I'm going to re-post a comment I made on this last night to see if we can get some discussion going on the nature of this 'manifesto'. comment source: https://poal.co/s/TellPoal/443626/9c8510f7-9896-4f7c-a1c4-e8f43c651339 --------------- >Hmm, interesting read... >but I'm not convinced this is legit. The first parts were very detailed and filled with rather sound information on the pathology and biochemical mechanisms for the actions of both the virus and the vaccines. Most of the information correlated well with the research and reading I have done in those areas. It was good enough to initially convince me this was written by a potential insider leaker/whistleblower. It did have a good and tight bead on the biological and chemical angle. >Reading further changed that for me, particularly the content of the last two sections on links to transhumanism and the conclusions. Those sections seemed to go from a highly knowledgeable insider to an anon autist or well read Qtard. They covered some areas such as the graphene oxide portion so poorly and without detail that it seemed like a different author took over the writing. They setup some basic potential mechanisms for the nefarious purposes of the virus and vaccine but completely left out the details which they had done such a good job with in the beginning sections. There was mostly gristle and very little meat from that point on. >The whole part about Brain Computer Interfaces got very speculative since they did not provide any details on the biology, chemistry or physics that would make it work. Sure they described a few bits and pieces, but there was nothing about how the graphene or silicon nanowires or other "neural lace" components would target and control very specific parts of the brain. It was almost as if the author of this part was just expecting the reader to blindly accept that a shotgun approach to interfacing with the brain is good enough to have intelligent control over extremely precise targets without actually ensuring those targets were wired up in the first place. I'm really surprised too that 5G was not mentioned since it seemed to be setting up the scenario for it being involved. >There were some very key words and phrases used that made me become highly suspicious of the latter content. On the Brain Computer Interface topic, the Julian Assange coined phrase of "smart dust" [sic. intelligent dust] was used without any further explanation of what it is, does or how it works. Even Julian Assange did not give any detail on the phrase and its importance in the very interview in which he said it. He did not describe it at all and it was not dwelled upon for even one second of interview time. That always seemed odd to me since anons and such think it is such an important and relevant phrase. Since Julian didn't seem to find it important to elaborate on and the interviewer didn't seem aroused by such words, I think the whole notion of "intelligent dust" has been seized upon by people who want to read more into it than what it brought at face value. Julian never said anything more on the topic after the interview so that tells me it was just a metaphor. >Other language used in the last half of the letter also raised my anon/autist suspicions. The phrases "involuntarily celibate" and "tyrant's wet dream" also made an appearance in the "links to transhumanism" section. Mentioning incels and wet dreams in such a scientifically detailed letter seems out of place. The term incel, even in long form, is not widespread outside of the boutique enclaves of the internet where autists and anons congregate. Sure Reddit knows it, but that only further affirms that at least the second half of the letter may be a forgery at best or a glowing indicator of three letter agency additions at worst. It just seems to grating a change in writing style to be organic and authentic. >With all that said, I would recommend caution with this letter. It doesn't give me a good feeling that this is anything but a setup. I didn't touch that MegaUpload link because it allegedly points to a PDF and I don't trust it or the site. As with all things internet, you don't have to listen to me or trust me. In fact I recommend that you be skeptical of everything I have said here and that you read the letter and my comment and make your own mind up with what it means to you. That's the only thing any of should be doing with the information we receive. Perhaps you will agree with me that this letter is suspect, but you are free to think as you see fit. If you think I might have some good points here, please say so and we can explore this further. It's your choice though.