Jump to content

Michael

Members
  • Posts

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Michael

  1. So i watched the recent Corbett Report and oh my he made me aware of this beautiful short film.

    It encompasses all important aspects of our day to day society.

    (some might have already seen it, or posted it, so forgive me if thats the case, its still nevertheless absolutly brilliant)

     

     

    • Like 1
  2. Just found this little treasure on reddit.

    It seems they have now a filter (bot) that immediatly spills out this message if anything related to Covid19 is talked about in a thread.

     

    "This post has been flagged as potentially related to the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic. To avoid the spread of misinformation, please refer to an official international (WHO) or national resource to source your information on the virus. Thanks!"

     

    They are not even trying anymore at this point.

  3. Well, im between two worlds here.

    On one hand "free speech" also attracts extrems to one side or the other and yes there are some extreme viewpoints in this forum as well.

    Im fine with it as long as no one attacks anyone directly for their views.

    So in a way this forum does suck if you take these viewpoints too much to heart.

    Again, be your own personal and worst critical. You dont have to accept these views (as no one should blindly accept anything) and make your very own conclusions.

    Im certain here are people that appriciate your talks.

     

    As for me, i never could get behind viewpoints such as blaming race,colour,religion and all these very shallow differences between us humans that do not even touch the whole.

    Yes, there are jews in powerful positions, but for me it has nothing to do with race. Thats not the origin of the problem. The origin for me is always one that is found within.

    The enemy is within, meaning the ego takes over. Thats not a religious viewpoint, as its not a belief. Its a simple observation that can be made by oneself.

     

    Unfortunatly there are some people in power that do the most horrndous things to humanity and to understand them or why they are doing it, its unavoidable to get involved with lower levels such as power,money and control. I would not involve myself into these things personally, but somewhat are pressured into it, to understand current events and history.

    So in a way for me, there is no other choice even if i dont like it.

     

    And sadly im also victim at times to "justice", as my mind simply cannot comprehend at times how these corrupt people can even do these things and so i resort myself to some extreme points (which i try to avoid, but its hard).

     

    Anway, point is, its in your hand what you want to get involved with, what you belief and what makes sense. Simply avoid threads that seem too extreme to you.

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
  4. 13 minutes ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

     

    "strike the shepherd and sheep shall scatter"

     

    Problem is nobody can agree on who the controllers are.

    Well, from a logical standpoint, the ones that control everything, need to be invisible.

    People in the frontlight are always at risk to be taken out, no matter how rich they are.

    (i mean its difficult, but not impossible)

     

    Its like a big mafia gang with people in all important institutions that keep the agenda going.

    But to me the more people you have (even in the 1% category) the more problems you will have due to differences of opinions and so on.

    So to me its very likely that it all narrows into a handful of people, not really known to the puplic.

     

    Obviously its hard to proof. But we can see how a central power structure works just by looking at this year alone.

     

     

     

  5. 43 minutes ago, Michi713 said:

    Thank you.  I asked because my local Target lifted the mask rule because, of course, their sales were suffering.  And their cameras were likely recording shoppers hurrying in and out as opposed to hanging out.  (It used to be the town hangout on rainy days.  Lame I know).

     

    But most of the people still had masks on, except for a few.  To answer your question my knee jerk reaction was anxiety.  For having my face out and not being able to read anyone’s reaction to my face being out.  I calmed down by assuming they really didn’t care about my face and were just doing their thing.  
     

    Because Americans tend to be self absorbed, especially when shopping, I would assume the truth is they really could care less.  
     

    Not being able to read faces is freaky, and I see how previously stable people could suffer from schizophrenic episodes when out in public.  

     

    Thanks for the reply Michi, apprichiate it

  6. What i dont get is that many people that came to know about Icke trough the London Real platform, already need to have a more citiqual or open minded outlook.

    Yet, now its these same people that fall for this either shill or fraud?

    I mean the moment this guy talked about "more testing is needed", that moment i knew something is very wrong with Brian Rose. It really doesent take much.

     

    Now this "new major" crap is the iceing on the cake, where every alarm bell should ring.

    I dunno, i find this strange that he got 1,1 million in donations from people that are into freedom of expression. I really dont get it.

  7. 22 minutes ago, Michi713 said:

    @MichaelOut of curiosity.  If it’s not too intrusive, when you enter a store without a mask and almost everyone else has them, how do you feel?

    No problem, i gladly answer it.

    To me its a mix between sadness, self respect and unease.

     

    Sad, to see others afraid or in complete obedience to criminals

    Self Respect, because i am not complying to something a guy in a suit orders me to do

    Unease because you feel and know that others think of you as someone who is careless

     

    Out of curiosity: How do you feel?

    • Like 1
  8. 6 minutes ago, metak88 said:

     

    It's means one customer per 10 square meters of sales area. Their usual BS. Social distance of roughly 1.5m (radius) around the person gets you around 10m2.

    The 1,5 m radius rule was always in place since the restrictions started earlier this year. This is specifically highlighted as different.

    Again, a shop that has 100m2 cannot have more than 10 persons. ( no matter if the distance is meant or if the maximum amount of costumers are meant, the former includes the latter)

    The 1,5 radius rule allows way more people in the shop.

    They wouldnt say that these are new rules, if everything is kept as it was.

     

    This is the second lockdown and it will only get worse from here.

  9. Merkels „Lockdown Light“ - Infografik

     

    I think this should be enough. The exact information i couldnt find in english, but its of course all there in german.

    I highlighted your request and it says as i said: Keeping 10m2 distance to any person.

     

    go.png

     

    Edit: Okay i must admit the wording is very vague. If a shop lets say, has 100m2, a maximum of 10 persons can enter.

    But honestly one can read this one way or the other.

    If i get further information on it, i report

  10. 5 hours ago, MatriarchFox said:

    In South Africa at the moment, we have an advocacy group rallying to separate the Western Cape (throughout history, a part of Africa that has been sought after and coveted due to it's ideal location between the West and the East, as well as, on your way to the elusive Antarctica.) from the rest of South Africa and make it an independent sovereign state. Sounds innocent enough... but here are some red flags I spotted and I would like to know this community's opinions:

     

    1. As far as I can tell, this is a faceless group. I have not been able to pinpoint any one individual behind this idea. I may be wrong...

    2. When asked questions about how the governing of this new "sovereign state" will be handled, this is their answer: "We see hundreds of questions like these. We are not a political party. We have no intention to govern. Questions like these will be answered by the citizens of a free Cape via the government they elect."

    3. Their flag strongly resembles the American Confederate flag, red & blue with a white cross.

    4. The suggested action of separation is based on the flaws of the current unfit government (We all know what politicians are, puppets... So the flaws of our current government, all the corruption and inabilities, that was part of the plan to pave the way for this radical action.... right?)

     

    I innately feel like something is wrong here... especially since this bombshell was dropped on us during 2020... is this part of the plan? Get a foothold in South Africa by creating a "sovereign state" which is actually controlled from without. A structured planned coup is not unheard of throughout history.

     

    Any thoughts?

    You mean this?

    https://www.capeindependence.org/

     

    Lets look at their solutions:

     

    "Our purpose is to establish genuine democracy in the Cape, handing political power to the people of the Cape and removing it from Pretoria. In legal terms this right which we are seeking is referred to as ‘self-determination’.

    To return political power to the people of the Cape we are committed to obtaining a referendum, in which every registered voter in the Cape will get to vote, asking the Cape people whether they would prefer to remain as a part of South Africa and be governed from Pretoria, or whether they would rather break away from South Africa and establish a new independent country: Cape of Good Hope, which they would then govern for themselves.

    As a group we do not propose specific policies beyond handing political power to the people of the Cape, the Cape peoples themselves must elect political leaders who will govern the Cape and make decisions on their behalf, as their elected representatives.

    We will however, as is legally required in the formation of a new country, develop a ‘Bill of Rights’ in co-ordination with other groups seeking Cape independence.

    Contained within it will be an absolute rejection of racism in all forms, including the classification of people by race, and any policy which would be premised upon such classification. It will also contain an immigration policy, consistent with international norm and best practices, which will ensure that the upliftment of Cape citizens is prioritised, whilst inward migration is controlled and limited to those who can contribute to the development and well-being of our new country.
    "

     

    I higlighted the section you should be very curious about. Whenever they come out and say: combat racism, they create the exact opposite.

    Secondly,the said "we do not propose specific policies beyond handing political power to the people of the cape."

    Well, they just did with the last phrase.

     

    Obviously i didnt do any big digging yet, but things that sound to good to be true, are mostly not true and other motives drive the boat. Thats my first observation.

     

    • Like 1
  11. 8 hours ago, Michi713 said:

     

    A study is cited where children had to eat a vegetable they disliked.  After they had eaten the vegetable, the experimenter told half of the children they will be eating much more of the vegetable in the future.  The other half were not told this.  The group that expected to eat more of the yucky vegetable succeeded in convincing themselves it was not so bad.  
     

    The cognition of disliking wearing a face diaper is dissonant with “I will inevitably have to wear the mask a lot in months/years to come.”  To reduce the dissonance some people convinced themselves it is not such a big deal.  

     

     

     

    The test with the children is a good example. However, in my eyes this can also be looked at from a different angle.

    Lets say you are afraid of spiders. Now consequently you avoid those little animals and keep being afraid of them.(this can have many reasons)

    But if you then simply start to hold them in your hands for a while and see how you react, you get less and less scared of them simply because you condition your mind differently. If you face the "threat" directly, it becomes less and less scary.

    Same with food. You might simply not like some specific food and keep that all your life and avoid it. But if you start to embrace that food, you might discover its not as bad as you made it out to be.

     

    So it can be looked from a different angle and still can mean what you desribed.

    Of course your example is also completly right, as thats how psychology works. If you know you have to do something not for a short period, but a long period, you consequently try to familiarize yourself with the problem and accept it. The difference between what i said is that one is done out of free choice, the other is forced.

     

    In your second example: “I will inevitably have to wear the mask a lot in months/years to come.”  To reduce the dissonance some people convinced themselves it is not such a big deal, i can confirm this firsthand.

     

    A couple of months ago, i went to a hardware store and they asked me if i am exempt from wearing a face mask (because i never wear them anyway). So i said yes, i have a certificate for that. She then said, that i have to show it to the reception before entering the store, which i did.

    The lady there then asked out of curiosity why i would not wear it. She meant you are just here briefly, surely wearing a mask for such a short time in the store cannot be a big deal. I kept silent.

     

    My sister also told me, that she doesent care about mask wearing anymore. She said, she got used to it and its no big deal for her anymore. Its normal for her now.

    And i screamed inside of me and thought: Thats exactly the point where they want you to be,.....facepalm. But obviously i could not told her that as she doesent want to hear it.

     

     

    • Like 2
  12. 2 hours ago, Michi713 said:

    How many true believers have you encountered in your town? 

    Its hard to say.

    Someone that wears a mask is either compliant because he/she fears consequences is afraid or is doing it because everyone is doing it.

    From my personal experience there are a lot that think Covid is real, a couple that know whats up but comply anyway (they dont want trouble) and in both these instances they feel saver because everyone is doing it. (be it invisible or afraid of others or for others)

     

    So in either case, i bookmark it as "fallen into the trap".

    When i go into town (i live on the country side) and without meaning it arrogant or special i never encountered anyone since these 7 months that refuses the mask.

    None, not one soul.

    There are some people i know that dont do it, but i never encountered them in town myself.

    So from pure observation, there are 99,9% of these people.

    • Like 1
  13. Again, nothing suprising here, this is what is about to happen starting on Nov.2, Monday.

     

    Every theater,every gym, every event has to close

    Bars close, Restaurants only delivery, No tourism allowed in hotels (means they are now finished)

    Stores now have the weird rule to keep 25m2 distance to any person.

    You will not be allowed to leave your home unless its for something important (like work or buying food)

    Police/Military now dont need any reason anymore to enter any home at will

    Military now controls elementary schools in Bavaria to ensure rules are followed (masks, open windows etc)

     

    And the sheeps are sleeping and sleeping and sleeping and sleeping.

    Call it now: They will come back when all is in the dumpster and say: I didnt know anything, its not my fault. (some will forever be lost no matter what happens though)

  14. 54 minutes ago, I Am Jacks Free Spirit said:

    Hello, everyone, new member here.

     

    I'll likely get round to posting a new member hello message eventually but this topic has spurred me into signing up and posting right away because I feel like I have something useful to contribute to this conversation:

     

    Anyone remember Rose/Icke 1?  Or maybe it was interview no.2, whatever but it was back in March or April when this was all kinda new - specifically it was the interview that the BBC etc latched on to as the one where Icke "allegedly" drew the link between 5G and Covid....

     

    When I was watching that interview at the time I remember thinking, crikey, Rose has purposefully led Icke down the garden path here to get him to say something that can be used as a "soundbite", so that it could be pinned on Icke as saying "5G causes Covid!" even though, really, that's not what I believe David truly meant at all... my interpretation was that he meant that the health symptoms surrounding problematic 5G mirror the symptoms being "claimed" to be Covid, therefore, later down the road, if 5G starts causing problems with health en masse they will just say "you've got Covid" - THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING 5G CAUSES COVID!!  

     

    Also, there was later that thing where a large excerpt of one of the Rose/Icke interviews ended up being broadcast on TV, not that I saw it I think it was only on a TV channel you can get in London locality?  But for Icke to end up on TV like that seemed a bit suspicious to me - especially since this was after the BBC jumped on the "Icke says 5G causes Covid" story, and then conveniently the interview was available on freeview or sky (?) ACTUAL TV not just the internet (somehow therefore making it more "true") - while at the same time just cementing the belief that because David is mad for the 5G thing then therefore EVERYTHING ELSE he says is also mad, thus publically discrediting all of his theories at once.

     

    I still haven't answered the poll as I'm not even sure what I think... I'm just sharing my views and look forward to more discussion

    As you said, Icke never said or meant that 5G causes Covid. He cleared that up a couple of times in his talks.

    That has several reasons:

    The first and most obvious is that it would actually confirm that Covid19 is real, which he denies.

    (from my standpoint, real or not became irrelevant, as its either a mild flu which got rebranded as Covid19, or it is a new virus but somehow has the symptoms of every flu anyway)

    The second is that 5G cannot cause virus infection, which of course David knows. Its mainly used to make him look like a fool.

    5G trough its higher radiation can cause more illness with a lot of side effects and thus this in turn can be used to blame it on Covid19, which is what David Icke said and meant. (and you meant for that matter)

  15. 3 minutes ago, Ethel said:

    I rather think he is a game player, which I can't really be bothered with. That being said, I could be wrong.

    Shall i add it as a poll option?

     

    Opinions differ, so i would be fine with that.

    Its just after this speech there are for me no other options i could think of.

    • Like 1
  16. We are at a point where we need to stop buying into nonsense.

    I cannot belief what Brian is talking here. More testing? Mate are you serious?

    I think thats sadly it, but i need to scratch him forever. There is no excuse to go back to general media nonsense which has been exposed as nothing but propaganda time and time again by health professionals all over the world.

    Unless he is still in denial that this is a purposly orchestrated agenda which cannot be more visible and clear as it is now, he must be a shill. No other options at this point.

    • Thanks 1
  17.  

    Starting at 32:19 where he talks about the new social order/new value systems.

    As with his examples, i can see the exact same thing with the Black Lives Matter Movement.

     

    "Black Lives Matter" is a term that already is in itself racist and does not combat rascism. It produces the very thing, you thought it fights against.

    Because why specify Black Lives Matter, when in fact all lives matter and no seperation should be made in the first place.

    What does it even mean when you say "Black Lives Matter". Do i need to say: "Brown lives matter", "White lives Matter" and so on? Of course not. The very seperation of the colour of your skin already produces devidence and in turn rascism. Because lets be real, a sane person knows that colour, heritage, gender and all of these doesent make you better or worse, you are as valuable and important as everyone else, regardless from where you come from or how you look.

  18. 30 minutes ago, Seeker said:

    What happens if someone over 80 refuses? My grandmother who is in her 80s has said she will not have the vaccine, or any flu vaccine. What will the consequences be? They can’t strap her down and force it at this stage of tyranny 

    Tbh i think they force it on you passivly, meaning you will get a health passport (as reported), which then is required to go shopping,go to work, fly,attend events and so on.

    If you dont get a vaccine you cant do all this stuff anymore.

    Obviously you still can send everything you need via mail to your home, which is a workarround at first.

    But you will be left out of society.

    So whats left will be a small minority, because obviously you need to work to make money and money to buy food. Many cannot dismiss that even when they are against vaccines.

    Is it apllied immediatly everywhere? I dont know

    Is it step by step? I dont know that either

    Anything is possible at this point.

    • Like 3
  19. 21 minutes ago, Ecki Divad said:

     

    The way I would put it is that the ideas are less important than who is pushing them.  I watched The Wave film yesterday and while I don't agree with what the film says about Nazi Germany, as I view the Nazis more favourably than most, I agree with the film's general message that authority can be abused and that people should retain their individuality and scepticism.  I am familiar with Germany as a country and there is something in the culture that enabled an extreme authoritarian sort of movement to arise there that perhaps would not exist, or would not be as effective, in, say, Britain.  I would not want it myself, and a British version would be different, but at the same time, I recognise there were merits to what was done in Nazi Germany.

     

    A lot of this is about how you interpret history.  I agree that the War was terrible, however I don't accept Hitler started it or wanted it.  I don't agree with the simple characterisation of Nazi Germany as 'bad' or 'immoral'.  I don't believe it is as simple as that.  It's not to say Hitler or the other people in authority were good people, but I believe there was more to it than just the usual motive of seeking power.  They wanted power and importance for themselves, true, but I think they also wanted to raise up Germany and remove from German society unhealthy influences, which also exist today and we see around us.  You can criticise this and say they went about it the wrong way, and I will go some way to agreeing with you.

     

    The difference, in my mind, is that Nazi Germany was an attack on forces hostile to the German nation/folk, whereas Leftist Germany is an attack on the German nation/folk.  That's a simplification of course, and as you say, there was an ideological zeal to National Socialism that, in the end, left the German people as grist to the mill.  However, I maintain there's a fundamental difference - ends should not be confused with means.

     

    Yes, of course history cannot be simplified because eventually everything is a result of the events that came before it.

    Hitler would have never gained that power if germany wasnt pressured into a tremendous debt that caused the german population to suffer.

    Without the events of WW1, WW2 would not have happend the way it did.

    So obviously there was a problem and people looked for a solution (sounds familiar).

    Obviously im not going into all of the details, as this is a complicated matter, but nevertheless the methods have similarities.

  20. 58 minutes ago, Ecki Divad said:

    It's not Nazi Germany, it's Leftist Germany.  The Nazis would never have done this.  They were nationalists who cared about the German people.

    It doesent matter what name you give it, when the methods are the same.

    And Nazi germany didnt care about the german people, at all. Unless you still believe in that propaganda from 80-90 years ago.

    They let them rot on the battlefield, used cildren in an already lost war in the battle of berlin, made experiments on the disabled and killed jews that have a german background in concentration camps. The gestapo could enter any private space if they got ticked of.

    Its the same method. Take a minority and blame them for everything. Same here, the people that do not obey these restrictions get blamed for the ongoing lockdown.

    Old people were transfered into care homes, left to die and they wrote: its covid19.

    Its fascism, pure and simple fascism.

    Hanging yourself up by a name, doesent do it. I dont care who does it. I care what they do and what they do is a crime.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...