2022 will see countries opening up completely, while politicians scramble to get on the right side of history before everything blows up. But what about the perpetrators of this hideous crime?
Clearly, so much damage has been done that those responsable will have to be trialed. They can not just continue. Those who were mislead could become their worst enemies.
Possibly. But isn't the group of those who were misled the real problem? They will not admit how wrong they've been. It would be easier to get someone to admit to a conscious crime than to having been the victims of mass formation?
I think it is possible to be mislead and still not to have taken active part in the discrimination towarth nvx, which is in my opinion the real problem. If I were tricked in having x jabs, I would be angry. Flandres already has a history of "repressie" , let's not do that again.
It seems to me that when the dust settles our friend Fauci must be first in line to be prosecuted.
What has mystified me all along (as a complete sceptic from March 2020) is that Fauci is 81 years of age.
What is he doing in that position at that age? What is his motivation? Why is he not disqualified due to conflict of interest? He owns patents for some of the very vaccines that are hailed as mankinds saviour !!
Pfizer funds the institution that is meant to be an independent watchdog of their competence and lack of corruption! 😂🙄 . You cant make it up.
Many more should of course be on the list for malfeasance, graft and general corrupt practice.
Politicians hiding behind the "science" when the sceptical part of the scientific community were silenced and censored should not work too well in a court of Law you would imagine, especially when such levels of blind incompetence have been manifest across the world.
I liked quite some of your metaphors. And at the same time, I would like to question some of your images. For one, I do not see immediately two sides. I see one hegemonic narrative of power, that abuses Science as a source of authority, rendering it unscientific by corrupting a handful of 'experts' and a few hundred thousand of their ambitious acolytes. Those are eager to gain more status within a World of Power which they project virtue on to, by 'believing' its absurdity to be a kind of 'logical', scientific and thus ethical truth. Hereby they have no problem with their conscience when they side (and hope to thrive) with a medical tyranny. We say perhaps medical tyranny, but they would perhaps see it as 'the best option for the world, without any (scientific) doubt'. So on the one hand, you have a false ethical, hegemonic vision (the language of the powers that be - with some ), and on the other hand, you have (in my opinion) a immensely diverse community of people that are actually trying to understand the world, all the way chosing for an ethics that is rooted in the reality of the situation, and not on some frozen decontextualised principles. In this community I do hear a lot of different voices on quite some of the measures that should/could be taken. On another note. Reading Hannah Arendt and talking with Matthias Desmet did help me to understand a bit more of the incredible power of so called 'educated' people, to let themselves be fooled by the most absurd of plain lies. Warm greetings, and interested in reading more of your stuff! Steven
It's a little too schematic, but yeah, basically you hit the nail on the head. The stuff on the left is a made-up story which departs from all science and calls itself science, but looks and behaves like religion. The stuff on the right is common sense and represents the sane choice of default assumption aka null hypothesis. Initially there wasn't much science to support this common sense because it was so obvious to everyone that no one in their right mind would have wasted time trying to prove it. Sort of like proving ice makes you cold. Because of the hysterical cult that has taken over the world, science had to get to proving the obvious (you might also have mentioned natural immunity, a particularly good example). Most scientists couldn't believe they were even being asked to prove insights from fundamental biology taught in every undergraduate class or that anyone was questioning it, much less people who called themselves virologists. Eventually they figured out that if they didn't do so, people really were going to go on believing the hysteria. And so all of the science is now firmly on the side of what everyone knew to be common sense all along. I don't believe figures like Dr Fauci should be glorified with the title of scientists. They are just buffoons (as Scott Atlas's book makes abundantly clear).
Clearly, so much damage has been done that those responsable will have to be trialed. They can not just continue. Those who were mislead could become their worst enemies.
Possibly. But isn't the group of those who were misled the real problem? They will not admit how wrong they've been. It would be easier to get someone to admit to a conscious crime than to having been the victims of mass formation?
I think it is possible to be mislead and still not to have taken active part in the discrimination towarth nvx, which is in my opinion the real problem. If I were tricked in having x jabs, I would be angry. Flandres already has a history of "repressie" , let's not do that again.
It seems to me that when the dust settles our friend Fauci must be first in line to be prosecuted.
What has mystified me all along (as a complete sceptic from March 2020) is that Fauci is 81 years of age.
What is he doing in that position at that age? What is his motivation? Why is he not disqualified due to conflict of interest? He owns patents for some of the very vaccines that are hailed as mankinds saviour !!
Pfizer funds the institution that is meant to be an independent watchdog of their competence and lack of corruption! 😂🙄 . You cant make it up.
Many more should of course be on the list for malfeasance, graft and general corrupt practice.
Politicians hiding behind the "science" when the sceptical part of the scientific community were silenced and censored should not work too well in a court of Law you would imagine, especially when such levels of blind incompetence have been manifest across the world.
So many questions mate. Remember watching a movie thinking, nice but unlikely to happen in the real world? Well, you'll never think that again.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis. Thanks!
Thank you so much for reading and I'm eager to hear your views.
I liked quite some of your metaphors. And at the same time, I would like to question some of your images. For one, I do not see immediately two sides. I see one hegemonic narrative of power, that abuses Science as a source of authority, rendering it unscientific by corrupting a handful of 'experts' and a few hundred thousand of their ambitious acolytes. Those are eager to gain more status within a World of Power which they project virtue on to, by 'believing' its absurdity to be a kind of 'logical', scientific and thus ethical truth. Hereby they have no problem with their conscience when they side (and hope to thrive) with a medical tyranny. We say perhaps medical tyranny, but they would perhaps see it as 'the best option for the world, without any (scientific) doubt'. So on the one hand, you have a false ethical, hegemonic vision (the language of the powers that be - with some ), and on the other hand, you have (in my opinion) a immensely diverse community of people that are actually trying to understand the world, all the way chosing for an ethics that is rooted in the reality of the situation, and not on some frozen decontextualised principles. In this community I do hear a lot of different voices on quite some of the measures that should/could be taken. On another note. Reading Hannah Arendt and talking with Matthias Desmet did help me to understand a bit more of the incredible power of so called 'educated' people, to let themselves be fooled by the most absurd of plain lies. Warm greetings, and interested in reading more of your stuff! Steven
It's a little too schematic, but yeah, basically you hit the nail on the head. The stuff on the left is a made-up story which departs from all science and calls itself science, but looks and behaves like religion. The stuff on the right is common sense and represents the sane choice of default assumption aka null hypothesis. Initially there wasn't much science to support this common sense because it was so obvious to everyone that no one in their right mind would have wasted time trying to prove it. Sort of like proving ice makes you cold. Because of the hysterical cult that has taken over the world, science had to get to proving the obvious (you might also have mentioned natural immunity, a particularly good example). Most scientists couldn't believe they were even being asked to prove insights from fundamental biology taught in every undergraduate class or that anyone was questioning it, much less people who called themselves virologists. Eventually they figured out that if they didn't do so, people really were going to go on believing the hysteria. And so all of the science is now firmly on the side of what everyone knew to be common sense all along. I don't believe figures like Dr Fauci should be glorified with the title of scientists. They are just buffoons (as Scott Atlas's book makes abundantly clear).
All very good points, thanks for reading and sharing. It's all so unreal.