Enforcement of VAX escalating

[Alejo]

From what I've read here, I get the feeling that the forum is kind of divided on this issue. There are those who will consciously bite the sour apple in order to keep their jobs and livelihood. Then there are those who've decided that this will be the hill they die on, and will under no circumstances consent to being jabbed.

Belonging to the latter category, sometimes I entertain the idea of having to defend myself against somebody coming to my door with a jab in hand. Certainly not a pretty picture.

Do you mean that you think the narrative will play out all the way into worldwide mandates, and only after that will we see changes? This brings me to what I wrote above, I don't want to just sit around waiting for that to come to pass, but what can we do? Network, I know, and I am. But what else?

I am not sure if the forum is divided along that specific line, I think most people, if not all, that share here do not want the shot. The trouble is that some will have better chances than others at resisting it due to several different life circumstances. There's also a whole set of personalities and tempers in the forum community that make their approach individual. It is ultimately up to each one how they proceed with their lives, however in the instance of choosing to take the shot, for whatever reason, then it's not the end of the world, as there are things one can do to mitigate the possible effects.

Just like with everything, there's a risk inherent to every choice, so here's ours. As to what can we do? yes network, but networking should also be specific, there needs to be an aim to networking. There needs to be an aim to resisting too, what is the goal of the resistance? and once that is established, by each one individually, then the questions that one won't be able to answer by oneself will become apparent and the opportunity to network will spring up.

As to what I meant specifically, it was something akin to, prepare for the worst and hope for the best. I don't think I am a pessimist by nature, but I have found that perhaps the best way to walk towards a positive outcome is one that factors in things not going the way one would want them to and accepting that possibility and having a contingency plan.

Not sure what will happen in one month, what I do know is that if they're able to get their way, they will implement stricter mandates and a lot more people will be affected, and as such, better be prepared beforehand.

Well, maybe it's because i'm too optimist or blind, but i do believe the contrary, that resistance will grow and will lead to violent unrests, but at no cost i see the opposition fading up, not with a so great % of people who are definitively against the jab whaterver is the cost to pay.

I certainly hope you're correct, but the way the world seems to me these days, is that there's no longer an ability to "convert" anyone with reasonable arguments. As such the division in society will remain and a counter resistance will rise to meet it and round and round we go. What has possessed some people out there, specially regarding the entire narrative of the virus, is something that if you were to attack it, or question it even, you'd be questioning their identity, and that's something that most people have extremely well guarded.

 

[Alejo]

My point is to not underestimate the danger of these injections. And we do not know if the health protocol can actually mitigate the damage sufficiently. If the country we are in does not show enough resistance, then it may be a good idea to move somewhere else. Just like moving out of Nazi Germany was a good idea. It is of course more or less global this time, but I think the control system is not advanced enough yet to encompass all countries to the same degree.

And I concur with you about no underestimating the dangers of these injections, but I do believe that once the dangers are sorted as best as possible, then one ought to consider the best thing one can do to prepare for it, should it become inevitable.

There's also the fact that one's inner landscape can determine how one interacts with anything, so while one should not dismiss danger and have by default careless attitude, it's probably not a good idea either to allow fear to rule one's choices. I think one should also have a bit of faith in some of the work done thus far with detox and health protocols, faith in our own bodies and beings ability to withstand an injection. Ultimately we're more than bodies and there's more to our existence than physical wellbeing, not to disregard the physical well being as a source of peace and harmony, but we ought not to forget about our souls I think.

In short, yes absolutely gather knowledge about the possible dangers, but then incorporate that as a risk assessment exercise rather than a freezing fear, so that you're able to make the best choice you can based on your knowledge of the risks and of yourself.

I hope the above made sense.

 

[Sybil]

From my part, I am eternally grateful to Keyhole and Gaby for their hard work on the health protocol of mandatory vaxination. We need to get ready if things going that way. I am not in a position to resist to the end, nor this option will serve my children. They need me here, not in a prison camp or worst. I am also lenient to follow the middle way. No extremities. One has to be smart these days. Stealth, subtle but steady opposition. I don't want to torch the lizzies in the eye. We know they are stronger than us, not necessarily smarter, but stronger. Call me a wuss, but I would call myself cautious.

 

[Jade]

In the meantime, in my country people who refuse to get vaccinated can opt to do a PCR test twice a week so that they can work. I was wondering if it is a safer option? There are all these theories going around that the PCR is dangerous too and they collect your DNA and what not...

 

[axj]

And I concur with you about no underestimating the dangers of these injections, but I do believe that once the dangers are sorted as best as possible, then one ought to consider the best thing one can do to prepare for it, should it become inevitable.

There's also the fact that one's inner landscape can determine how one interacts with anything, so while one should not dismiss danger and have by default careless attitude, it's probably not a good idea either to allow fear to rule one's choices. I think one should also have a bit of faith in some of the work done thus far with detox and health protocols, faith in our own bodies and beings ability to withstand an injection. Ultimately we're more than bodies and there's more to our existence than physical wellbeing, not to disregard the physical well being as a source of peace and harmony, but we ought not to forget about our souls I think.

In short, yes absolutely gather knowledge about the possible dangers, but then incorporate that as a risk assessment exercise rather than a freezing fear, so that you're able to make the best choice you can based on your knowledge of the risks and of yourself.

I hope the above made sense.

I completely agree that we need to have faith and I am in fact more optimistic than you about the prospects of resistance against the totalitarian plans. The problem is that we still do not know enough about the possible dangers of these injections or how well the health protocols work against those. Having faith is one thing, but saying that it is "not the end of the world" to take the injections over and over again is not really based on facts either.

 

[SOTTREADER]

I completely agree that we need to have faith and I am in fact more optimistic than you about the prospects of resistance against the totalitarian plans. The problem is that we still do not know enough about the possible dangers of these injections or how well the health protocols work against those. Having faith is one thing, but saying that it is "not the end of the world" to take the injections over and over again is not really based on facts either.

I couldn't agree more. And the bottom line is anyone who takes a jab should do so knowing if they get an injury they are on their own, to bear the burden of there choices. These are the facts and it also applies to those who don't take it and have to withstand tyranny. It's all a question of what cross you want to bear. This is the scary part of all these, that really we bear the weight of our decision on our own.

This whole thing about faith and inner landscape dictating how you interact with the jab I think could lead people into making disastrous decisions... I mean, close your eyes and go cross a busy highway and see how well you do despite having all the faith in the world or the most pristine inner landscape. If you make it through the first time, I for sure would highly discourage doing it again and if by the grace of God you make it through the 2nd time, I'll for sure be screaming at you not to cross it again! I think it all misguided but I understand some people feel like they have no choice. Really, they do have a choice but what is lacking, if one was to call it what it is, is courage. Is it rude to say that? I don't see how this ends without courage. People say it is rude for others to protest on the street or say the vax is dangerous... well, I guess we're living in highly offensive times!

 

[Joe]

There are all these theories going around that the PCR is dangerous too and they collect your DNA and what not...

I'd say that's not something anyone should be worried about.

 

[siftingmaterials]

I don’t think “divided” is quite right. I believe the philosophy of individualism is actually underlying this forum. This means information and support is available for people to make the choice to be vaccinated or not vaccinated according to the circumstances they find themselves in.
For many it is a matter of doing what needs to be done to survive or fulfill their responsibilities to care during others. I wanted to clarify that there are not two camps on this forum relating to vaccination.

I like this take. I often think to express it this way: There is a path for us all. Choice is a mischaracterization of confusion. The question of vaccination or no only appears to be a critical canundrum. There is, literally, a path we all must walk. When the time is right, we all see what it is that must be done, and we do it.

 

[siftingmaterials]

Having faith is one thing, but saying that it is "not the end of the world" to take the injections over and over again is not really based on facts either.

I wouldn't know how to compare vaccine mandates to "the end of the world" in the first place. Would anyone here? Seems to me there are few subjects broader or more inscrutable and vague than the 'end of the world.' And vaccine mandates have appeared all over the world throughout modern history with an extremely varied distribution of consequences. Interestingly, the nazis were big believers in vaccines. Hitler was insistent that he and everyone around him be vaccinated, and despite this, his administration removed vaccine mandates put in place by the weimar republic (source below). It was the intention of the nazis to allow ignorance regarding how to prevent serious illness to consume and dissolve the parts of german society that they saw as impure. Today people cry "fascism!" when the state takes an active hand in pandemic preparedness. Who among us has the information to draw conclusions with any ounce of accuracy?

 

[siftingmaterials]

Oh, apologies, here's the source: You Know Who Else Opposed Vaccine Mandates? Hitler.

 

[gottathink]

My point is to not underestimate the danger of these injections. And we do not know if the health protocol can actually mitigate the damage sufficiently. If the country we are in does not show enough resistance, then it may be a good idea to move somewhere else.

There are many other factors relating to psychoneuroimmunology and knowledge that will determine how people process the mRNA vaccines. I am concerned that excess fear of these shots over ride sound strategic thinking when consideration of food, shelter and community networks are the most important things for people to establish. I don’t mean to dismiss the dangers of the mRNA shots either and definitely we should “avoid if possible” but sometimes it’s not possible. People can still arm themselves with knowledge and sense of security through networking.

 

[gottathink]

I wouldn't know how to compare vaccine mandates to "the end of the world" in the first place. Would anyone here? Seems to me there are few subjects broader or more inscrutable and vague than the 'end of the world.' And vaccine mandates have appeared all over the world throughout modern history with an extremely varied distribution of consequences. Interestingly, the nazis were big believers in vaccines. Hitler was insistent that he and everyone around him be vaccinated, and despite this, his administration removed vaccine mandates put in place by the weimar republic (source below). It was the intention of the nazis to allow ignorance regarding how to prevent serious illness to consume and dissolve the parts of german society that they saw as impure. Today people cry "fascism!" when the state takes an active hand in pandemic preparedness. Who among us has the information to draw conclusions with any ounce of accuracy?

The complexities of history!
Perhaps if we stop calling the mRNA shots vaccines and refer to them as mandated medical treatments it makes more sense in respect to fascist objectives. Remembering these medical treatments weaken the immune system a condition Hitler imposed by different means.

 

[SOTTREADER]

There are many other factors relating to psychoneuroimmunology and knowledge that will determine how people process the mRNA vaccines. I am concerned that excess fear of these shots over ride sound strategic thinking when consideration of food, shelter and community networks are the most important things for people to establish. I don’t mean to dismiss the dangers of the mRNA shots either and definitely we should “avoid if possible” but sometimes it’s not possible. People can still arm themselves with knowledge and sense of security through networking.

Playing devil's advocate: does the above mean that someone should submit to the will of the state and be injected however many times the state says if by doing so the state allows you to maintain a job? If yes, it would appear there is no winning as whoever says no is then being irresponsible and neglecting their duties to provide food and shelter to their loved ones (who naturally must also be vaccinated however many times the state says so). It would appear that things are binary - say yes and live or say no and die?

My question is, what is the strategy here? Is the strategy to target "freedom" and having "inalienable rights" or is it something else? I'm not particularly sure those who say no are being driven by fear rather I'd say they are being driven by the need to remain sovereign human beings and to ensure this is the future for their kids and loved ones too...

 

[siftingmaterials]

Playing devil's advocate: does the above mean that someone should submit to the will of the state and be injected however many times the state says if by doing so the state allows you to maintain a job? If yes, it would appear there is no winning as whoever says no is then being irresponsible and neglecting their duties to provide food and shelter to their loved ones (who naturally must also be vaccinated however many times the state says so). It would appear that things are binary - say yes and live or say no and die?

My question is, what is the strategy here? Is the strategy to target "freedom" and having "inalienable rights" or is it something else? I'm not particularly sure those who say no are being driven by fear rather I'd say they are being driven by the need to remain sovereign human beings and to ensure this is the future for their kids and loved ones too...

What is a sovereign human being in a world arranged in concert with itself? I rather see us opening ourselves up as containers for sovereign content. Whether your sovereign in the moment of truth is some idea of unbroken personal liberty, or your community, or the state, or spiritual objectives, what have you... How many times in your life have you undergone hardship wrought by the will of some entity while you remained loyal to the sovereignty of some other thing, person, or idea? I'm sure you've had that experience countless times, as we all have.

 

[SOTTREADER]

What is a sovereign human being in a world arranged in concert with itself? I rather see us opening ourselves up as containers for sovereign content. Whether your sovereign in the moment of truth is some idea of unbroken personal liberty, or your community, or the state, or spiritual objectives, what have you... How many times in your life have you undergone hardship wrought by the will of some entity while you remained loyal to the sovereignty of some other thing, person, or idea? I'm sure you've had that experience countless times, as we all have.

I don't think we have to make it so complicated or "esoteric".

- You're innocent until proven guilty
- You shouldn't be forced to undergo any medical intervention without informed consent or under duress / coercion
- The state should have limits to its power over citizens. These limits are long established in law and the constitutions of many countries.
- You have the right to privacy
- You have the right of access to services you pay taxes for.

Etc etc

It's all defined in the constitution and laws of many countries plus there's a recognition of what inalienable rights are and those are rights that can't be taken away by any government or state entity legally really. I don't necessarily think we have to be "esoteric" about it as these are things that have been long defined in developed and advanced western countries.