"Mandatory injections for kids."

That would mean we're in the normalization phase of the takeover. Specifically in relation to covid-19/pandemic emergency powers.

Where by normalization is explained in the following:

"The word normalisation is derived from Soviet propaganda that seeks to downplay a drastic change in a country as a normal phenomenon. "

So 1963, 2001, 2020-2021.

The violent takeover, or 'crisis' was in 1963 when JFK was assassinated, wasn't it? Or was that the destabilization step?

And that would make "the great society" and the abolishment of the hart-cellar act (mass immigration to the u.s.) the crisis?

So if we follow the Demoralization->Destabilization->Crisis->Normalization plan that internationalists use to destroy nations, it becomes obvious that its not one and done but a pattern and toolkit repeated over and over across various facets and areas of life within a nation, destroying it bit by bit, using this same playbook.

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

In my opinion, the 'rona power grab is the event we've been waiting for and it's not going to stop.

Yep, I think so too. It's not simply a tactic, its a new playbook, a new default mode. The fact we see a lull now, if this can be called a lull, while also seeing announcements like the california mandate, tells me 1. the occupation intends for this to be national policy, and california is proof of that because the worst the decisionmakers have to offer tends to be trialed in california as a testing ground. 2. california is used as a testing ground because its electoral and cultural influence is so large, and the state is so terrible socially, politically, and economically, that it exports both its people and ideology all across the u.s, like a tumor. 3. They need scaled up riots, way worse than last year, by antifa and the black left, to reactively push the moderate right into support of jabs and masks, while using the non-moderate right's reaction as an excuse to militarize against dissidents and demonize conservatives as terrorists.

I thought maybe "it kills people after a while" (e.x. myocarditis), because that was the narrative, but its important to keep a proper distance from the news. Then I remember the old talk from what, six months ago, or a year?

What was it?

"Binary weapon."

Yeah, that was the phrase.

Using it to divide the military. Why?

To destroy man power.

But that would leave a sizeable contingent of veterans to organize civilians against an invasion.

So the perpetrator would either be 1. not china 2. the u.s. government.

Neither of which makes sense. Why poison your supporters? Why kill them?

"Permanently lock them down with fixed interval jabs once or twice a year"

But that just eventually leads to hardcore resistance. Which, as ramshackle as the u.s. government is, would present a capable threat to them. So no, that can't be it.

"Collapse the u.s." is too general.

Maybe the "inoculate the obedient, and leave the well-armed and dangerous exposed to a bioweapon" plot? But my hunch is this doesn't work for some reason. Whatever spreads, loses too much potency with each leap between hosts as is natural.

But then of course theres plenty, when spread, that does kill easily enough, that the u.s government or a foreign invader could use: ebola, smallpox.

Neither scenario alone, targeting the jab for killing, or targeting the unjabbed, makes sense. But the jab is definitely harmful. More importantly it is not protective, which tells us that this isn't about health and safety--at least against corona virus.

So maybe it protects against--something else, or prepares the way for it. But then why do it that way, again, when all the unjabbed have mostly been cleanly divided along political lines, namely gun owners, gun owners who would present a problem in a collapse/martial law or invasion scenario.

No. It's either about eliminating the left because they have total control now, in a way that makes guns irrelevant, or its about protecting the left from something that hasn't been released yet but might or will soon be released, while eliminating the right. This has the added benefit of also allowing them to eliminate or sterilize people on a regular basis when the jab is turned into a recurring yearly or seasonal requirement.

Which scenario offers more profit, the reduction of risk, and higher control?

The "pandemic of the unvaccinated" isn't a false narrative being used to deflect blame for the death of the vaccinate. Thats only the "incompetence" cover story.

Whats it actually is is the pre-narrative warm-up, the news prep-work for making the public believe the next series of events.

It' psychological priming.

They're telegraphing what the state intends to make happen.

I think the marek's disease narrative has been true all along. The vaccine will, despite its dangers, loosely "protect" people who got it--protect them from symptoms of the next "variant", and that variant will be deadly to the unjabbed.

It' the only scenario that makes any sense at all.

Unless the DOD said fuck it, and decided to mass murder the left and remove the bolshevik subversion by the root. Which I seriously doubt.

If your not prepared by now you wont probably be ever then

Elaborate on what you think is gonna happen and why.