The alleged “removal” of vaccine mandates in S.A. is a public relations scam. The unvaccinated are still legally penalised, treated differently, therefore vaccine mandates remain, but were only modified. They are trying to trick you to believe that these are not mandates, but if you return to work under these conditions you are still acquiescing to medical coercion and the loss of the right to free medical consent, not just for yourself but for your children and future generations.
New World Fantasy
Here is a little fantasy, or perhaps even a far fetched hypothesis… Before anyone of us little people has heard about Covid-19, our rulers have already decided that the present order will crumble, that the present leaders will be sacrificed to make the transition meaningful and inspiring to the masses. All those government officials who pushed the lethal and unnecessary vaccines on children, those who unlawfully locked us down, coerced us to wear masks and to receive poisonous injections just to be able to work will go to jail, or themselves die from the vaccine. National parliaments will be purged by prosecutions for crimes against humanity, to the joy of those who resisted, who will join new political movements, freedom movements. But here’s the catch; the leaders of the new order, which is to be based on accountability, health and freedom, were also chosen before Covid-19 was even a thing. Any well meaning outsiders, no matter how competent and qualified, but uninitiated, will be politely sidelined, gently excluded, mostly ignored, passively discouraged. The painful change will thus be accomplished, and you will cheer and love the new leaders, your liberators, but sacrifices will have to be made; the economy will be gutted, industries destroyed, national debt astronomical, unpayable. To avoid a total sovereign default your loving leaders will agree to a deal, to use private wealth and real estate to pay the debt, but on very favourable conditions. You will get to keep your home, which you will technically no longer own, but you will have to pay rent, a modest rent, a bargain really… to begin with. In time, more adjustments will have to be made, to prevent governments betraying you ever again. New systems will be put in place to keep you safe from betrayal, from crime, and the price to pay for this will be practically nothing if you have nothing to hide. How do you like it?
Here is a little fantasy, or perhaps even a far fetched hypothesis… Before anyone of us little people has heard about Covid-19, our rulers have already decided that the present order will crumble, that the present leaders will be sacrificed to make the transition meaningful and inspiring to the masses. All those government officials who pushed the lethal and unnecessary vaccines on children, those who unlawfully locked us down, coerced us to wear masks and to receive poisonous injections just to be able to work will go to jail, or themselves die from the vaccine. National parliaments will be purged by prosecutions for crimes against humanity, to the joy of those who resisted, who will join new political movements, freedom movements. But here’s the catch; the leaders of the new order, which is to be based on accountability, health and freedom, were also chosen before Covid-19 was even a thing. Any well meaning outsiders, no matter how competent and qualified, but uninitiated, will be politely sidelined, gently excluded, mostly ignored, passively discouraged. The painful change will thus be accomplished, and you will cheer and love the new leaders, your liberators, but sacrifices will have to be made; the economy will be gutted, industries destroyed, national debt astronomical, unpayable. To avoid a total sovereign default your loving leaders will agree to a deal, to use private wealth and real estate to pay the debt, but on very favourable conditions. You will get to keep your home, which you will technically no longer own, but you will have to pay rent, a modest rent, a bargain really… to begin with. In time, more adjustments will have to be made, to prevent governments betraying you ever again. New systems will be put in place to keep you safe from betrayal, from crime, and the price to pay for this will be practically nothing if you have nothing to hide. How do you like it?
You cant buy this kind of publicity. You can only be given this kind of publicity. Boosted! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10670439/Leading-anti-vaxxer-reality-TV-wannabe-exhausted-struggling-movement-raises-8-09.html
#antipropaganda
The consumption of information is never value-neutral but, due to the unique purpose-oriented valency present in every expression, is implicitly instructive: it coordinates and defines the very purpose it purports to serve. The consumer of information who engages with its purpose-oriented valency in a dependent fashion, inadvertently activates and assimilates the symbolic relations embedded within language. The information we consume therefore does not merely affect the way we think about facts but simultaneously characterises the identity of those facts and modulates the identity of the consumer.
The consumption of information is never value-neutral but, due to the unique purpose-oriented valency present in every expression, is implicitly instructive: it coordinates and defines the very purpose it purports to serve. The consumer of information who engages with its purpose-oriented valency in a dependent fashion, inadvertently activates and assimilates the symbolic relations embedded within language. The information we consume therefore does not merely affect the way we think about facts but simultaneously characterises the identity of those facts and modulates the identity of the consumer.
How to deal with misdirection
If you ask a politician a question about the relation of X to Y and they would respond by talking about the relation of X to Z (as they routinely do), you can in turn respond “I did not ask you about X-Z, I asked you about X-Y. Are you not willing to honestly clarify X-Y?” This way of questioning neutralises the routine response that they have already answered your question.
If you ask a politician a question about the relation of X to Y and they would respond by talking about the relation of X to Z (as they routinely do), you can in turn respond “I did not ask you about X-Z, I asked you about X-Y. Are you not willing to honestly clarify X-Y?” This way of questioning neutralises the routine response that they have already answered your question.
“The ultimate test of our moral character can perhaps be revealed only when God is dead, when no one is watching, when we believe that there will be no judgement or metaphysical consequences for our actions. Only when everything is permitted we will find out who we really are, to what levels of depravity we are willing to stoop, or raise above.” https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3735301
Ssrn
Transcendental Theology for Non-Believers
Pope Benedict XVI argued that it is "necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason" and to understand "theology
People get angry because they fail to rationally prove the correctness of their ‘obviously correct’ view. What seems obvious to you may need to be rigorously defended from time to time, and most people who make a stand against trans-ideology do not seem to grasp this basic point. Some Australian politicians come to mind; they equivocate between logical categories but are too conceited or otherwise unwilling to accept that their simplistic traditionalist arguments are inadequate. It is also possible that some politicians and activists do not want to resolve this conflict but to sustain it, because they can profit from the enduring polarisation and adversity. Trans-ideology is easy to prove logically invalid: https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/70
Forwarded from Dr. Vladimir Zelenko (Zelenko Protocol) (Zev Zelenko)
This paper from 2010 describes how Dr. Ralph Baric and colleagues found an effective treatment approach to treat viruses like Covid.
This information was subsequently surpressed during the pandemic.
Dr. Ralph was involved in every step of bio-engineering the Covid-19 weapon.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
@ZelenkoProtocol
This information was subsequently surpressed during the pandemic.
Dr. Ralph was involved in every step of bio-engineering the Covid-19 weapon.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
@ZelenkoProtocol
journals.plos.org
Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses…
Author Summary Positive-stranded RNA (+RNA) viruses include many important pathogens. They have evolved a variety of replication strategies, but are unified in the fact that an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) functions as the core enzyme of their RNA…
The idea that alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction justifies the invasion of another country was normalised many years ago, by NATO.
Humanity is the Ground of All Meaning
All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.
All your rights, all your values, including your value as a person, all meaning and sense, derive from your belonging to the Human kind: the kind of beings who possess reflexive conscousness vis-a-vis one another, and the capacity for rational thought, by means of which WE are able to collectively generate meaning. Humanity has the absolute priority over tribal, racial, cultural or ideological identity, because all these value-categories derive from and are conditional on being human, above all else. To ascribe any priority to your tribe, race, culture or ideology over the value of humanity is to negate the ground of these values, and thus to contradict and negate yourself. Tribalism, racialism, culturalism and ideologism all contradict themselves, negate themselves, refute their own priority, their moral status, their meaning and values. In order to be wholly yourself, to be a fully integrated being, to be fully human, absolutely valuable, of inviolable moral status, one must first abandon all contrary value commitments.
The Mouse Utopia Experiment is essentially an experiment in benevolent communism, or what some would call genuine Communism, something akin to the proposed Smart Cities (gulags with conveniences). The point of failure in these experiments appears to be the lack of ownership and exclusive control of personal space. Behold the Mouse Utopia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM&feature=emb_imp_woyt
YouTube
Mouse Utopia Experiment
John Calhoun's Mouse Utopia, 195?
Limited Hangout of the “Freedom Movement”
The politicians who oppose vaccine mandates or any medical coercion during public health emergencies tend to limit their discourse only to the benefits vs risks vs options kind of arguments. Some argue that vaccines don’t work well enough and the threat of Covid is not serious enough to justify medical coercion. Others argue that other, more effective and safer treatment are available, and because of this the medical coercion is not necessary. One common feature of these views is that they do not (or no longer do) engage in absolute arguments of the kind that I am presenting: a) that vaccine mandates discriminate on the basis of healthy innate characteristics of the human race and in effect make our innate, healthy constitution illegal (are anti-human); b) that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by killing some people for the alleged benefit of the majority; c) that if we give up the right to free medical consent we give up all rights, because every other right can be medically subverted; d) that the delegation of emergency powers to anyone is ultra vires and void, because the rule by decree (by the CHO, Government or the WHO) exceeds the procedural limits of the Parliament itself and therefore cannot be legitimately delegated. All of the politicians who appear to resist vaccine mandates were informed by me personally about the scope of my arguments, including my paper on this topic published in the BMJ. I received no constructive responses. The effect of the arguments to which these politicians limit themselves is such that IF a far more lethal pathogen appeared and no alternatives treatments were available then medical coercion, vaccine mandates etc would be justified. So in avoiding the absolute arguments they are implicitly endorsing vaccine mandates in principle, just not under the present conditions. They are acting as if they are defending your freedom but they are leaving the door open to medical tyranny in future pandemics, perhaps later this year…
The politicians who oppose vaccine mandates or any medical coercion during public health emergencies tend to limit their discourse only to the benefits vs risks vs options kind of arguments. Some argue that vaccines don’t work well enough and the threat of Covid is not serious enough to justify medical coercion. Others argue that other, more effective and safer treatment are available, and because of this the medical coercion is not necessary. One common feature of these views is that they do not (or no longer do) engage in absolute arguments of the kind that I am presenting: a) that vaccine mandates discriminate on the basis of healthy innate characteristics of the human race and in effect make our innate, healthy constitution illegal (are anti-human); b) that vaccine mandates violate the right to life by killing some people for the alleged benefit of the majority; c) that if we give up the right to free medical consent we give up all rights, because every other right can be medically subverted; d) that the delegation of emergency powers to anyone is ultra vires and void, because the rule by decree (by the CHO, Government or the WHO) exceeds the procedural limits of the Parliament itself and therefore cannot be legitimately delegated. All of the politicians who appear to resist vaccine mandates were informed by me personally about the scope of my arguments, including my paper on this topic published in the BMJ. I received no constructive responses. The effect of the arguments to which these politicians limit themselves is such that IF a far more lethal pathogen appeared and no alternatives treatments were available then medical coercion, vaccine mandates etc would be justified. So in avoiding the absolute arguments they are implicitly endorsing vaccine mandates in principle, just not under the present conditions. They are acting as if they are defending your freedom but they are leaving the door open to medical tyranny in future pandemics, perhaps later this year…
RDA is starting to look like BLM/Antifa. Monica Smith never made any rational arguments, only demands. This is not about the right to free medical consent anymore, not about reason, public deliberation and resolution, but ideological polarisation and incremental radicalism. Can you see the progressive narrative shift towards nativist prioritarianism and tribalism?
The main problem with digital “passports” and cashless society is not that it is digital, but the fact that the people who are introducing these systems are a combination of amoral narcissists, sociopaths and the criminally insane. They are career murderers and professional liars. We have a moral obligation to reject any technology or practice that gives irrational people more control. The idea of “trusted identity” is refuted by the fact that the people who manage it are untrustworthy.
If CO2 emissions “per capita” matter, then we should not be calculating this measure for countries or regions, where huge underlying variability in emissions exists from person to person, but focus on specific demographics: politicians, CEOs of “green” corporations, Bankers, Media personalities, celebrities, and the top 0.01% according to wealth. Since personal wealth is the best determinant of the individual carbon footprint, we can infer that the people who are pushing the “green” agenda the hardest are precisely the biggest CO2 emitters and that in order to “save the planet:)” we must strip billionaires, bankers and politicians of their wealth! I mean, IF per capita emissions matter.
Human, military technology tested under the guise of UFO. Aliens are impossible: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2020/12/09/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible/