What's The Real Agenda?

I went googling for Dr Fauci's latest remarks and came up with intriguing questions. The screen shot above is from a CNN story, where Fauci is giving the current line on the New Normal, clearly endorsed by an upper-class white woman with The Look, in this case Dana Bash. It used to be that The Look went with a facial expression that at least affected a wide-eyed ingenue quality, but no longer: Ms Bash is trying on Big Sister, which we're going to be getting more of, I do believe.

Fauci, meanwhile, is blathering away with a self-satisfied smirk.

Asked by CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" whether he thinks Americans will still need to wear masks next year, Fauci replied: "You know, I think it is possible that that's the case and, again, it really depends on what you mean by normality."

It's plain from the CDC news conference I referenced yesterday that Fauci isn't just speaking on his own account, the suits at the CDC are behind him. He speaks for the lizard people who are running the planet, it's pretty plain. But they've clearly been moving the goalposts all along. As part of my web search, I came up with this story from last October:

People will likely need to wear masks and follow social distancing guidelines through the end of 2021 and into 2022, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said during a recent meeting, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

. . . “I feel very strongly that we’re going to need to have some degree of public health measures to continue,” he said.

“It’s not going to be the way it was with polio and measles, where you get a vaccine, case closed, it’s done,” Fauci said. “It’s going to be public health measures that linger for months and months.”

So a year ago it was 15 days to flatten the curve, but by last October it was through the end of 2021 and into 2022, but now it's morphing into all of 2022. The public service announcements, oddly, haven't dropped the original message: wear a mask. Socially distance. Stay home. There's no get the shot and we'll have done it. Why not?

The agenda, I've become more convinced, is wide-ranging social engineering, certainly including breaking existing social patterns. Here's an example of what's being mooted, from a UK site, but I think the idea is more widespread:

Nuclear households, it seems, are where we are all intuitively expected to retreat in order to prevent widespread ill-health. ‘Staying home’ is what is somehow self-evidently supposed to keep us well. But there are several problems with this, as anyone inclined to think about it critically (even for a moment) might figure out – problems one might summarize as the mystification of the couple-form; the romanticisation of kinship; and the sanitization of the fundamentally unsafe space that is private property.

How can a zone defined by the power asymmetries of housework (reproductive labor being so gendered), of renting and mortgage debt, land and deed ownership, of patriarchal parenting and (often) the institution of marriage, benefit health? Such standard homes are where, after all, everyone secretly knows the majority of earthly violence goes down: the W.H.O. calls domestic violence “the most widespread, but among the least reported human rights abuses.”

In this view, "stay home" amounts to a temporary measure -- and we're talking about "home" as couples or nuclear family units exclusively, not extended or multigenerational families, which are clearly part of the "public health" problem. At some point in the foreseeable future, the object will be to remake human relations completely.

The longer the measures in place can continue, the more they become a New Normal, the more easily traditional ties of friendship, family, community, and religion can be broken down. At least, that's the idea.