Enforcement of VAX escalating

[Risen]

I am specifically refering to those that would with absolute certainty choose death in the above scenario with the idea of it being a ''noble cause''. The situation you are describing is applying to death/dying in general.

Actually I’m not describing death in general. I’m describing a persons decision to die instead of taking the jab. Not necessarily as a “noble cause” but as a personal decision. I do see where I might not have gotten the precise meaning of your message. It’s been a long day.

 

[SOTTREADER]

I'm not sure if this is a good suggestion but I'd encourage you to start a thread @siftingmaterials to focus on this as you see it

We cannot escape ideology without setting thinking aside and all of this parsing we're doing here is thoroughly rooted in - and contingent on - an elaborate environment of thought. Every opinion we lean on in turn leans on a nearly unfathomable web of contingent thinking. Sever one of those connections, though, and we seem to feel it like a plucked hair or perhaps a pulled muscle. If someone invalidates a presupposition contingent to a dearly held belief, that presupposition is illuminated for me as if psychic pain were signalling for my healing attention. I was raised, like most people in my culture, to react defensively to pain and to cast suspicion on those who cause me pain. It takes me a great deal of effort to face pain, even psychic pain, with no or little judgement. I assume this is probably true for others.

I assume that when I see people fly off the handle when one of their beliefs is challenged I'm seeing something similar to what I observe going on in myself. It's a defensive reaction to the pain caused by the attempted severing of foundational mental structure, something that supports my subjecthood.

The flipside is I could receive information that re-enforces one of these contingent presuppositions and the consequence is my belief is affirmed and that feels good. These are useful questions you're asking, I think.

That's what I mean by polarization. I suppose I see it as a consequence of light, in a sense, because light is an overwhelming channel by which we connect with other people's pain - and connect their pain with our own. The rest is, literally, history. I think a great deal of human drama can be explained with this model. I think the model is reaching toward one of these deep evolutionary mechanisms, these proto-logical instincts that helped to keep us alive but rendered us imminently exploitable when we remade the world into a frictionless plain.

Pain is the catalyst, if that wasn't clear. I propose that thought for us has mutated into something we call ideology. It doesn't exist for its own sake. It is catalyzed by pain and refined/proliferated through a process of polarization and conflict. When two opposing prepositions come into conflict, a synthesis is often produced from the wreckage. That's what I mean when I say refined and proliferated. You could ask me to cite my sources on this, but it's just my takeaway from studying Eastern and continental European philosophy.

I find all the above quite interesting and parts of it mesh in with what I've read in some of the psychology books - though I don't have references and quotes on hand at the moment.

In any case you seem to have a "view" of the world that I at least would like to discuss and explore so I'd encourage starting a thread on it. You can make it about any specific subject or you could start a discussion on a thread already in place but along the subject. Up to you.

We're not talking about anything special, here. If you run a keyword search on a search engine of your choice with the phrase "moderna vaccine decline" you get a lot back. I can't tell you exactly what sources tipped it over for me, but I can tell you that when it comes to something so panic inducing and politicized, I try take in the broad strokes of journalism and the academic press. I think all I had to decide was a personal probability assessment. Is it at all likely that these weird vaccines wear off over time? Yeah, I think that sounds likely. And I know that inactive and live-attenuated vaccines are also error-prone, so this is mostly in the service of my own judgement. I have a lot more to say about the difficulties we face as a species navigating hostile environments like media landscapes. I believe we are largely formed by heuristic responses that grow from a kind of deep evolutionary logic that is easy to abuse if you're the sort of person who might stand to profit off of co-opting someone's judgement. I'm not immune. In some sense I have to accept that kind of exploitation will be baked into my reactions to man-made information. But we persevere!

So the only thing I'd caution against is relying on search engine results on controversial subjects like this as there's probably a whole bunch of manipulation going on in the background. I'd recommend instead building a web of trusted sources e.g.

• Seeing what this network thinks plus check SOTT articles
• Beyond this network, on the covid vaccine I trust the following sources

Highwire

The HighWire - Home

Months Ahead of Mainstream Media on Covid, The HighWire brings you verified truth, and gives you the sources. Thursdays at 11am PST

thehighwire.com

UKColumn

Homepage | UKColumn

www.ukcolumn.org

Geert Vanden Boosche

DVM, PhD | Geert Vanden Bossche

Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, independent virologist and vaccine expert, formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, sends open call to all authorities, scientists and experts around the world, to whom this concerns: the entire world population.

www.geertvandenbossche.org

There's a few pages on substack that appear worth keeping tabs on though I'm still building my bookmarks on it.

https://eugyppius.substack.com/

https://alexberenson.substack.com/

Steve Kirsch's newsletter | Substack

I write about COVID mitigation policies, vaccines, corruption, censorship, and early treatments. The data shows that vaccines are ruining the health of Americans and driving the epidemic in a variety of health conditions. Click to read Steve Kirsch's newsletter, a Substack publication with...

stevekirsch.substack.com

People have other good ones from substack?

Telegram is also good source I think where you can find people like

• Michael Yeadon
• Robert Malone
• Peter McCullough
• Disclose.tv
• Dr Zelenko of the famous ZelenkoProtocol
• Various channels that track vaccine injuries religiously and also protests from various geographies

Etc

Basically you gotta have your fingers in many pies to stand any hope of staying on top of the covid situation and the many lies being thrown at us. Most of the above won't come up via Google search.

There are two things about covid that concern me. The first is its apparent rate of transmission from person to person. Based on what I've learned from people in my town, and from what I've seen, when the virus finds a host who's mobile in their community, it only takes a week or so before one becomes sixty. I've seen this happen and I've seen the grief it leaves behind, as well. Which I'll get back to. The rate of transmission is alarming to me. The second thing I considered was my community and my role within it. It's a largely immuno-compromised community with people of all ages. Based on who I visit with routinely, I surmised that I'm a likely vector for rapid transmission. The reading I do on this stuff isn't beyond any average person. Also, at the time of my jabs I was pretty convinced that the available data wasn't going make the decision for me. I did a risk assessment and concluded that I was in a position not only to leap into this for the experience, but also because of the number of people who would gain simple, basic piece of mind from the decision. Plus I wasn't afraid of the vaccine. I'm afraid of needles, though. That was hard.

Not to challenge your reasons but immediately I could see a few things which I'd have brought up if, say, you told me about this before you took the jabs... namely

• Moderna is run by a psycho to begin with and is heavily connected to "DARPA", Bill Gates and Fauci. They also stood no chance of bringing a product into market if it were not for this pandemic. There covid vaccine dose is also super high compared to that of Pfizer.

Ego, ambition, and turmoil: Inside one of biotech's most secretive startups

Moderna's caustic work environment has driven away top talent. There are signs the secretive startup has hit roadblocks with its most ambitious projects.

www.statnews.com

• The jabs were always going to fail. New complicated technology, psychopaths and vested financial interests all over it (what could possibly go wrong) and a virus where no successful vaccine had ever been made
• mRNA technology was initially designed for people with illnesses which basically meant they had nothing to lose. The risk profile of the technology is that high.
• The jab doesn't come as advertised - won't stop you getting it or transmitting it. The whole thing about reduced severity of symptoms is highly dubious. So getting it for "others" doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
• The trials are rigged and there's demonstrable proof that they are now, one being they decided to destroy the control group

Etc.

But that's not to challenge your decisions.

 

[Bo]

Actually I’m not describing death in general. I’m describing a persons decision to die instead of taking the jab. Not necessarily as a “noble cause” but as a personal decision. I do see where I might not have gotten the precise meaning of your message. It’s been a long day.

Since you are talking about ''personal decisions'' instead of ''noble cause'' , it will depend entirely on the situation of that specific individual, the environment, the details etc. For some it could just simply be the choice of suicide, because the stress of it all is to much to endure. For another it could just be because they love violence, and so on and on and on.

 

[KJS]

You justify rudeness and potentially damaging your relationship with a family member on the basis of your pet theory that his child might die at a young age due to being vaxed. And this is despite the fact that his child's chances of dying from the vax are as small as their chance of dying while swimming for example. Why didn't you throw that in too? I mean, you could have pointed out that since he bought his children swimming costumes, he was being irresponsible because that would encourage them to swim and there is a chance they might die at an early age from drowning, and that in that case, "don't expect me to show up at the funeral".

Joe, I would like to add that in the case of children this may be more complicated. In my family, one of the kids developed psychosis (resulting in faux anorexia, a disease that is very often deadly), most probably (still in diagnosis) because of an autoimmune disease that was developed or somehow activated during her puberty. We know from the other threads, that all of the vaccines have a track record of adverse reactions in that regard. My point is that young organism is much more dynamic and unpredictable, and even for adults, there are still questions that haven't been answered: ADE's, carcinogenesis, or spike protein misfolding (resulting in prion-like diseases) to name a few. It is really a thought exercise in external consideration to not be an ass for the family member, knowing that he exposes his children to unknown systemic risk for nothing.

I must say, that the negative sentiment towards persons that "blindly" took the vaccine is a part of an ongoing cathartic experience for me. I'm having vivid dreams related to inoculation lately. Not the medical procedure, but the act of submission. Irrational, because I've submitted many times in my life, by taking mortgages, voting for corrupt politicians, etc. Need to debug that program, because I would rather like to play the long game...

 

[United Gnosis]

I don't. And my understanding is based on the lack of evidence to support anyone making such a statement to anyone about their children. It's simply not true. And saying it is, IMO and in general, is a bad idea for many reasons. Maybe you and your brother have a relationship where you can say such things to each other without repercussions. If so, then it was wrong of me to assume that the prohibition on taboo topics applies in your particular case, and I apologize.

That first statement of yours could be summarized by... the entire Coronavirus Pandemic thread? Considering my research on the topic, most of which is influenced by the stellar research and consolidation work done by fellow forum members, my assessment is the working hypothesis strongly suggests the vaccines being toxic across most of the physiological spectrum, and evidence also points to serious underreporting and avoidance of the issue. It would seem the benefit of the doubt leans that way, and I'd rather argue that there is no evidence at all that the vaccines are safe, even less so for young children. That vaccines are dangerous is the null hypothesis at this point, supported by all the evidence so far, so I believe it is your proposition - that vaccines are safe - which would require backing and evidence. Not the other way around.

Either way, I was hoping to set that discussion aside (as there is a thread dedicated to it), but I did want to underline, thank you for acknowledging this edge case, an edge case in which you might be wrong. Thank you, because it might seem an edge-case to you, but it is the matter-of-fact relationship I share with my brother.

I've never seen him develop an emotional attachment to anything, and he is... not quite cold, not quite aloof, but calculating in all things. I had genuinely considered the pathways a conversation about this topic might go beforehand, and was alert and conscious to the best of my ability as we broached it.

So I was quite surprised when you characterized this as "So you're [...] so idenitifed, so sure, so myopic, about this situation that you think it justifies being extremely offensive to your brother". This struck me as a serious assumption of intent, and neither related to the experience, or to the description I provided. I see no offensiveness in "The way it's going, chances are at least 1 won't make it." I perceive it the same as yelling out between kids on the street, "Car!" What's offensive about a warning? I admit, depending on the connotations you added onto my intonation-less text, you could interpret the second part harshly. But the accent was on the first part of the sentence, and the second "don't expect me to come" was said dismissively, in a light mood, without harshness, rather... forlorn? It seemed a proper turn of phrase simply to underline that the responsibility is on his shoulders. At no point did I make the calculation, "I am justiified in being extremely offensive".

I hope you can read back through this thread and noticed how you jumped in with dismissals and assumptions. As, for instance, I replied to Carl saying why does he assume hate, and you replied to me saying you didn't see him assuming ill intent. Yet did you read what he had written?

The first connotation it reminded him of was a personal experience of ill-intent:
"There's times I've sat there and thought about wishing judgement, suffering, pain on these people I perceive to be pathetic and weak and bending the knee, rolling over so easily and ruining the world for all of us."

Then he went on to a direct assumption of hate:
"You sound like those rabid lefties who hate their parents for some perceived racism or lack of woke ideology etc."

But you jumped in to support his interpretation of hate, throwing in additional assumptions for justification. A lot of what you describe doesn't apply - at least, if I know it doesn't apply to me, then I know it doesn't apply as a general statement either, so it might also not apply to others as well. But I find it interesting how categorizing you yourself are, as if anti-vaxxers were suddenly intolerant and polarized, as if it weren't anti-vaxxers who endured the other side's hypochondria the entire time. Also projection of intentions, straw-manning, basically (which, by the way, is extremely offensive).

Anyways. Thanks again for acknowledging that edge-case. I respect that.

 

[Joe]

Joe, I would like to add that in the case of children this may be more complicated. In my family, one of the kids developed psychosis (resulting in faux anorexia, a disease that is very often deadly), most probably (still in diagnosis) because of an autoimmune disease that was developed or somehow activated during her puberty. We know from the other threads, that all of the vaccines have a track record of adverse reactions in that regard. My point is that young organism is much more dynamic and unpredictable, and even for adults, there are still questions that haven't been answered: ADE's, carcinogenesis, or spike protein misfolding (resulting in prion-like diseases) to name a few. It is really a thought exercise in external consideration to not be an ass for the family member, knowing that he exposes his children to unknown systemic risk for nothing.

I don't dispute that vaccines, and in particular this vaccine, are almost entirely unnecessary for children, and that in some cases they may be a health risk. My point is that stating pretty much categorically that a specific child WILL die as a result of getting the vaccine is not a reasonable or considerate thing to so, not to mention simply not accurate. There are many ways a person can try to convey the risks to a family member that does not involve grossly exaggerating the risk and potentially damaging the relationship in the process, and all for no benefit other than 'venting ones spleen' about vaccines to someone who is not receptive to the venting.

 

[Risen]

Since you are talking about ''personal decisions'' instead of ''noble cause'' , it will depend entirely on the situation of that specific individual, the environment, the details etc. For some it could just simply be the choice of suicide, because the stress of it all is to much to endure. For another it could just be because they love violence, and so on and on and on.

Or it could be a positive reason. I will leave that to your imagination.

 

[Joe]

I hope you can read back through this thread and noticed how you jumped in with dismissals and assumptions. As, for instance, I replied to Carl saying why does he assume hate, and you replied to me saying you didn't see him assuming ill intent. Yet did you read what he had written?

The first connotation it reminded him of was a personal experience of ill-intent:
"There's times I've sat there and thought about wishing judgement, suffering, pain on these people I perceive to be pathetic and weak and bending the knee, rolling over so easily and ruining the world for all of us."

Then he went on to a direct assumption of hate:
"You sound like those rabid lefties who hate their parents for some perceived racism or lack of woke ideology etc."

But you jumped in to support his interpretation of hate, throwing in additional assumptions for justification. A lot of what you describe doesn't apply - at least, if I know it doesn't apply to me, then I know it doesn't apply as a general statement either, so it might also not apply to others as well. But I find it interesting how categorizing you yourself are, as if anti-vaxxers were suddenly intolerant and polarized, as if it weren't anti-vaxxers who endured the other side's hypochondria the entire time. Also projection of intentions, straw-manning, basically.

Anyways. Thanks again for acknowledging that edge-case. I respect that.

It seems to me that Carl was recognizing where Neil was coming from in his anger and harsh words to his grandmother, that he had felt the same in the past towards 'those pro-vaxers', but that he realized that this was not a useful or appropriate approach to take. I also think that, while perhaps a bit exaggerated, Carl's likening of Neil to "rabid lefties who hate their parents" was not an unreasonable comparison given the context. It might also be useful to remember that moderators and longer term members have met many others in person, which can sometimes provide an understanding of where those members are coming from that goes beyond that which is discernible by others only from the words written.

I have to admit that I'm still finding it hard to understand how it cannot reasonably be assumed that when someone says something like "I won't come to your funeral when you die" (because of some action the other person is taking), that there is likely at least anger and, in the moment and in the words expressed, a kind of hate. Certainly, I don't think anyone could reasonably be surprised if the person to whom those words were spoken responded with something along the line of "so you hate me then?" I mean, what is someone to whom such words are addressed expected to think the person saying the words thinks of them, at least in the moment?

So yeah, I don't really get how you can mount such a strong defense of that kind of statement being entirely other than what it appears to be and sounds like to the person hearing it, except of course, in this case, in the specific relationship you have with your brother, which you have described. So maybe there's some assumption going on on your end too in that respect, where you are assuming that because your intent in saying such things to your brother is 'not what it looks (or sounds) like, then that also applies to others in similar scenarios.

That vaccines are dangerous is the null hypothesis at this point, supported by all the evidence so far, so I believe it is your proposition - that vaccines are safe - which would require backing and evidence. Not the other way around.

The evidence that vaccines are safe is, for me, available in the form of a lack of evidence that any significant number of the 2 billion people who have received them are dropping like flies and the bulldozers are hard at work.

 

[United Gnosis]

I have to admit that I'm still finding it hard to understand how it cannot reasonably be assumed that when someone says something like "I won't come to your funeral when you die" (because of some action the other person is taking), that there is likely at least anger and, in the moment and in the words expressed, a kind of hate. Certainly, I don't think anyone could reasonably be surprised if the person to whom those words were spoken responded with something along the line of "so you hate me then?" I mean, what is someone to whom such words are addressed expected to think the person saying the words thinks of them, at least in the moment?

Well, I didn't perceive my brother being taken aback, neither through body language nor through the vibe. He blinked, integrated, and then the topic naturally shifted (i.e. no avoidance), it simply felt like we both knew what needed to be said had been said. I didn't experience fear or hate, it's not quite powerlessness, because the issue is resolved for me insofar as I'm concerned. But if he did turn to me with a question along the lines you suggest, i'd have instantly blurted out something like, "No, I'm saying I care for your family a lot, but if you go down that path, I don't expect to be able to help, even if I try." That's what I felt, sought to express, and, within the bounds of our usual relationship and communication style, I do think it was understood.

At the same time I agree that the description of the words to the grandmother was harsh. There's a huge potential for nuance in that statement, but if said to someone who isn't equipped to understand the context/implications (a grandmother could hardly be expected to keep up), then it's pretty brutal. Even I saw that. But I still thought that Carl assuming a hateful intent in it was wrong.

So yeah, I don't really get how you can mount such a strong defense of that kind of statement being entirely other than what it appears to be and sounds like to the person hearing it, except of course, in this case, in the specific relationship you have with your brother, which you have described. So maybe there's some assumption going on on your end too in that respect, where you are assuming that because your intent in saying such things to your brother is 'not what it looks (or sounds) like, then that also applies to others in similar scenarios.

This is quite likely correct.

The evidence that vaccines are safe is, for me, available in the form of a lack of evidence that any significant number of the 2 billion people who have received them are dropping like flies and the bulldozers are hard at work.

I wish I could assume that :(

 

[MirAd]

The jury is still out for the safety of the vaccines, especially for the long-term. Just take a look of all those sportsmen having heart attacks.

 

[Alejo]

So the C's said a certain kind of soul essence would be able to protect an individual from the negative effects of the jab. But I can't know if I have this specific soul essence or spiritual disposition for a fact.

Then what better time to work at being the best version of yourself you can be than now?

Put another way, vaccines could wreak chaotic havoc in our bodies, it would stand to reason that the best possible defense would be to avoid, sure, but if it ever came a point where one couldn't, then why not ensure that one is orderly and strong and resilient within, while one is resisting?

Working on our emotions, physical and mental health as we resist might be the best thing one can do, as one resists, to ensure that whatever may happen to one will be handled properly by ones existence. You know, be as well prepared today to meet your destiny, without burrowing trouble from the future. That was the core of my message.

 

[Neil]

Is that all you care about achieving in this life? To transition to 4D?

It is one of my primary motivations, yes, because there sure ain't much here. Oh I'm sure there are higher and deeper piles of BS in 4D, but also greater chances for wonderment and broadening one's horizons instead of constantly beating one's head against the confines of the control system. I know it can't be done alone, but the company is sparse and always seems to be in danger of being overrun by what Gurdjieff called Solioonensius.

Regarding the second part of your sentence, how do you know that? How do you know no one is learning anything?

I was probably incorrect to say that no one is learning anything, however the situation appears to me to be suboptimal, like humanity is a failed experiment. This would appear to be at least partially reflected in the concerns from higher densities. I first mentioned it in this post: Hyperdimensional Politics There is also this:

Q: (L) I read the new book by Dr. David Jacobs, professor of History at Temple University, concerning his extensive research into the alien abduction phenomenon. [Dr. Jacobs wrote his Ph.D. thesis on the history of the UFOs.] Dr. Jacobs says that now, after all of these years of somewhat rigorous research, that he KNOWS what the aliens are here for and he is afraid. David Jacobs says that producing offspring is the primary objective behind the abduction phenomenon. Is this, in fact, the case?
A: Part, but not "the whole thing."
Q: (L) Is there another dominant reason?
A: Replacement.
Q: (L) Replacement of what?
A: You.
Q: (L) How do you mean? Creating a race to replace human beings, or abducting specific humans to replace them with a clone or whatever?
A: Mainly the former. You see, if one desires to create a new race, what better way than to mass hybridize, then mass reincarnate. Especially when the host species is so forever ignorant, controlled, and anthropocentric. What a lovely environment for total destruction and conquest and replacement... see?

I've brought it up since then on a couple of occasions, that based on my reading of history, you can take lots of periods, such as the fall of Rome, the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler, and other lesser known dynastic cycles and revolutions, it's the same thing over and over again with minor variations on the theme where nothing gets accomplished. I get to watch it all over again and will be dragged into and have to deal with it regardless. Thus far, my freewill has been respected regarding covidiocy, but I do warily watch places like Australia because I understand how the one degree at a time thing works. When one level of totalitarianism is presented to the populace and too few object, acceptance is implied and the stage is set for the next step. The grand cycle closes, everyone "gets it" at the last moment, but by then it is too late and some precious few will "make the grade" while everything else resets. Is it enough? The last time I mentioned this Joe said something to the effect that learning does occur, in a somewhat rote manner after many repetitions of the process, which is true I guess. I guess I expected more out of 3D than the slow cyclical way that plants and minerals learn, but it seems that I expect too much.

They want to divide the people and destroy relationships.

I agree that it is wrong to categorically declare that all vaxxed are this this and all unvaxxed are that. Also, allowances should be made for people who are totally innocent who get thrown into the middle of this thing; I did not address that in my initial post. However, there are an awful lot of people who are educated and claim to be "intellectual" who should really know better.

When someone explicitly asks for my opinion and I try to share articles and research that I've done on the matter to build up a case that the cost benefit ratio does not really work out for getting vaccinated against this mild virus, yeah, I'm going to be a little miffed. I had her more or less convinced to sit on the sidelines for a couple of years, but then my aunt, the TV, and her local doctor got to her and finally won out. I saw her just sleepwalking her way through life and it kind of hurt. I was intentionally trying to be shocking and abrasive as sort of a wake up call, but got hot under the collar and lost my composure and took it a little too far. After my brief tirade, she told me that she had to do what she believed was right, I was doing what I believed was right, and ultimately it was her body her choice. Despite my disappointment and frustration, I agreed to accept that.

That's not quite the end of the story, as a couple weeks later her brother called, who is a proponent of ivermectin and also anti-vax. He had this whole theory that the vaccine was a plot by the Democrats working in concert with the Chinese to bring about the Beast of Revelation and test the faithful. The vaccine mandates were an affront to God. The whole biblical spin on it made it sound a bit ridiculous, but I found myself agreeing with a lot of his underlying points. After the conversation, grandma was a bit down and didn't know what to believe. I told her that I didn't really agree with his fundamentalist fanaticism, but I could see where he was coming from and he was trying to explain the same things I was seeing in terms that he could understand. I told her that I had already said my piece on it and saw no point in rehashing. At this point what's done is done and we had agreed to move on with our lives; her vaccination status was water under the bridge. Since then our relationship has been the same as it was before she was vaxxed.

So you're in Neil's camp, so idenitifed, so sure, so myopic, about this situation that you think it justifies being extremely offensive to your brother on the basis of a supposed "fact" you hold that is, in fact, largely false. The simple, objective fact about this topic is that the VAST majority of people on this planet who get the vaccine will not only not die at ANY point in their lives as a result, but will not even experience any negative side effects. And yet you "predicted" to your brother that one of his children would die at a young age. Well done.

The vaxx is not intended to be some depopulation killshot in its present incarnation, that is actually a secondary concern. I stay with the side effects in my discussions with people who ask me about it because it is easier to talk to ordinary people about it and give them a direction to do their own research if they're interested. It's actually about control, if you believe the Cassiopaeans and some articles about the strange additives in some of the batches. There's also the fact that governments are almost universally pushing total vaccination to an almost fanatical level regardless of the consequences, and I think there's something more to it than the smoke and mirrors of being able to control people's movements. We also have an outstanding prediction that the vaccine is going to precipitate a real pandemic soon, if one believes anything coming out of the Cassiopaeans these days. There is enough skullduggery surrounding the vaccination drive that I view it with great suspicion and aversion.

I will even go so far as to agree with you that I don't think the first two shots are THAT bad. But it's the one degree at a time thing. After they put enough boosters in you eventually something is going to break. Even if it doesn't, the other side will be emboldened by the abdication of the right to bodily autonomy. Once the precedent is set, it will be harder to counter something which may come later that is more overtly nefarious. Sure, there's ways around it, but how much suffering and hardship is it worth to you? I have no desire to go down that road, and I won't go down that road without damn good reason.

If the vaxx is truly as innocuous as you say, I don't see a problem with recommending it to everyone. It would certainly save a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth as various people are struggling to square totalitarian overreach with securing their livelihoods and trying to game out possible future scenarios to figure out what they should do. If it is as innocuous as you say, I don't want to be reading a bunch of SOTT articles about heart attacks and autoimmune conditions and potentials for wild mutations, because if it's as innocuous as you say, these stories are just statistical noise which are used sensationalize something that is harmless.

Other than to the person to whom the most serious responsibility must be borne: yourself.

Quite true. Other than for people who just want to have an idea what other people are thinking, beyond a certain point it is silly for me to argue my reasons why someone else should or should not get vaccinated. I don't intend to get into a protracted debate about this. Ultimately, you will do what you will do and I will do what I consider to be in my best interest.

 

[siftingmaterials]

• Seeing what this network thinks plus check SOTT articles
• Beyond this network, on the covid vaccine I trust the following sources

Highwire

The HighWire - Home

Months Ahead of Mainstream Media on Covid, The HighWire brings you verified truth, and gives you the sources. Thursdays at 11am PST

thehighwire.com

UKColumn

Homepage | UKColumn

www.ukcolumn.org

Geert Vanden Boosche

DVM, PhD | Geert Vanden Bossche

Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, independent virologist and vaccine expert, formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, sends open call to all authorities, scientists and experts around the world, to whom this concerns: the entire world population.

www.geertvandenbossche.org

There's a few pages on substack that appear worth keeping tabs on though I'm still building my bookmarks on it.

https://eugyppius.substack.com/

https://alexberenson.substack.com/

Steve Kirsch's newsletter | Substack

I write about COVID mitigation policies, vaccines, corruption, censorship, and early treatments. The data shows that vaccines are ruining the health of Americans and driving the epidemic in a variety of health conditions. Click to read Steve Kirsch's newsletter, a Substack publication with...

stevekirsch.substack.com

People have other good ones from substack?

Telegram is also good source I think where you can find people like

• Michael Yeadon
• Robert Malone
• Peter McCullough
• Disclose.tv
• Dr Zelenko of the famous ZelenkoProtocol
• Various channels that track vaccine injuries religiously and also protests from various geographies

Etc

Basically you gotta have your fingers in many pies to stand any hope of staying on top of the covid situation and the many lies being thrown at us. Most of the above won't come up via Google search.

Thanks for compiling all those sources.

Well I'll quickly reply to this media thing just because I think I did such a bad job of explaining myself. I didn't mean to insinuate that I don't read a wide array of sources. I don't trust any of it, really, though. To aid in this I've created two diagrams.


Ok, so in the first diagram I've jotted out a super basic template for the mainstream media delivery system. One of the qualities of the mainstream media is that it often reads like a press release. In those cases, it's probably a press release that a source has dispatched, so on. The mainstream media is a vast consortium that seems to be motivated by ad revenue and subscribers, donations, stuff like that. The mainstream media sensationalized trump and kept the energy at a fever pitch for years. I don't think it had much to do with journalism. This consortium is the mouthpiece of an oligarchy.

Here's another diagram:


Ok, so you can see here I've added some steps for reactionary news media. The model here implies they assume you've heard something from mainstream media. A lot of the examples you've provided, SOTTREADER, resemble this model. Lots of refutations of so-called commonly held positions. "Oh, they want you to think mRNA vaccines are safe." "Oh, they tell you you have to wear a mask, but guess what, they aren't even designed to keep out the virus." "Here's the scoop on the CEO of such-and-such that the mainstream media is trying to suppress." So on.

Sometimes, reactionary news media is gunna be holding the mainstream accountable. Sometimes, it's gunna be pure reactionary straw-grasping. They use different sources or they pick experts who have wildly different interpretations. All of that flows through a bias of their own. Reactionary media, generally, isn't the tool of oligarchs, but often they're owned by firms economic agendas, money in oil and gas, what have you. Not all the time.

So there's a part of this I've left out for dramatic effect. In both diagrams we have the media consumer's bias. You know what makes my head spin? All this pageantry and hot air that goes into the production and counter-production of the "news," only so that it can land at the feet of the media consumer who truly has final say. I'm sure you've all noticed this. Media consumers are, in general, not won over by force of argument. They have already selected which slant or narrative they're ready and willing to accept. Where does that leave us?

Consume all media and triangulate the truth. It's a nice idea, and it's the sort of thing you'd really need a whole forum of folk to deconstruct. I'm wondering how many of us remain skeptical as consumers rather than gravitating to the stuff that fulfills our bias. When it comes to what car to buy or what tv show you like, this isn't such a big deal. When it comes to interpreting covid policies and getting factual information about what works, what doesn't, which statistics are accurate, on and on - I'm sorry, I don't believe that's possible.

Accept that this system is designed to manipulate, not empower, and embrace the fact that we mediate and condition which information is welcomed into our minds. In my opinion if you want to empower yourself, you have to back up from this matrix of distortion and see it for what it is - a matrix of distortion. Meanwhile, you can remind yourself that if you run into a virologist in a line-up and ask him if sunlight cures covid, no matter what he says, you're going to judge his answer and weigh it against what you think you know.

Confirmation bias isn't new. Sometimes it can be overcome. I have serious concerns about dedicating myself to uncovering objectivity from media corporations, let alone because I, myself, am biased. Beginning this journey with trusted sources in mind is, in my opinion, starting an extremely dubious journey on the wrong foot.

But there's good "news!" We don't need to be correct to good choices. We don't have to be correct to be safer. You are you. You know what's safe for you. It's a situation you trust and it's a feeling you feel. And thank goodness for that, especially in the case of covid.

 

[BHelmet]

This Thread, uncomfortable as it might be, has become a perfect microcosm of the larger realm Of “discussion” on these topics. It is good to see the different points of view. It is also good to remember that twisting somebody’s arm to agree with you or see it your way is as basically fruitless as insisting you are right.

It is a standard "normal" mindset to take sides and discern "who is right"..."who do I agree with". Normally I might do that. But I seem to be flying a bit higher above the treetops than normal.

Could that be because I just got covid? Yes I have been knocked sideways the past 3 days. Strangely I am more looking for common ground here than playing the game of "who is most wrong" or "what do I agree with". Perhaps Covid has uplifted me? This partially aligns with what Joe seems to be saying: that a supposed negative event can also be either positive or benign. On the other hand, I am self-treating with ivermectin and all the other stuff because I don't trust the bastards one whit.

The bottom line is that we are deciding/choosing individually. Your choice might not be mine. While I may have a martyr complex and this life has felt like a stacked deck against me from day one, I am not intentionally choosing or equating resisting vaccination with martyrdom. It's more like..."Uhh, no thank you, I'll pass". That's it. A choice with the weight of a feather. A choice I can remake at any time. This is a conscious choice. I am not choosing martyrdom or suffering, I am choosing no vaccine. I already know I will get the suffering anyway, no matter what I choose. So its not a big deal. I feel calm about it.

I had this other thought: there is no point in arguing over which side of the Titanic has the better view.

Especially among friends.

 

[luc]

I wish I could assume that :(

The jury is still out for the safety of the vaccines, especially for the long-term. Just take a look of all those sportsmen having heart attacks.

About the vax side effects, I think it is important to keep a rational head about it, also (or especially) when consuming alternative media. "Camp" thinking won't do, because then you start getting emotional.

When looking at the sportsmen for example, the hysterical reaction would be "OMG, if I take the vax I'll drop dead with a heart attack!!!". When looking rationally at it, you will acknowledge that this increase in incidents in athletes most likely has to do with the vax. But you will also see that these young, male, super-healthy people who exhaust their bodies to the max seem to be by far the highest risk group for these vax reactions, and that even so, the percentage of them who die, while clearly statistically relevant, is still extremely small. The same is even more true for the general population.

For that reason, I think it's really bad form to try to scare family and friends with exaggerated claims, especially since everyone knows hundreds of vaccinated people who didn't die, in fact few people know anyone who died, even among the anti-vaxxers who sometimes tend to blame the vax for any death of a vaccinated person. Which BTW is also really bad form.

I see a lot of hysterics in the anti-vax camp and alternative media. Just because someone does good research doesn't mean they have a grip on their emotions. Looking at all this craziness 24/7 really takes its toll. And most of them haven't done any serious self-work and lack the wider spiritual perspective and context that we are discussing here.