I’m going to keep this one short — mostly because this says it all:
Maybe I should have titled this one:
If you keep on doing what you’ve always done, you’re gonna keep on getting what you’ve always got.
OR:
If you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result,…
The GOP promised to push the Conservative agenda under Bush, if America would just give them the majority. America gave the GOP the House, Senate and Presidency and what did the GOP do? Gave us more spending than ever, TARP, The Patriot Act, Roberts and they legalized government propaganda.
They asked for the majority under Obama and we gave it to them. What did the GOP do? They did absolutely nothing to help Obama and everything they could to stop the TEA Party.
We gave the GOP the Senate under Trump and what did they do? They gave us two more bad judges on The SCOTUS and they worked with Democrats to undermine Trump.
The fact — FACT — is simple: every time the GOP has power, they govern like Democrats. And at no time do they ever work to stop, let alone reverse, the Democrat Party agenda. So, seriously, why vote for them? All we’re getting is Democrat-Lite policies.
But, in 2022, that GOP Lucy will tell the lemmings they have to vote in more Republicans than ever before or they will be electing more evil Democrats.
And what will the Charlie Brown lemmings do? They will line up to kick that stupid football one more time — promising themselves that — this time — they would get to kick it.
And the Right calls itself ‘red-pilled.’ HA! Most of them have been blue-pilled, it just had to be fed to them by the likes of NCIS, Blue Bloods, Hannity and Limbaugh (yes, I know that smarts — but it’s true 🙂 ).
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This is a valid principle — for most things. However, when it comes to politics Hanlon’s Razor does not apply. When it comes to politics, FDR’s Maxim is a much better guideline:
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.“
Now, before anyone starts to argue with my assertion that FDR’s Maxim is a better guide to understanding political events than Hanlon’s Razor, let me explain why I said it.
First, in this day and age: to assume the people in power are there by accident is a mistake. It underestimates the degree of concentration of control over our social, economic and political systems, and the level of competence that was necessary to concentrate that control. Therefore, it is safer to assume that the people we see in politics — even if not competent, themselves — are under the control of highly competent people. Just because we do not see those people does not mean they do not exist, or that they are working from a plan — because they do, and they are.
This brings us to the second pint in favor of FDR’s Maxim: the people who have concentrated control over our world actually study how to do so. They study the work of people such as Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, John Calhoun, Martin Seligman, Stanley Milgram and many more. The goal has always been how to manipulate and control people so efficiently, they not only don’t notice they are being controlled, but they actually participate in it. They have even written about how they can do these things without anyone realizing they are doing it. That’s what this book is all about:
And this one is about how to use the media to help in the effort:
So is this one, and it is written by the author who is credited for the invention of propaganda and modern political ‘spin:’
And this one explains how to use propaganda (the author is the same man Goebbels credited for teaching the NAZI’s how to use propaganda):
This book was written by one of the ‘They:’ a man inside this groups of controllers, and it explains what their plans are and how they are doing it. It even reveals that the two Parties in America are actually one Party pretending to be two, for the purposes of providing outlets for public hostility toward the ultimate goal:
This book uses public sources to reveal the group behind the scenes and explain what they seek to do, and how:
And this one uses hundreds of public records to reveal who the people are controlling our society; to explain how they do it; and to illustrate examples of their progress and success. This is a well-sourced, wide-ranging expose of something most people refuse to believe is actually happening:
These are just a small sampling of the many essays and books that have either been published by or about the people who work behind the scenes. These people are trying to re-make Mankind: both our nature, as well as our society. They can be known. They have never been totally secret. They can’t help but boast about their plans. You just have to know where to find the information, take time to read it, then accept it as the truth: they mean what they say and say what they mean and are in the process of making it all happen.
Just think how the world might have been different had it followed this advice in regard to the mad-man who wrote this crazy conspiracy book:
So, given that all the people who wrote or were written about in these books have all been in or connected to the U.S. Government and the social controls it employs, which is actually the more plausible solution to the problem:
That people such as these are just stupid?
Or that everything they do has been carefully planned and executed?
Another razor — Ockham’s Razor, not only does apply here, it makes that calculus fairly easy.
Assuming all other things are equal, then the simplest and most likely answer to perceived stupidity is not that we have elected a never ending stream of stupid and incompetent people, but that there is a hidden agenda which actually makes sense of everything we perceive as stupid and incompetent.
Which brings us to my last question:
What sort of agenda could make sense of all the apparently stupid, incompetent and senseless things we see in politics?
[I have answers for you, but I warn you: You’re not going to like them 🙂 ]
This really shouldn’t be necessary; everyone in the Western world should be well-acquainted with the scientific method. Sadly, however, we’ve either forgotten or, if my fears are correct, may never have been taught about it in our public school system. So, for those of us who have forgotten, or for the sake of those who were never taught, this is what the scientific method is and how it works.
I took this from “The World Book Encyclopedia,”1973, pg 167.
I used this source for two reasons. First, it comes from a time when our society was still anchored to rational reality. Second, as a picture of a hard-copy book, it cannot be easily altered. This is important as ‘They’ have started to alter definitions in real time. They just go into the website or pdf or kindle book on your machine and change the text without ever telling you that they changed things, or what they changed. And, please, don’t doubt me on this one. The gentleman who goes by the name, ‘A0moly,’ on Facebook, already did a video showing them changing the definition of ‘Fascism’ to suit their political agenda, and he shows how they did it in real time. So, if you think I am being dishonest about the risk of having things changed on you, please, look into it for yourself.
OK, back to the scientific method. First, it is just that: a method of researching a specific phenomenon for the purposes of better understanding it and predicting its behavior under a given number of circumstances. Like any specialty branch of logic, it is neutral, and can be conducted properly or improperly. And, like all other forms of logic, it is susceptible to being misused for nefarious purposes. It is important that we never forget this as, for too many people, the idea of ‘science’ carries the mistaken notion of ‘infallible fact.’ The truth of the matter is, science has never and will never establish anything as ‘fact’ — because it can’t. That is outside of its abilities. All science does is give us a probability of certitude and nothing more.
Now, with that said, let’s look at the five general parts to this method:
1 — Stating the problem.
2 — Forming a hypothesis.
3 — Observing and experimenting.
4 — Interpreting the data.
5 — Drawing conclusions.
Stating the Problem:
This is the step where the ‘scientist’ notices a phenomenon which he/she wishes to examine further, either to better understand or predict how that phenomenon will behave under different sets of circumstance.
Forming a Hypothesis (i.e. educated guess):
At this point, the ‘scientist’ forms an hypothesis (or, educated guess) as to why the phenomenon is or behaves the way he/she has observed, or as to how the phenomenon might behave under different circumstance.
Observing and Experimenting:
In this step, the ‘scientist’ usually conducts experiments to gather more information about the nature and behavior of the phenomenon being studied.
Interpreting the Data:
In this phase, the ‘scientist’ tries to make sense of the data collected as a result of testing.
Drawing Conclusions:
Finally, the ‘scientist’ uses the data he/she collected to determine whether or not it supports his/her hypothesis.
That’s right! There is more to the scientific method. This time, let’s look at the places and ways where we can get things wrong.
Stating the Problem:
We are all human (well, most of us are, anyway — given the events of 2020, some of us may be lizard people). This means we all have personal biases. Guess what? If you do not know how to control for those personal biases, they will (not might, will) cause you to see things in a way that does not reflect reality. Personal biases can come from religious beliefs, political beliefs, or something as simple as greed or economic pressures. Learning how to control for personal bias takes a great deal of training and personal discipline. At times, it can also require a great deal of moral courage. Additionally, this training and discipline must be maintained, as they are not one of those things we can learn once and never have to worry about again. You have to constantly control for bias, and at every step of the scientific method. Otherwise, you are going to be doomed from the start because you are going to start from flawed observations and assumptions — which means your statement of the problem will be all wrong.
Forming a Hypothesis (i.e. educated guess):
Forming an hypothesis is the point where we gather all the data we already know about the phenomenon in question. Then we look for what we know about anything that may be closely related to or associated with the phenomenon. After gathering as much information as we can on the phenomenon, we form an hypothesis (make an educated guess) as to why the phenomenon is or behaves the way it does, or how the phenomenon will react under a given set of circumstances.
This is a perilous process: especially if the researcher holds a bias that causes them to accept false assumptions or reject factual observations. This is a very real threat, and it happens more often than we might expect. Once again, this is why we have to guard against our personal biases getting in the way of our seeing clearly.
Observing and Experimenting:
At this point, we design and conduct experiments to gather more data on the nature or behavior of the phenomenon in question. We must take great care to test and re-test the design of our experiments. They must be designed in a way that will accurately test our hypothesis, but also, be free from any influences caused by bias. Our tests should actually measure what we are trying to study, and they must be repeatable. Others should be able to follow behind us using our tests and methods and achieve the same results.
We also have to guard against our biases when we conduct our tests. It is not enough to design a bias-free test, we have to run the test without bias, as well. Otherwise, we run the risk of skewing the test result and corrupting our data. For this reason, designing and conducting experimentation is one of the hardest places to control personal bias and, therefore, one of the places ‘scientists’ most often go off track.
Interpreting the Data:
Interpreting the data is probably the step with the highest risk of bias contamination. This is because most people get invested in their work, so they have a personal interest in seeing their work affirmed. Naturally, this desire to be ‘right’ causes all but the most disciplined researchers to find affirmation of their hypothesis in their data. We also have to be very careful that we allow for alternate assumptions that may be drawn from our data. It is just as likely that we will actually disprove our hypothesis as prove it — and even then, we don’t really ‘prove’ anything. We merely determine a percentage of certainty of a given characteristic or behavior. Therefore, once again, we must be extra careful to guard against personal bias when analyzing the data from our testing.
Drawing Conclusions:
Finally, drawing conclusions. This is just another point where personal bias can get us sideways. If we are not careful, we might actually throw away a carefully designed and properly conducted test because we disagree with or do not like the data it revealed. Believe it or not, this has happened in the past — many times.
A Final Consideration:
‘Science’ never proves anything, because it can’t. That is not what it is designed to do, and advances in science constantly testify to this fact. Where once we were certain the atom was the smallest particle of matter, we later learned it was definitely protons neutrons and electrons, only to learn we were mistaken — again. Then there were quarks and leptons and other sub-atomic particles. The point here is, each time, ‘science’ was certain it had proved what it knew as ‘fact’ — but it had not. Subsequent discoveries forced ‘science’ to change what it knew.
The same thing applies to actions or events. ‘Science’ can provide a percentage of certainty, but nothing more. It cannot prove the sun will come up tomorrow. However unlikely it may seem, it is within the realm of possibility that an un-detected asteroid large enough to shatter the earth could strike the planet and destroy it before sunrise tomorrow. This is an extreme example, I know, but it is also an easy one to understand (which is why I used it).
The point here is simple: no matter what we may be told or think about it, ‘science’ is not capable of proving anything as a fact. It merely describes observed phenomenon and provides a percentage of certainty that the observation, action or prediction are accurate.
OK, let’s wrap up this little lesson. What have we learned?
1 — The scientific method is just that — a method designed to help us conduct accurate research.
2 — The scientific method is vulnerable to personal bias that can skew the entire process.
3 — Even if conducted perfectly, the scientific method can never prove anything. All it can give us is a probability of a given action/reaction.
REAL WORLD EXAMPLE:
OK, let’s look at a real-world example that will demonstrate why our misunderstanding of ‘science’ can be dangerous. Let’s look at the issue of global warming.
THE CLIMATE-CHANGE ARGUMENT:
Stating the Problem:
The ‘settled science’ claims that the earth’s climate is changing for the worse.
Forming a Hypothesis (i.e. educated guess):
The hypothesis is that Man’s activities are causing the current change, and that these changes are having a negative effect on the planet.
Observing and Experimenting:
Predictive weather models have been constructed to demonstrate that Man is negatively affecting the change in earth’s climate.
Interpreting the Data:
Observed data supports the hypothesis.
Drawing Conclusions:
Man is negatively affecting earth’s climate, and we must do something to repair the damage he has caused.
OBJECTIONS TOTHE CLIMATE-CHANGE ARGUMENT:
Stating the Problem:
1 — Previously, the same people claimed that the earth was cooling, but they failed to prove it.
2 — Then the same people claimed the earth was warming, and failed to prove it.
3 — Finally, they changed to an observation that makes as much sense as stating water is wet: that the earth’s climate is changing. Yes, we know. It has been changing ever since the climate formed.
Forming a Hypothesis (i.e. educated guess):
1 — Before testing, an hypothesis can be neither right or wrong, so — OK.
Observing and Experimenting:
1 — One must be able to test a phenomenon before data can be collected or conclusions drawn.
2 — The Climate Change Camp has never actually conducted a test.
3 — They use predictive models they designed and compare their predictions to observed weather data in place of actual testing. This is one level removed from sound scientific practices.
4 — The models that are being used cannot possibly know the base-line parameters necessary to any model being accurate. At a minimum, these parameters would include: 1). the median temperature of the earth since at least the time mammals appeared in the fossil record, so we can establish the earth’s ‘normal’ temperature. 2). The highest and lowest temperatures of the earth during this same period, so we can establish what a ‘fever’ and a ‘cold’ are in earth terms. 3). The mechanism by which the climate changed during this period, so that we can separate natural change from that due to the activities of Man. 4). The frequency between climatic changes, so that we can determine where we are currently in the cycle of climate changes.
5 — These measures cannot possibly be known as no one can travel back in time to ascertain accurate measurements to plug into the predictive models.
6 — The data used in place of actual measurements comes from assumptions used in the measuring of temperature using ice cores and rocks, etc. This represents a third and fourth level of separation from the scientific method: one for the need to use ice cores, and the other for the assumptions inherent in the use of those ice cores.
7 — The hypothesis assumes climate change is detrimental, and allows for no control, or possibility that it might well be beneficial to the planet and life on earth.
Interpreting the Data:
1 — The data being accepted is often taken from compromised locations, like the center of a city in the middle of the day, on a roof, from an un-shielded thermometer.
2 — The data has been known to be intentionally falsified.
3 — The data often does not meet the predictive results according to the models.
Drawing Conclusions:
1 — The conclusion has been asserted that Man is causing detrimental climate change.
2 — This assertion falsely claims to be based on ‘science.’
3 — The solutions are always a political plan that would raise taxes to — essentially — dismantle the global free market.
4 — It has not been demonstrated the recommended remedies will have a high likelihood of achieving climate change reversal.
5 — It has not been demonstrated that it is desirable to reverse any perceived or measured climate change.
6 — The ‘science’ behind the Climate Change argument is three times removed from the scientific method, based on faulty, questionable and demonstrably false data and results in a coarse of action that has not been demonstrated to be desirable, or to have a high probability of success.
Do you see the very real problems with the way ‘science’ is used in this world? I sure hope so, because this is an accurate portrayal of how ‘science’ is being used to affect a total re-making of the political and economic structures of the world. What’s more, you and I are perfectly capable of figuring all this out on our own. We do not need to be ‘scientists,’ or ‘experts.’ This is all common sense (a.k.a. basic logic).
This is why we should all remember what the scientific method is, how it works and what it can and cannot do. That way, they can’t use it to lie to, scare or manipulate you into accepting something that is actually harmful to you and your family.
Before you bail on this post, please, hear me out. I am well aware that the title of this post is loaded with emotional language, and that it might strike to the heart of some readers — especially if they or a loved one is part of the crowed in question. But this is a post on Logic, and Logic has no emotion. This is why, when properly applied, it can help us sort through emotional issues — like this one.
Long time readers may remember, I hold a Sociology degree, which means, this subject is sort of in my wheelhouse. But, before we dive into our discussion, I’d like to start out the way I always do when we examine a subject such as this: with the definition(s) of the most critical words we’ll be using. Therefore:
1 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious (see spurious sense 2) also : its body of adherents the voodoo cult a satanic cult
2a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (such as a film or book) criticizing how the media promotes the cult of celebrity especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion the singer’s cult of fans The film has a cult following.
3 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual also : its body of adherents the cult of Apollo
5 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator health cults
As you will notice, religion is closely associated with the notion of a cult. At first glance, this may seem to exempt the people who are pushing the vaccinations. After all, they constantly claim to be following the science, and science is the opposite of religious superstition — right? Well, not so fast. Did you catch this post yet?
If you haven’t already done so, you really need to stop and read that post, as this one builds off of it. But for those who aren’t going to follow my suggestion, the people pushing the vaccinations are a religion unto themselves, and ‘The Science’ is their deity. I say this because, if you’ll read the previous post, I have already proven it — and I did so by definition. Remember, rational people do not reject with sound, valid and rational arguments based solely on definitions as those are the strongest possible arguments you can make.
So, let’s be clear: the people pushing the vaccinations belong to a religion, and that religion is unorthodox. They also rally around a central figure. In this case, that would be Fauci. They are devoted to the vaccine and the promise that it will save them. They have turned the masks and social distancing into religious ritual. And this is all based on an attempt to prevent or cure a disease. Now, if you would please go back to the definition and re-read it, you will see that the people pushing the vaccinations meet the requirements of the definition. Therefore, they are a cult. This is why Steve Deace has dubbed them The Branch Covidians. Since I like the descriptive affect of this term, I am going to adopt it.
But I do not want to stop there. I would like the reader to seriously and sincerely consider everything that the Branch Covidians have said and done as you read through this following excerpt (and please, note the source):
Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may be manipulated, exploited, or even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may help you assess a particular group or relationship.
Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is a cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale,” or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult; this is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool:
The group displays an excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.
Now, I will admit, I was tempted to point out examples of how the Branch Covidians exhibit nearly every one of these characteristics. I was going to do it in bold, red text — so no one could miss it. But then I remembered: one of the characteristics of a cult is that they cannot be reached by reason, so I’d be wasting my time. If you are in the cult, you need serious professional help to get out (personally, I would recommend Yeshua, but that’s just me). If you are not a part of the cult, then I doubt I need to point out how the Covidians demonstrate these characteristics. You were probably thinking them up as you read this. Therefore, I decided to leave well enough alone.
The issue now is to determine where the Covidians lie along the ‘cult scale.’ Well, to start with, search the page from where I found this. Go ahead, type in ‘cult scale’ and see what you find. The page seems to be aimed almost entirely at Trump and the GOP (see, I told you to check my source 😉 )!!! What’s more, I agree with most of the posts claiming there is a ‘Cult of Trump,’ or that the GOP is a cult. Large parts of it are, but the thing the web page misses is that the parts of the GOP that are in the GOP cult are the Right-Wing Progressives. This means they have much more in common with the Branch Covidians and the Progressive Left (i.e. Liberals/Democrats) than they do with ‘Conservatives/libertarians.’ But that is a different argument. The point here is, the people in the cult do not recognize it — per this pages own description. Sadly, it applies to the people who built this web source on cults (they cannot see past the plank in their own political eyes — as evidenced by the fact that they do not identify any Left-wing cults).
So, the web page is no help in evaluating how dangerous the Branch Covidian cult is. Well, no worries, we do not need any ‘experts’ to tell us this information. We simply need to ask the following questions:
Who refuses to even debate the vaccines: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who rejects any and all discussions of alternative treatments: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who refuses to discuss or even recognize contradicting data about the shots: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who wants to use force to make people take the shots: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who is threatening to ‘cancel’ anyone who refuses to take the shots: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who wants to exclude people from society for refusing to take the shots: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who is threatening to or has actually started putting people in camps for refusing the shots: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Who has gone so far as to say peolpe who refuse the shots should be killed: the Covidians, or the anti-vaxers?
Dear reader, the answer to every one of those questions is, The Branch Covidians have! Ergo, the answer to where the Branch Covidian cult lies on the scale of ‘scary cults’ is pretty high. In fact, they already have both feet well down and their but barely perched on the edge of the slippery slope which leads to atrocities like the holocaust. All the signs are there, we just need to open our eyes and see them — then find the courage to accept them as reality.
However, the “International Authority on Cults and Coercion’ is correct in another point it makes: we cannot reach or help the people caught in the Branch Dividians by yelling at them. It will take years of careful, patient and understanding education to free them from their indoctrination. The problem is, due to the nature of this cult, and its global reach, and the fact that it is lead, funded, supported and protected by global governments and their international corporate partners, it is very unlikely that we have the necessary time to red-pill them. So, unfortunately, unless we have some sort of global miracle, the whole world is in a great deal of peril (see why I suggested Yeshua? 🙂 ).
It’s past time I address this issue, and I’ll do my best to keep it short, simple and crystal clear. All of the following are absolutely true and can actually be verified by you — if you’ll just do a little research without using Google or the corporate social media:
–No matter your age or health, you have a 99.4% chance of surviving COVID.
–If you recover from COVID, your natural antibodies are far more effective than the shots.
—The government and its partners in corporate media, social media, education system and the pharmaceutical industry all tell us these vaccines are safe and effective.
—All four of these groups are known liars! All three have been caught lying — repeatedly — and it has increased in recent years.
—The injections are not vaccines — they are experimental, genetic programming therapies using artificial RNA strands.
—These injections have not been thoroughly tested (the FDA even admits this in their own approval).
—In fact, all previous attempts to properly test mRNA injections were shut down by the FDA because people or the test animals died.
—The FDA did not approve anything, they played a legalized word game and then falsely declared the vaccines safe and approved.
–Pfizer actually injected and counted people who already had natural immunity to increase the efficacy rating of theirshot to get this falsified approval.
–The CDC is not a government organization; it is a private corporation funded largely by the money it makes off of patents that it filed using government funding.
—There is no ‘settled science’ here. There are plenty of well-known, highly-accredited doctors who speak clearly, calmly and with great detail in explaining the dangers of these shots.
–The man who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the mRNA technology is urging global governments to stop with the injections.
–The man who won the Nobel Prize for inventing PCR testing says they are intentionally misusing it to create excess positive COVID numbers
–The same man also says the technology cannot determine the difference between COVID-19 and the ‘Delta’ variant.
—In fact, the real science advocates against the shots.
—Science has also proven that the masks do no good, and that they even cause harm to children.
–The data also shows that the vaccinated are a greater risk to the unvaccinated — not the other way around.
—The lock-downs are also causing damage to the mental health of society as a whole.
—Israel and Sweden are two foreign test cases, as are New York City and North West Florida region — all of which favor natural immunity over the shots.
—The data has proven you can still catch COVID — even after the shot and both boosters.
—The data shows you can still die from COVID — even after the shot and both boosters.
—The data also shows that the numbers being reported regarding COVID deaths cannot be trusted.
–The data is proving that Ivermectin, Hydroxicholoquine and the z-pack are safe, cheap, plentiful and effective preventative and early treatment therapies for COVID
–Ivermectin actually won the Nobel Prize for medicine because of how safe and effective it is in treating a wide variety of ailments.
–Hydroxichloroquin has been in safe use world-wide for more than 100 years.
–The U.S. government stockpiled Hydroxichloroquine after the last SARS outbreak for use in a future outbreak of an air-born respiratory virus — just like COVID
–The ‘Big Pharma’ alternatives are expensive, and the companies are getting wealthy off taxpayer money.
—The numbers also show that the numbers being reported regarding new cases of COVID are — at best — misleading.
—The numbers also show that hospitals that report being over-run are not always full, they are full to their capacity of available beds due to staff shortages. Lack of staff = fewer beds that can be used.
—The ‘pro-vaxers’ refuse to allow any opposing voices to be heard, banning them from speaking and scrubbing their videos.
—The ‘pro-vaxers’ are destroying the lives of anyone who opposes them and their agenda.
—The ‘pro-vaxers’ are going so far as to advocate that people who refuse the shots be housed in concentration camps — or even shot (yes, they have said these things, and it has actually gone so far that the camps have started in Australia).
—People are being injured and have even died from these shots.
—The global economy is being deliberately destroyed through the lock-downs and mandates.
—They even have national radio adds talking about the Global Reset, and how we can build a newer, better, more inclusive society in the wake of COVID.
—The ‘pro-vaxers’ are lead by a man with no medical training, who is a third generation Eugenicist, and who has openly boasted about how he can use vaccines to depopulate the world.
–The mandates — by government and businesses — are illegal! The emergency authorization act used to approve theseexperimental shots states — 7 times — that the shots cannot be forced on people who do not want to take them — no ‘exemptions’ required (read the law, folks).
ALL OF THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA!
*********
I can keep going, but I’ll stop here — and I didn’t even mention any of the other factors I have had reported to me by trusted source, but I could not verify. No have I listed any of the more insidious agendas of the ‘pro-vax’ crowed, or of the history of the mRNA technology.
*********
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT
—The shots do appear to provide some measure of prevention against death if you catch COVID after having been vaccinated — but only for a very short, specific window of time. After that, you need another booster.
*********
LET’S ‘DO THE MATH’ HERE
Everything I just listed is absolutely, 100% FACT — PERIOD! I will not listen to anyone — no matter what credentials they claim — who tries to argue otherwise. The statements above have even been made by ‘pro-vax’ sources. You just have to put the corporate media away and spend some time looking for the information they are hiding from you.
So, what is the rational choice? If you are simply looking at this logically, the answer is easy: DO NOT GET THE SHOT (unless — maybe — you are in a very high-risk category).
However, if you read all of this, are not in a high-risk category, and you still opt for the shot… Well, I’m not going to condemn you, but neither am I going to count you as rational — because you have gone against simple logic and the actual facts of the issue.
