I’ve mentioned various things occurring which turned out to have a rather devastating effect instead of what it was meant to do, in An Experiment, But a Big One and it’s a subject many know of and gets brought up here and there. The scandal in the 50’s and 60’s of disabled babies being born with missing or malformed limbs. Thalidomide.

Quite shockingly, they didn’t even test it on any pregnant animals in their trials, they didn’t think it was a necessary part of the overall safety measures before rolling out a drug. Clearly. And even when something very disturbing started to occur, it seems it took some time for the culprit to be identified. It still strikes me as odd that women are told not to even eat soft cheese, or go near certain things in case it will have a harmful effect. Yet when it comes to certain medications, it is encouraged, like the aforementioned drug and other ones more recently. But that one it turns out, completely circumvents the protection usually given by the womb and what we would call natures defence. It is said that when they finally did think to test it on animals, the rabbits showed the same defects, although it is also said that rats tested after did not. Either way, the human live trial subjects definitely should have been the smoking gun, but no, it took a further five years after it was authorised, to be pulled.

It’s known as a teratogen now (can cause birth defects), but then it did not even seem to register as a possibility. I guess who could have known it would break down proteins that control when genes are turned on or off. So, they literally gave women something that would code the growing foetus to just switch off the limb development and bypass it altogether. It is said that depending on when you ingested the drug would affect the outcome, as after a certain number of weeks, the limbs have been ‘activated’ so I guess couldn’t then be switched off, but was only capable of preventing them from activating. But once it was obvious something was going very wrong, many are left to wonder what took them so long in identifying it what it was. I guess maybe it was only really looked into and admitted, because it cause just a profound and unhideable condition, that it was not going to work in the long term to cause harm.

But the damage was done, and perhaps is where some people may have just started to notice that the ‘health’ service, didn’t actually know what they were doing. It was best guess and live trials, as it is today, under the guise of ‘controlled study’. What they don’t really tell you often, is what they are looking for or want to achieve with these drugs they roll out, so many things that could or should be relevant gets overlooked, ignored or just dismissed. Just as we see today, people can receive an awful lot of flack for going against what the authorities say or for just questioning the reasoning behind something. And if they say it’s safe, then why would people think any different? Well, I’m glad some people did, and I’m sure there are those who at the time may have worked it out, told others and tried their best, but we know what they are up against with things like that.

But back to the drug, and in my mind I still don’t quite understand how you have a drug, originally developed as a tranquilizer suddenly then being sold over the counter for morning sickness without proper testing. As a sedative, it calms the nervous system, reduces voluntary activity, promotes sleep and is a hypnotic drug they say. Sounds just like the type of thing you would give to someone with a developing foetus growing inside them doesn’t it? It also sounds like with those ‘qualities’ it may have been quite helpful for other projects, perhaps the Monarch one for example with MK Ultra. See my article, Do You Mind, There’s Something To Control for more on that. But instead of having a number of queasy pregnant women at that time, I’m guessing you actually after that drug came out, you had a number of sedated, partially hypnotised women going about their day and lives with a supressed nervous system. But as long as they aren’t puking, eh?

And even stranger is, they don’t even know why morning sickness occurs. They have no clue as to why the body sees fit to create nausea and vomiting during that period in some people, but thought enough of it to try and supress it at the drop of a hat when presented with an opportunity, rather than assess the real cause of it and perhaps manage it from there. Mind-boggling really, but not, once you see how it really works, it seems like just another day in the giant lab…

(c) K Wicks

There seems a running theme we have for commemorating things, having traditions and rituals to repeat over and over. A great line I heard about traditions recently made me give it further thought “tradition is just a bunch of dead people telling you what to do”. And have already discussed here and there the need for repeated anniversaries for things, thought of again around poppy day, or remembrance day as it is called. Remembering the fallen and those who sacrificed themselves. Although with a new view, it’s a ritual remembrance of a mass sacrifice, by others for their benefit, then worshipped thereafter. As we are in an inverted world, it would make sense.

Statues and solid visual reminders of people’s and events. We have many throughout the entire realm, but it was only recently during the strange BLM riots and propaganda when statues were being torn down that I gave that more thought too. Of how we try to immortalise people with carved pieces, placed for maximum effect and to give people something to give their thought to. So it won’t be forgotten, until such time as it is no longer needed of course, then it either gets quietly replaced. Or torn down in a frenzy to appease the masses, used for a final piece of programming before it changes to the next icon to see and keep in your psyche.

Bonfire night – the burning of Guy Fawkes, keeping the story alive for generations after it happened, as is the way. And it was that ritual that really started this idea, after the Olympics and watching the latest strange instalment of their opening ceremonies, mentioned in my article A Ceremonial Revelation, and giving extra thought like in the ideas mentioned in The Main Arena. I thought, why would you want to annually commemorate someone who tried to bring down the government? From the people’s point of view, it seems obvious, to glorify and celebrate someone who tried. But it isn’t that is it? It’s celebrating failure, and of foiling a fight for freedom, as we are told. And the yearly revival of it, only helps to keep them down, repeating the failure over and over. And to keep burning the one who tried, almost as if that is the twisted extra punishment, where the people you tried to save are the ones who actually threw you on the fire. As I’m sure has happened on many occasion in times past.

It is perhaps the dedication of time and application of thought towards it that gives it form and energy, each event that has been put into the calendar as a marker, to be an instigator and harvester of whatever it generates thereafter. Even what we know as the calendar has been altered, see April New Year, Don’t Be Fooled for a bit more on that. So much of what we thought we knew is being revealed as ‘subject to change’, depending on the need and the narrative at the time, so it would stand to reason that is how much of it came to be as we know it now. It was part of a previous narrative, the previous conditioning and set of ideals they wanted everyone to have and think about. A certain history laid out before everyone to make sure they are all ‘reading from the same page’ as one might say and on the same track. Not necessarily even having to destroy everything, you can just rewrite it or let go to ruin, to a point. But clearly there are holes in the story, the timelines don’t seem to work out, and what we see versus what we are told don’t always seem to add up. So like the Jigsaw of Life, we try and do what we can, with what we think we know, and like a developing mystery, we are left to solve the rest…

(c) K Wicks

The internet, and more importantly, social media and what it was sold as, compared to what it has become.

Australia is about to roll out their legal framework bill to introduce a minimum age of sixteen for usage of social media. Meaning of course, that everyone will have to prove their age by way of I.D to be able to have an account, which I’m sure might just tie in neatly to the digital identification they talk about wanting for everyone. Not just there, but here in the UK too, which we already have for a number of things, but this is apparently just for safety. Exposure to social media is bad for kids they say, now they can see the effect of two decades of it on people.

But, as they aren’t really interested in safety in the normal sense, we know something else is afoot. Yet, the talk about the online world many spend their time engaging in, is that it isn’t how it appears. What does these days? But that its numbers are bulked up by bots, cloned accounts, corporations and agendas, rather than actual people sharing what they would naturally and developing within that. Because there is no normal or naturally when it comes to the internet, not anymore. And I wonder if there ever was, because algorithms have always been in there, and decision makers getting to decide the ‘next big thing’ moves it into place to ‘go viral’ or take the world by storm as they say. Just because they condensed the format from the physical world to fit into the specifications of the virtual world, the overall goal was the same. To capture people’s thoughts and attention, and to steer mentality, industry and Consumerism. And not just of buying things, consumerism covers all the things they would like you to ingest, have, know, think, believe and want. So very much not just physical objects you can purchase or things you can own, because while you are coveting them, something else is coveting you and what you are. And while you consume what you are meant to, it consumes you.

Now we have different algorithms being rolled out, not ones to make you, but to break you instead. To punish and penalise you for using words and phrases someone has deemed offensive and not acceptable, on a platform they encouraged you to be yourself on and say those things. So, they could then use it against you, narcissistic gaslighting at its best. Strange format really though, having a bunch of people together with different intentions, ideals, opinions, ideas, dreams, fears, and motives, just casually being ‘sociable’. Something always seemed a bit off about that, but interesting, never the less. My article, Social, But Not Really, looked at that angle a bit more.

But now it is feeling a bit worn down, a bit past its best and dwindling somewhat. People often get bored of things, or change their outlook, or what they want to spend their time doing, as they should. And do young people feel the overwhelming need to even have social media anymore? We are told yes, but maybe that’s not actually the reality. Same with older folks, many have had their time on those platforms, have grown weary of the drama and stagnant content, of the same format, same arguments, same old same old. Once something has run its course and you feel it’s time for Walking Away, then it’s probably because you should. Recent examples of citizen journalists and media journalists coming under fire and being visited by the establishment for making observations, speculations or having opinions, should be of concern to everyone. Really though what it shows, is that the system is no longer fit for purpose and hasn’t been for some time, well, the purpose of people and sociability. It’s been used now for a different purpose, and possibly the one it was always there for, to monitor and sway public thoughts, opinion and evolution. The Ministry of Monitoring can’t monitor everyone unless we are all under the same umbrella, on the same network and sharing what we think and feel.

And it may be that by putting an age limit on it does a number of things, with an ideal one being all young people are excluded, but want access just with any age restricted materials, it gives it an extra edge of being attractive to those who are not eligible, yet. And all older people register for a digital identity to be able to access that online virtual world where you can engage and ‘socialise’ with other ‘people’. In reality though, it seems it will just fracture it further as many will drop off, will realise it’s not what it says it is, and many will not be interested just as they aren’t now. People change, times change and so must the internet of things, because people adapt and change without even knowing it sometimes. And it maybe that the internet has changed without us even noticing, but sometimes you really can recognise when something is indeed, past its best…

(c) K Wicks