protein that they picked out of the 70 possible, was the spike. They chose the only viral protein that was known to be cytotoxic at the time. Why? Who fucking knows, but after 70 years of making vaccines using non-cytotoxic protiens, I’d really like to know.

So this MRNA vaccine operated differently, It is more akin to a gene therapy than a vaccine because it doesn’t train your immune cells on dummy viruses, It re-writes the DNA of your Memory T-cells and T macrophage cells, and turns them into spike factories. So now rather than getting covid and having an ever decreasing amount of spike doing damage as your T cells kill the infection, you have your entire immune systems cells cranking out spike 24/7 until they litterally explode. But often they get to reproduce beforehand so there are new zombie T-cells cranking out spike because MRNA is a gene therapy not a vaccine. Its not just inter-generational in regards to your T-cells, Its inter-generational period.

Report 44: Is mRNA-LNP Vaccine-Induced Immunity Inheritable? A Preprint Study Shows It Is.
https://dailyclout.io/is-mrna-lnp-vacci ... heritable/


So I’ve been against the vaccine from the beginning, but I am not the one crunching the data obviously. I can direct you to the people that are.

Here is Naomi Wolf’s publication–she’s had 1300 data scientists volunteer to analyze the 80k+ pages of Pfizer saftey trial data that the federal judge ordered released. Her team has been cranking out amazing papers on the data as it comes in, the court order allowed Pfizer to break it up into 4 data dumps over 9 months, so they’ve been able to get information out to the public within weeks of each new dump. Nov 1st is the last data dump so everything you’ll see there is literally breaking news because it is research on data never seen by anyone other than Pfizer and the scumbags at the FDA.

Naomi is no slouch either. Dr. Naomi Wolf is a 2x international bestselling author, NYT columnist, and professor; she is a graduate of Yale University and received a doctorate from Oxford.

https://dailyclout.io/category/campaign ... -analysis/

Next is Steve Kirsch, current VC and former high tech serial entrepreneur, inventor of the optical mouse and an engineer with two degrees from MIT. He is double vaxxed an injured from it which made him and 4 other MIT engineering alums start analyzing the VAERS data. Which isn’t the best considering the Harvard study commissioned by the FDA on the effectiveness of its VAERS system showed VAERS captured a hair over 1% of the actual adverse events data, Harvard concluded the study with recommendations on how to fix the system, but the FDA and its Pharma paymasters didn’t think that was a good idea so the FDA declined. With that in mind, Steve and his shitty VAERS data is showing a rate of 26 permanently injured and 7 dead for every 100 MRNA shots.

“The CDC claims VAERS is simply over reported, but cites no evidence. The evidence shows that VAERS is under reported by 5.4X. For example, the VAERS data shows that acute cardiac failure is elevated in the COVID vaccines by 475X compared to other vaccines. Once we correct using the 5.4X factor, we get a 2,565X higher fatality rate for these vaccines. How could that be “safe”? Nobody will explain that.”

Steve now has released hundreds of articles and papers on his and others analysis, which can be found here.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com

Jessica Rose has a PhD in data science from Harvard and she’s been doing the analysis on the Israeli, DOD and Moderna data. She is an all around good person, very funny but with an extremely annoying laugh. Her papers, most of which have now been peer reviewed for whatever thats worth now adays, and articles she published going over her analysis can be found here.

https://substack.com/profile/40349025-j ... about-page

And With that ladies and gentleman, I’ve exhausted my brain’s ability to stay on a singular train of thought. So I hope this supplemental information will be helpful in your conversations and capital allocations. I’d like to end with the question–what would a country with 4% of its workforce soon to be or already disabled, look like? What are the 2nd and 3rd order effects of something like that?

https://sonar21.com/is-the-covid-vaccin ... ng-people/

Interesting article that a subscriber emailed to us.

[MarkD]

No boost for me after taking the one shot JNJ. Everyone I know getting boosted is continuing to get sick or test positive. Confirming the information above is more accurate than the information being distributed by the media and gubmint.

[Eric]

Spoiler it involves are BlackRock and Vanguard

That and the long march through the institutions is complete... All the corporate executives and board members are college brainwashed communists.

The CEO of Walmart stopped selling modern sporting rifle and handgun ammunition costing the company tens or possibly hundreds of millions in annual sales and for what benefit? No Walmart hating leftist woke up and said "you know, Walmart stopped selling wimpy handgun and rifle ammo now they only sell high-power rifle ammo... Maybe everything I thought about Walmart was wrong...f#ck whole foods, I want low prices so I'm going to shop at Walmart from now on."

[MarkD]

Spoiler it involves are BlackRock and Vanguard

That and the long march through the institutions is complete... All the corporate executives and board members are college brainwashed communists.

The CEO of Walmart stopped selling modern sporting rifle and handgun ammunition costing the company tens or possibly hundreds of millions in annual sales and for what benefit? No Walmart hating leftist woke up and said "you know, Walmart stopped selling wimpy handgun and rifle ammo now they only sell high-power rifle ammo... Maybe everything I thought about Walmart was wrong...f#ck whole foods, I want low prices so I'm going to shop at Walmart from now on."

At least in my experience this is a statement with which we can agree upon. Top students in top uni's don't always rise to the top as lesser achievers occupy a lot of management jobs (hint: they can't or won't learn any skill other than sycophancy). This has been confirmed by my cousin who has been corporate HR for several Aerospace/IT/Manufacturing/Trucking firms. He indicated a lot of companies want State college (they all have uni behind the names nowadays but they are mostly operant conditioning facilities). Top uni's attract (ed, in past times) top mentalities as level of effort is much greater to graduate.

On the original subject, here is a link to four articles from Iain Davis which I found to be interesting, and lengthy.

https://iaindavis.com/

[Budge]

Lastly, I don't believe these 3 guys represent the kind of "quake in your boots" type of power in America that's being attributed to them. Imagine Buckley of Vanguard wanted to "punish" Exxon's stock by selling all Vanguards holdings. It's not vanguard's money it's their clients. Can you imagine him trying to explain to all his brokers and clients that they need to sell one particular stock held inside ETFs, mutual funds, index funds? How would he do that when you have index funds whose very design (and filing with the SEC) is to hold one of every stock on the S&P? I think it's silly to think he would (or could) do that. I have no doubt he is influential by virtue of some voting rights but he ain't THAT influential. As a Vanguard client who owns Exxon stock I am the one who votes on Exxon's board of directors NOT Buckley. I don't know what voting rights he has that the author is referencing.... Maybe he can for an index fund but I'm not sure that's even true.

This is not the way pressure is applied. They are using ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) scoring like China's using the social credit score. "Stakeholder Capitalism" (seriously!) has supplanted the shareholder doctrine. Not keeping in order and you suddenly have the ESG nazis crawling up your arse. Finance dries up or you get the horse's head in the bed treatment. It's managed by the big boys (and WEF) for the benefit of the big boys.

[Triplethought]

Lastly, I don't believe these 3 guys represent the kind of "quake in your boots" type of power in America that's being attributed to them. Imagine Buckley of Vanguard wanted to "punish" Exxon's stock by selling all Vanguards holdings. It's not vanguard's money it's their clients. Can you imagine him trying to explain to all his brokers and clients that they need to sell one particular stock held inside ETFs, mutual funds, index funds? How would he do that when you have index funds whose very design (and filing with the SEC) is to hold one of every stock on the S&P? I think it's silly to think he would (or could) do that. I have no doubt he is influential by virtue of some voting rights but he ain't THAT influential. As a Vanguard client who owns Exxon stock I am the one who votes on Exxon's board of directors NOT Buckley. I don't know what voting rights he has that the author is referencing.... Maybe he can for an index fund but I'm not sure that's even true.

This is not the way pressure is applied. They are using ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) scoring like China's using the social credit score. "Stakeholder Capitalism" (seriously!) has supplanted the shareholder doctrine. Not keeping in order and you suddenly have the ESG nazis crawling up your arse. Finance dries up or you get the horse's head in the bed treatment. It's managed by the big boys (and WEF) for the benefit of the big boys.

I get what you're saying but don't get it in the context of the article or what my refutation was. I agree that ESG is dumb. Real dumb. But no one is pressuring individual investors to comply with ESG stupidity. Nor as far as I know is Buckley of Vanguard trying to push clients to ESG (but I could be wrong)

[Budge]

Lastly, I don't believe these 3 guys represent the kind of "quake in your boots" type of power in America that's being attributed to them. Imagine Buckley of Vanguard wanted to "punish" Exxon's stock by selling all Vanguards holdings. It's not vanguard's money it's their clients. Can you imagine him trying to explain to all his brokers and clients that they need to sell one particular stock held inside ETFs, mutual funds, index funds? How would he do that when you have index funds whose very design (and filing with the SEC) is to hold one of every stock on the S&P? I think it's silly to think he would (or could) do that. I have no doubt he is influential by virtue of some voting rights but he ain't THAT influential. As a Vanguard client who owns Exxon stock I am the one who votes on Exxon's board of directors NOT Buckley. I don't know what voting rights he has that the author is referencing.... Maybe he can for an index fund but I'm not sure that's even true.

This is not the way pressure is applied. They are using ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) scoring like China's using the social credit score. "Stakeholder Capitalism" (seriously!) has supplanted the shareholder doctrine. Not keeping in order and you suddenly have the ESG nazis crawling up your arse. Finance dries up or you get the horse's head in the bed treatment. It's managed by the big boys (and WEF) for the benefit of the big boys.

I get what you're saying but don't get it in the context of the article or what my refutation was. I agree that ESG is dumb. Real dumb. But no one is pressuring individual investors to comply with ESG stupidity. Nor as far as I know is Buckley of Vanguard trying to push clients to ESG (but I could be wrong)

The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scoring system is undergoing intense scrutiny. It also has become quite a political football, with conservative governors, attorneys general, and other officials pushing back against the movement while progressive politicians argue that ESG needs to go further.

This political tug-of-war has exposed the evil essence of ESG: It is an attempt by progressives to arm-twist the leaders of investment firms controlling the allocation of over $20 trillion in investment capital away from firms disfavored by progressives, including, most notably, producers of fossil fuels.

The question arises: What gives these custodians of vast amounts of wealth the right to target certain industries for destruction by deliberately choking off their supply of financial oxygen? If such draconian steps, with vast implications for our entire society, are to be taken at all (itself a dubious proposition), those steps should be taken in the relatively open air of democratic politics rather than in the exclusive boardrooms of an unelected financial elite.

Apart from attempting to arrogate power to themselves that they do not rightly have, the perpetrators of the ESG maneuver — that is, the money-management megafirms that have been downgrading firms for the alleged sin of being in the “wrong” business — are behaving in a morally corrupt manner. They have violated their legal fiduciary responsibility to the millions of people who have trusted them with their funds so as to maximize their returns, not to transform society.

In the process of poorly serving their clients’ interests, those pushing the ESG scheme have committed greater evils. One of those has been to jeopardize our national interests. Attempting to stamp out oil and gas production at a time of rising energy prices is an act of aggression against American consumers. When one considers the potential for suffering in Europe this winter due to the cutoff of Russian energy supplies, preventing American companies from producing potentially life-saving energy is perversely inhumane.

When one further considers that ESG scores have rated Chinese companies producing “green energy” equipment more highly than American companies producing fossil fuels, one can detect both geopolitical short-sightedness and the most cynical hypocrisy. Do we really want the United States to become more dependent on an increasingly hostile China for energy? And how dare they bestow passing ESG grades, which are supposed to be sensitive to human rights, to companies controlled by the Chinese Communist Party? The CCP is known to torture and persecute its Muslim Uyghur minority; has stamped out democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, shamelessly jailing good people like Jimmy Lai; employs slave labor; engages in aggressive religious persecution against everyone from Muslims to Christians to adherents of Falun Gong; and is known to kill dissidents by harvesting their organs from them. To pretend that such savage oppressors are better for society and therefore merit a higher ESG score than American oil and gas companies is a moral obscenity.

The evil doesn’t stop there. Another front in the ESG offensive is to reduce food supplies by reducing the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers and farm equipment. After international organizations such as the World Economic Forum and the International Finance Corporation leaned on Sri Lanka to take these steps in spring 2021, food production there fell by half. The result was a painful mixture of food shortages, energy blackouts, and hyperinflation that has led to a social, economic, and political breakdown in that country.

Similar moves to reduce food are afoot in the Netherlands and Canada. This is at a time when the Russian invasion of Ukraine and drought conditions in various parts of the world are precariously reducing the food supply. The Netherlands is the second-biggest food exporter in the world, but already its government’s pursuit of ESG goals has caused thousands of Dutch farmers to go broke. Farmers in both of those developed countries have organized huge protests, and the social fabric of these traditionally stable societies is at risk.

The ESG cabal is proposing to save the world by impoverishing millions of people and possibly starving millions more. No thanks! ESG is evil. It is not just an illegitimate power grab. It is not just an illegal violation of investors’ rights. In deliberately reducing food and energy supplies at a time of critical need, ESG is a crime against humanity.

Mark Hendrikson, American Spectator
https://spectator.org/esg-is-evil/