Before the subject of the day, an anonymous reader question
Q: Vitalik Buterin, genius founder of Ethereum. Is he actually human and will he change the world as we know?
C: What’s the difference between being actually human or being human? Of course he is; everything and everybody changes the world.
Update 10 Aug 2021 - Another reader asks: I was inspired by the Ethereum question the other day. The inventor of Bitcoin is said to have been Satoshi Nakamoto, but this is presumed to be a pseudonym and the identity of this mysterious inventor remains unknown to this day. Who really invented Bitcoin? Can The Committee shed any light on this? There is suspicion that it was Aussie academic Craig Wright.
Responds The Committee: Much light we can shed, however revelation of these details will spoil much fun, purpose & meaning for anyone involved. For entertainment derived from speculation, this would be interesting, however a more serious purpose prevents us. We shall say but this: many interested parties would like to discover then manipulate such inventor(s), that is certain, however human creation of value exchange media is a human process only humans should carry forth. Interference such as we might cause, cannot help anyone.
Another reader asks about the Subject Of The Day, Eugenics.
Defined as the selective breeding of humans and/or the destruction of the unfit, it has a long and controversial history. Apparently recent information on genetic modification and screening has caused a heated debate about whether these technologies should be called eugenics or not.
With the seemingly relentless coercive efforts to inject the mRNA genetic modification material into each and every human, one cannot help but ask if there is something more nefarious going on with the infamous "vaccine" other than increasing herd immunity:
C: There is. Forcing people against their preferences and will, always for their and everyone's protection, is a significant and often, most effective tool used to oppress, dominate or subjugate for benefit of the protectors. Human history offers many examples.
Q: Is the mRNA injection actually a planned eugenics program or a precursor to such a program?
C: No, the vaccine is what it appears to be, however its release was planned to be used as a control technique, which unfolds now. As we said above, the foundation of the pressure now applied settles on protection, that you should do this for your own good. You should read or listen to this opinion, for your own good. You should ignore, dismiss or shout down that other opinion for your own good, it is wrong. It is misinformation. You should use this bank for your own good. You should pay those taxes for your own collective good.
Always will the protector be able to show some resulting protection, creating ability to confront resistance with demands for explanations of refusal.
It is a precursor yes, but not to a eugenics program; the vaccine pressure is intended to soften up the world's populations into accepting many intrusions now resisted or rejected. The idea has already occurred to some political leaders to round up the unvaccinated and imprison them, at some point. The argument they have created —but not yet spoken— is to state how restrictions, home arrest and range of movement have not worked to the degree necessary. In other words, the new and unique method of quarantine for the healthy, along with the sick or infected, will evolve into the vaccinated versus unvaccinated and their forced detention and separation.
The practical problem is, the vaccination is not nearly as effective as believed; many recipients believe they are now immune, but they are not all. This makes it easy to blame unvaccinated people as the sole transmitters, which is not true.
The objective is to increase power over the population, in general. This will allow many things accomplished, and for this reason it is done.
Q: If so, what would the desired results, outcome, or end game of this monstrously unethical program be?
C: Control mankind.