Enforcement of VAX escalating

[brandon]

If the injection would be benign I could understand choosing to lose a bit a freedom and get it over with. But having the knowledge that these Mrna vaxx are most probably harmfull, i'm not convinced that it's a good option for both you and your surrounding, and I'm pretty convinced that it becomes a STS choice at this point.
Maybe there are situations that warrants it and it's the only option left , like when you have mouths to feed even then if life becomes very hard I tend to think not taking it is a better option for various reasons but maybe I'm wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't planning on giving up easily :) I meant if I *really* had no other choice. There's, so far, no sign of this actually happening here, for someone with my lifestyle and job. My point was just that if I eventually do have to submit, I don't think it can change who I am and what I do.. Unless I die instantly..

The C's once said "good guys don't play chess" so I try (though don't necessarily succeed) to step out of the black and white grid of the game board in my mind, and do something different and sideways, like knitting a pretty scarf.. (haha, that's a bit of an abstract sentence.. I don't know how to explain what I mean)

 

[BHelmet]

How is bending over, spreading wide and letting .gov take up admin privileges to your genetics in any way not slavery?

Hilarious. But there is a difference.

Like tagging the cow’s ear. We will tag your ear and then put you in a pen With an electric fence and let you go free.

It’s more than semantics.

(and I SO wanted to insert the old KY jelly joke but I am so proud I refrained!)

 

[United Gnosis]

Hilarious. But there is a difference.

Like tagging the cow’s ear. We will tag your ear and then put you in a pen With an electric fence and let you go free.

It’s more than semantics.

(and I SO wanted to insert the old KY jelly joke but I am so proud I refrained!)

It's good that there are already a few chuckles coming out of this, because I didn't intend to offend. But I do notice I was abrupt, because I genuinely do not see a difference. I guess there is a nuance in connotation, depending on the goodwill of the master. Sure, the cattle driver can just tag a cow and put it in the pen. Or he could just as well take a tagged cow from the pen and bring it to the slaughterhouse. It doesn't matter. The point is the master owns the tag.

I've been generally anti-vaxx ever since I learned enough physics and biochemistry to connect those dots scientifically, say mid-university about a dozen years ago. I had serious reservations about the equivalence of giving toxicological admin privileges to an external agent, presumably to offer a treatment whose function stands on shaky immunological grounds. Some vaccines did seem reasonable, but it seemed to me already obvious that many were superfluous and especially the flu vaccine experiments were worse than useless. On the whole, it all seemed intellectually dubious, and the ideological tribality of the vaxxers was concerning. I wanted none of it, so I chose to call it out. It already seemed serious.

I thought it was a funny way to put it a dozen years ago, I was a geek I admit, making the simple connection virus, computer, admin privileges, and from there that both virus and vaccine were trying to hack into admin. It was over-the-top, but how I tried to explain it to my geek friends.

But now, that vaccines are mRNA? It was over-the-top then, but literal now. The jab gets admin privileges no longer 'only' through an immuno-toxicological pathway, but also through the genetic and the biochemical. The source code altered, biofactories repurposed, hormonal/endocrinal balance altered, and so on, to the admin's good will.

How is that not slavery, save that some have willingly surrendered to it?

 

[siftingmaterials]

The jab gets admin privileges no longer 'only' through an immuno-toxicological pathway, but also through the genetic and the biochemical. The source code altered, biofactories repurposed, hormonal/endocrinal balance altered, and so on, to the admin's good will.

How is that not slavery, save that some have willingly surrendered to it?

I'm not a geneticist, nor am I a virologist, but my understanding is that our DNA is constantly mutating as part of the natural entropic process of our biology. Not ideal, perhaps, but an eccentricity of this complex genetic mess we inhabit and observe. No? So sometimes a genetic mutation can result in an immune response, sometimes it will be entirely benign, sometimes it results in cellular metastasis. Right?

Here's another presupposition I have. A virus can enter your system and start monkeying with your DNA or RNA or whathaveyou. Yes? Covid, for example, expresses its evolutionary fitness by co-opting a cell and rearranging RNA so that it can replicate itself. If you catch covid and your immune system adapts and fights it off, there's a chance your body will maintain that immunity. That would be taking place at the genetic level, yes? Viruses unwittingly train our genetics to resist them.

So what I understand of the mRNA vaccine is that it goes in and does some kind of herky-jerky thing within the cell in order to produce a protein that triggers an immune response that, supposedly, will set in motion a process of immune system adaptation that, like natural immunity, will instruct the body to expect and counter the virus on contact.

It seems like there's a lot of vaguery around the long term and even the short term consequences of the mRNA vaccine. Additionally, it seems as though the body is generally able to fight off covid. Though from what I've seen, suffering through two weeks of covid can be brutal. Apparently it kills many immuno-compromised folk via comorbidity or whatever else. And then there's this situation where our DNA is chaotically mutating as we age, likely not helped along by microplastics and petroleum in the atmosphere and an excess of processed sugars in our diets and on and on.

One of the trademarks of slavery is a lack of consent. Right? Well, in all those scenarios that I just listed off, the only one a person has the ability to consent to - and forget for a moment that we can't predict the consequences - the only one of those scenarios where a person CAN consent is the vaccine scenario. That said, it isn't a form of slavery to have cells highjacked by cancer. It isn't slavery to contract a virus. Is it? Or to grow old? Is it slavery to grow up in a polluted city where industrial chemicals are constantly working their way into our bodies and messing with our genetics? What about smoking? Is lung cancer a form of slavery in your mind because cigarette companies used advertisements and addictive chemicals to functionally root-kit a human's biology?

What about alcohol, then? Or porn? are these also forms of slavery? They certainly get behind our heuristic approach to life and hijack certain bodily processes. What about videogames?

 

[Alejo]

I think this conversation has spun out of control, somewhat and some of the points that have been made may have been missed by some.

If this continues I believe we will dive deep into a hole of hypothetical scenarios and historical precedents and we will all be exhausted and end up not making much progress, mostly because of the difficulty to accept some nuance thinking.

If I may, I'd like to recap, do vaccines carry a degree of danger? yes they do.
Should we attempt to avoid doing something that could be defined as reckless by getting them? yes
Is it true also that most people that have had the vaccines do not experience any negative symptoms? yes
should we then attempt to avoid them at all cost? that's up to each individual to decide.

And that's where the crux of the conversation lies, no one here is going to be able to make that decision for anyone else, thankfully. And as such, it truly cannot be defined as feeding the beast or furthering a totalitarian world order or the coming of the antichrist or what have you, and even if it could, well.. so does every single other choice we make on a daily basis, in this reality. Heck, logging in to my computer to type up these words, as I sit on my couch consuming internet and electricity makes some banker richer... feeding my dog makes a rather large corporation grow even larger as I purchase food from them, you get the idea.

I think that's not the point of being aware of what's going on, being aware of the shenanigans that the 4D STS group gets up to is not to escape reality, is to be able to make a courageous choice, a more aware choice. The C's are not answering questions about our reality so that they may avoid us some pain, they're answering because the questions are asked, and so that we may meet whatever is inevitably coming, with grace and understanding, if we choose to, not so that we may skip the lessons.

We all chose to be born here today, we all chose to be in this day and time where mandates are a thing, why would we do that? did we all make a mistake? I daresay we didn't, I daresay that we specifically came here for the very difficulties we have in front of us.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that we're more than bodies, and I think that the truth of that statement is being missed. Do you think your existence would end should you get a shot? then if so, I think you may have deeper underlying issues to address with your health and your inner state, if that is what would stop your growth and your learning and your experience, then there's a lot bigger issues to address.. or... you're missing the truth of the fact that we're more than bodies.

What I meant by having faith on what we've done is tied to that idea, have faith in the fact that all the knowledge you've gained and applied, and your life choices and habits have transformed you in ways that cannot be seen and cannot be taken away with a vile of experimental chemicals. In short, have faith in who you are, every day, not in who you were born as, but in who you choose to be daily, this has an effect on our DNA and that is what determines how our bodies will react to what we come in contact with.

Facing the possibility of a vaccine with the same fear as people last year faced the possibility of a flu, will get us in the same mental place, completely controlled by our emotions, and hijacked by our amygdala, and as such, if all we seek is to resist single-mindedly, damned be the costs, then is that really living and not merely surviving?

And so, resist if you can, as long as you can afford to, but remember that it's who you are and what you see that matters, despite of what happens to you. And vaccines I daresay, will HAPPEN to most people in this forum, I don't think many of us will choose to get them thinking that they're going to save us from covid, it'll become a simple matter of strategy in order to keep on being able to be who we are. And that matters because we may continue to support this work and be living examples of the world we wish to be, or whatever other useful thing we do with our lives, being an unvaccinated hermit might be admirable in terms of independence, but they also sound rather isolated from a network of likeminded individuals.

And what better way to stick it to the man? to see them rub their hands thinking that all they needed to do was to vaccinate everyone to make them compliant and it doesn't work despite them being successful?

I hope the above made sense.

 

[mkrnhr]

Being pushed or forced to do anything, good or bad, is bad. We also all agree that this vaxxinomania has nefarious purposes. There are some naive people in the vaxx everybody camp who may consider themselves to have good intentions, but intentions do not matter. Unfortunately most people are authoritarians and the brainwashing of "the government/authorities/mommy must do something", as well as the pathetically submissive "follow the science" (which really means obey authorities). That does not mean that we were completly free two years ago and only now are becoming slaves. We were slaves to a certain degree and this is just another aspect in that paradigm.
For those who have the knowledge of these things, it is important to resist the temptation of following the herd blindly or falling into the abyss oh nihilism, but one must be strategic and adaptive. Being rigid can be detrimental and it's not about being right but about giving onself the best chance to continue growing. To give an image, when at sea one is taken away from the shore by a current, swimming against the current is futile. That often happens in a state of fear and panick, and sometimes out of stubborness. In that case, one swims to the side where that plume of current is absent and then returns to land with the waves. Opposing a ruthless and rigid system single-mindedly and with rigidity doesn't work. In that case one has to be more like water.

 

[United Gnosis]

I'm not a geneticist, nor am I a virologist, but my understanding is that our DNA is constantly mutating as part of the natural entropic process of our biology. Not ideal, perhaps, but an eccentricity of this complex genetic mess we inhabit and observe. No? So sometimes a genetic mutation can result in an immune response, sometimes it will be entirely benign, sometimes it results in cellular metastasis. Right?

I acknowledge the truthiness to your statement. I don't believe it is incorrect, exactly, but maybe inaccurate or misleading. Note that I am not a geneticist either, and that I familiarized myself with the field's status quo about mid-2000s. Either way, according to the standard genetic status quo, nuclear DNA doesn't mutate much, if at all. Most mutations get repaired, and the others generally wipe themselves out as telomeres shrink into oblivion, or as the cell mutates into an immune-triggering situation and get themselves wiped out.

I've been a fan of the epigenetics concept ever since I've heard of it, back when geneticists described DNA as a specific blueprint, rather than a flexible toolbox. However, even with the epigenetics I know about so far, nuclear DNA isn't mutated, it is mostly various proteins suppressing/encouraging the expression of this or that gene, redirecting the molecular machinery around a segment of code or another. DNA is pretty consistent throughout your lifetime, correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's another presupposition I have. A virus can enter your system and start monkeying with your DNA or RNA or whathaveyou. Yes? Covid, for example, expresses its evolutionary fitness by co-opting a cell and rearranging RNA so that it can replicate itself. If you catch covid and your immune system adapts and fights it off, there's a chance your body will maintain that immunity. That would be taking place at the genetic level, yes? Viruses unwittingly train our genetics to resist them.

No. Of course, the epigenetic factor remains, it is plausible that some stress would be stored epigenetically, in the same way that mothers who underwent long periods of starvation still conceive underweight children after being well fed years later. But no, the virus does not mutate you at the genetic level. It tries to insert rogue code, the immune system wakes up, and it is immune cells - is it the memory t-cells? - which develop a kind of memory of the protein folding steps to replicate a specific antibody conformation. Aside from epigenetic stress, you genetically remain the same.

This is probably not an absolute, either. There's probably interesting genetic divergence tests that could be conducted by sequencing individuals over a couple decades. It's going to be hard to find a control group while mRNA therapies are threatening to become a significant modality of treatment...

So what I understand of the mRNA vaccine is that it goes in and does some kind of herky-jerky thing within the cell in order to produce a protein that triggers an immune response that, supposedly, will set in motion a process of immune system adaptation that, like natural immunity, will instruct the body to expect and counter the virus on contact.

Yes. And if that was all it did, that would already be risky and unproven enough, because the herky-jerky part is manipulating completely new genetic mechanisms that had never been (publicly) touched before.

One of the trademarks of slavery is a lack of consent. Right? Well, in all those scenarios that I just listed off, the only one a person has the ability to consent to - and forget for a moment that we can't predict the consequences - the only one of those scenarios where a person CAN consent is the vaccine scenario.

That's an interesting line of thought. I think lack of consent is necessary, but not sufficient. I don't think talking about enslavement to a non-sovereign object makes sense. The master imposing his sovereignty over the slave without consent, now that is closer to both necessary and sufficient. The virus is a mechanical attack. Maybe you could call it a 4d attack by proxy if you wanted to be really esoteric about it, but really, it's a mechanical, non-sovereign lower-D vehicle that is conducting the attack. Slavery seems inapplicable as a concept, then.

However, in the vaxx case, it is not a dumb virus. It is 3D+ tech precisely engineered to hack into your admin rights, on behalf of a superindividual institution, capable of metacognition and specifically seeking to exert sovereignty over you. You don't even have to get esoteric about it. The slavemaster is right there in front of you. That it currently still asks you for 'consent', or whatever's left of it, is the only reason it can't be regarded as slavery.

Yet.

That said, it isn't a form of slavery to have cells highjacked by cancer. It isn't slavery to contract a virus. Is it? Or to grow old? Is it slavery to grow up in a polluted city where industrial chemicals are constantly working their way into our bodies and messing with our genetics? What about smoking? Is lung cancer a form of slavery in your mind because cigarette companies used advertisements and addictive chemicals to functionally root-kit a human's biology?
What about alcohol, then? Or porn? are these also forms of slavery? They certainly get behind our heuristic approach to life and hijack certain bodily processes. What about videogames?

Re: Smoking, drinking, whatever, addiction to a non-sovereign object is not slavery to the object, it is a relationship where the self is both master and slave.

 

[BHelmet]

Being rigid can be detrimental and it's not about being right but about giving onself the best chance to continue growing. To give an image, when at sea one is taken away from the shore by a current, swimming against the current is futile. That often happens in a state of fear and panick, and sometimes out of stubborness. In that case, one swims to the side where that plume of current is absent and then returns to land with the waves. Opposing a ruthless and rigid system single-mindedly and with rigidity doesn't work. In that case one has to be more like water.

This is a brilliant analogy. What’s more is that you can’t really see where the current is going when you are in it. I have experienced this directly. I was 15. I was young and strong. I tried to exert my will toward the desired shore until I exhausted myself getting no where. The day was getting late and the clouds grey and ominous. I kept having to swim further and further out to sea to escape the “washing machine”. (Heavy 6-8 footers?) Although counterintuitive, that’s the right thing to do because the rip current went sideways beyond the break. When I actually started to panic in mortal fear, I recalled the old safety mantra: swim WITH the current. I finally washed ashore several miles down the beach feeling a bit like the ancient mariner and something the cat dragged in. I wobbled my way with quivering cramping calves back from whence I came and collapsed.

Nature teaches these lessons that occasion come in very handy.

 

[cindyj]

There can be no informed consent without hearing the truth. Plain and simple.

 

[luc]

My grandma got Moderna, after being on the fence for awhile, the TV eventually won out. I was surprised after our talk of adverse reactions and the low lethality of the virus, but after a heated discussion I recognized that she had her choice to make and I had mine. I told her that I wouldn't shed a single tear for her if it killed her, which hurt her, but she made her bed so she can sleep in it. Human sentimentality is little more than a weakness in this environment.

Wow, if we are talking about "sinning against your soul", I would be MUCH more concerned about such cruelty to your loved ones than about the stupid, stupid vax!

 

[MatiaS]

And vaccines I daresay, will HAPPEN to most people in this forum, I don't think many of us will choose to get them thinking that they're going to save us from covid, it'll become a simple matter of strategy in order to keep on being able to be who we are.

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.

The jab is modifying how my body behaves, thus altering who I am, at least on a biological/genetic level.

My quabble is that we can't possibly know all the implications (especially long-term, and especially in regards to multiple jabs) on a non-physical level. We know the technology available behind the scenes is many multiples more advanced than what is available to the public. We just can't know what this jab actually is doing.

As has been said already, the protocols might work the first and second time, but the cumulative negative effects of multiple jabs has been documented and presented as well.

I think no one of the people here who are arguing for the conscious-out-of-necessity-choice-jab have made a comment in regards to the continued acceptance of further injections.

If the situation would be a "get it once and be done with it" I'm sure many of us who wish to resist would be more inclined to bend to the narrative and just get it over with and start the next chapter. One of the bigger points we are drawing attention to - however slippery-slopey it might sound - is the fact that it will not stop with one, two, probably not even with three jabs.

You are saying the jab will probably HAPPEN to most of us, and you might be right, but the fact that in all likelihood it won't just be "the jab", but "the jabs", is probably the biggest crux on this matter.

being an unvaccinated hermit might be admirable in terms of independence, but they also sound rather isolated from a network of likeminded individuals.

In my specific situation, we are many families living in close proximity to each other, relatively secluded, and I know most of us would resist to the end. Probably not suicide-charging against armed gestapo, but instead having bug-out bags and heading for the hills in such an absurd scenario.

Opposing a ruthless and rigid system single-mindedly and with rigidity doesn't work. In that case one has to be more like water.

In this analogy, I would prefer being water that seeps through the cracks, finding a way that does not include flowing in the direction of loss of bodily autonomy.

However, in the vaxx case, it is not a dumb virus. It is 3D+ tech precisely engineered to hack into your admin rights, on behalf of a superindividual institution, capable of metacognition and specifically seeking to exert sovereignty over you. You don't even have to get esoteric about it.

This solidifies my point above. Without even getting non-physical and esoteric, the ultimate consequences are beyond the reach of our understanding at this moment. I mean we know there's been technology to beam thoughts and emotions into people since what, the 70's or 80's? Beam. From a distance. And now 40 years later, who knows what kind of implications an injected, unknown substance can have in terms of affecting our thoughts and behaviors.

 

[luc]

Guys, I get it, we are all angry and mad about this pathological nonsense we are witnessing.

But some of the reactions here quite frankly strike me as childish, irrational and based on fear and hysteria, exactly what those psychos in power want.

So you are fantasizing about a heroic martyr's death, yeah really? And you are thinking if people force you to go through the vax ritual you gonna somehow unleash Satan and destroy the universe? What is this kind of magical thinking? Calm down!

Look, many of us, for the first time in our lives, are confronted with a full-blown pathocracy, and perhaps for the first time this reaches straight into our very lives and has direct consequences. And our reaction is a collective freak-out? There might soon come a day where this vax business will strike us as ridiculous compared to the hardships we will need to endure and the tough decisions we will face.

Read about life under Nazism and Communism. This is child's play.

Speaking of Nazism - so Sebastian Haffner protected himself at the beginning when he was still in Germany. Then he fled the country. Was he a coward? Should he have died a martyr's death? We wouldn't have his work if he had done so.

Then we have Sophie Scholl, who did a heroic act. It didn't change anything in the least of course, and today the schools named after her force children to wear masks and segregate themselves. Go figure. But Scholl became an inspiring symbol.

Then there were people like Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, who saw what was coming, but deliberately took the decision to stay in Germany. They ran into trouble with the authorities, but also had to play along a lot. They definitely suffered every time they had to do the Hitler salute, or had to remain silent to protect themselves and others. Yet they helped many people in their own spheres, in their own ways. And they played a huge role after the war in rebuilding what was left of German science. Because once a pathocracy comes to an end, you need people who lived through it to rebuild. (Something to keep in mind for us as well.) So were they cowards? Did they destroy the timeline or whatever?

It is all very complex. And depending on circumstances, personality, soul plans or whatever, the right decisions - based on conscience - may vary considerably.

But please stop freaking out. THIS is the way to the dark side.

 

[SOTTREADER]

You know, reading through the comments it's funny how everyone actually agrees on certain key things. There's really only one point of disagreement and that point is precisely down to the individual which everyone agrees.

The 2 groups are

• Those who disagree with the forced vaccinations but will accept it under certain conditions. In fact, they don't see it as a big deal accepting it under those situations because they have a higher aim - to remain in the game. "Game" remains undefined.
• Those who disagree with the forced vaccinations and really won't compromise. Some of these individuals are currently living their ideals having been fired from their jobs for not taking the jab or are facing certain "deadlines".

If I was to use a metaphor the first group appear to be the French and the second the English. Ultimately, both groups are allies really it's just that their approach to the situation is different after some point.

 

[SOTTREADER]

Here's an actual real life example


I follow this guy on telegram. He lives in Slovenia, his daughter goes to a boarding school in Austria. Of course he and her are unvaccinated. As the situation has been developing I've been watching him navigate the changing environment - both in Slovenia and in Austria. He's even been to protests in Slovenia when Slovenia started going down the toilet. In any case, he's still finding creative ways to go visit his daughter in Austria and take her out despite being 2nd class - like he did recently for her birthday



The daughter on the other hand is having to endure being the odd one out at school but she appears very wise



This man will find a solution for his 15 year old daughter and we can bet £1,000,000 that solution won't be her getting jabbed.

 

[Carl]

It strikes me that despite the best efforts of the network and the C's, many are not seeing the forest for the trees on this issue.

What if your responsibility to people doesn't just include those in your immediate environment, of which there may be few, but also anyone in the potential "future" that you could have helped on any given timeline, had you made different choices?

What if, instead of dying on this hill right now, you had better timing, waited, and found yourself some better leverage in future?

What if you miss out on the whole big show coming, and the chance to participate in potential new world after it, where you could really make a difference?

Seems to me that fighting "The Beast" in hand-to-hand combat now, as he is at is full power, is not a wise battle. But perhaps if you had the control, discipline, and timing and forbearance of Don Juan's Warrior, you would act differently, and eventually live to watch The Beast tire, make mistakes, and destroy himself. To watch the cosmos intervene even.

At that point you might not have to fight. At that point you might be able to quietly slip away form The Beast's paradigm and discover your truest, fullest self. You could effect real change, not by trying to change the current world - whose participants have clearly chosen, via their own free will, to serve The Beast - but by creating a new one.

This might seem like a pipe-dream now, and sure not all of us will make it if it comes to that, but it remains a possibility. Not just that, but it is the possibility most hinted-at by the C's for us to aim for.