Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Morpheus said:

That's a frightening and shockingly poor decision if I do say so myself. The rationale is appalling, since when does the government thinks it can tell people what is best for them? Fuckin done with these Sabbatean weirdo's and this transhumanist agenda. 

Karl lentz has demonstrated through court that children are the domain of the government /state. However the governmemt has no claim over your property.

Property rights overrule state gov ,  your offsprimg are your property.

 

At court the word Children is a loaded word never use it 

 

This has been proven time after time 

 

Seeking a common law courts order for an exemption should be possible for your property but not through a nisi prius court or through the mayors office or the local council. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2021 at 4:05 PM, Illmatic said:

 

I agree and I think this is what a lot of "truthers" don't understand about politics as well. They think because someone makes some concessions in an argument and doesn't come out all guns blazing immediately they are automatically a "shill".

 

It may be admirable for someone to come out swinging, laying out the whole agenda as they see it including things they suspect but ultimately can't prove. It takes a lot of balls, that's true, but unfortunately in a political sense it's shooting yourself in the foot, all it does is make it easy for your opponents to ignore and dismiss you.

 

I appreciate this post, thanks.  To be honest, I don't know who is right and who is wrong here, so I'm not getting at anybody.  It could be that Ziggy Sawdust turns out to be right.  All I am saying is that, based on my knowledge of science (which is roughly A-level standard, so not much to speak of) and based on what I have seen, read and heard, I think there is a real virus of some sort and it's apparent that some people are ill. 

 

I also take the view, as you have just outlined, that even if there is a basis for saying the virus is fictitious, it is still advisable to be cautious about it.  Thus, if I had the same view as Ziggy Sawdust, the way I would put it across to, say, a court of law or a television journalist, is something like: "Some experts are raising question marks about whether the viral isolates are scientifically-valid, but let us assume there is a discrete, identifiable virus, it's all been exaggerated anyway and the official measures are wholly disproportionate against the real-world risk".

 

The advantage of this is that I am attacking the enemy at its weakest point and putting the argument across in a way that sounds like I know what I'm going on about and that people can sympathise with.  I'll catch more flies that way.  If I just say, 'There's no virus', most people will dismiss me as a nutter and stop listening, even if it's true, and the enemy can easily discredit me.

 

Proportionality is the basis of a legal case against all this - and it would be a strong case.  Simple denial is not the basis of a case unless you have very strong evidence at your disposal.  By denying there is a virus, you are raising the bar of proof to a level that probably can't be crossed.  It's an ambitious argument, given the forces on the other side who aver that there is a virus and will stake their professional reputations on it.

 

However, my end conclusion is the same as Ziggy Sawdust: that's it's all a hoax and a scam. I just arrive at this conclusion differently.  I take the view that we're dealing with exaggeration and hysteria, almost-certainly on purpose in some cases as part of some sort of agenda, or maybe a number of conflicting agendas, and in other cases it's just incompetence and the usual story of useful idiots being duped and taken in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

I think its encouraging too. There is a lot of overlap there and I get the feeling that the number of those suspicious overall is greater than they found. By breaking the data up it can be diffused so to speak and can carry a message that supports convention.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a year ago predicting the worlds population decline. When we’re getting told it is rising but it just feels like it because of immigration. Pushing people into cities and smaller spaces so they’re easier to control. 
 

 


Then there are 11,000 “experts” declaring a state of emergency with the world’s population leading to a lack of resources before the plandemic struck. 

Put that in contrast to the great barrington declaration which I think is 5,000 to see just how outnumbered they are. 11,000 seems a lot. How do you find 11,000 cunts?  Well they did.  That’s a web of 11,000 people actively on board to the reduce the worlds population not just mindless drones or yes men. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ziggy Sawdust said:

 

Those from ethnic minority backgrounds are particularly likely to report believing conspiracy-related statements, according to researchers.

 

They didn't get as much of the mandatory programming British kids got?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

I appreciate this post, thanks.  To be honest, I don't know who is right and who is wrong here, so I'm not getting at anybody.  It could be that Ziggy Sawdust turns out to be right.  All I am saying is that, based on my knowledge of science (which is roughly A-level standard, so not much to speak of) and based on what I have seen, read and heard, I think there is a real virus of some sort and it's apparent that some people are ill. 

 

I also take the view, as you have just outlined, that even if there is a basis for saying the virus is fictitious, it is still advisable to be cautious about it.  Thus, if I had the same view as Ziggy Sawdust, the way I would put it across to, say, a court of law or a television journalist, is something like: "Some experts are raising question marks about whether the viral isolates are scientifically-valid, but let us assume there is a discrete, identifiable virus, it's all been exaggerated anyway and the official measures are wholly disproportionate against the real-world risk".

 

The advantage of this is that I am attacking the enemy at its weakest point and putting the argument across in a way that sounds like I know what I'm going on about and that people can sympathise with.  I'll catch more flies that way.  If I just say, 'There's no virus', most people will dismiss me as a nutter and stop listening, even if it's true, and the enemy can easily discredit me.

 

Proportionality is the basis of a legal case against all this - and it would be a strong case.  Simple denial is not the basis of a case unless you have very strong evidence at your disposal.  By denying there is a virus, you are raising the bar of proof to a level that probably can't be crossed.  It's an ambitious argument, given the forces on the other side who aver that there is a virus and will stake their professional reputations on it.

 

However, my end conclusion is the same as Ziggy Sawdust: that's it's all a hoax and a scam. I just arrive at this conclusion differently.  I take the view that we're dealing with exaggeration and hysteria, almost-certainly on purpose in some cases as part of some sort of agenda, or maybe a number of conflicting agendas, and in other cases it's just incompetence and the usual story of useful idiots being duped and taken in.

 

I get that and agree somewhat although I see no evidence to suggest that a pathogenic viral particle has ever been proven to exist. Stephen Lanka's work demonstrates that.

I agree that middle ground is the viable target so to speak for us who are dissentious towards the mainstream narrative as it appears to be the mainstream's target also, where those are most likely to be on the fence and therefore swayable.

My opinion is that what is perceived as a pathogenic particle is an exosome and they are endogenous particulates with a multitude of functions, they can convey information throughout the body, on release/purge from the body they can also communicate information to  other organisms (eg warning of a toxic insult), they can act as solvents mopping up toxins that other bodily functions miss and in the same way transfer this information to other organisms on excretion.

The mutation of "virus" particles can be explained by variability of the toxic or other insult and shows the body to be an innately intelligent system.

The premise of viral pathogenicity is also at odds with terrain theory whereas exosomal activity supports terrain theory.

Avoidance of isolation and purification of a complete intact particle is intentional imo as it would then be possible to prove conclusively that pathogenicity is as mythical as proponent's of terrain theory suggest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

 

Those from ethnic minority backgrounds are particularly likely to report believing conspiracy-related statements, according to researchers.

 

They didn't get as much of the mandatory programming British kids got?

 

 

Could be to shame them into getting it too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

 

Those from ethnic minority backgrounds are particularly likely to report believing conspiracy-related statements, according to researchers.

 

They didn't get as much of the mandatory programming British kids got?

 

 

 

How many white people would admit to believing in conspiracies? White people get in more trouble for going down rabbit holes, at least in this generation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EnigmaticWorld said:

 

How many white people would admit to believing in conspiracies? White people get in more trouble for going down rabbit holes, at least in this generation.

I do and have, tbh I have had the shaking heads, the tinfoil hat comments over the years as many of us have.

 

Thing is we get to say "Told you so" now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no idea who this guy is but I guess this video came up in my suggestions as I have been studying the conditions that lead to the start of the second world war.

Anyhow he makes a good Job of explaining why when the government and media say things like more people have died in the uk since 1918 or ww2 that it is just blatant scaremongering.

Could be a good one to share with people who dismiss everything as conspiracy 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, FrankVitali said:
END - FURLOUGH - NOW Then let’s see what happens? Watch the sheep shit themselves and call bullshit on it all. Because, at the moment, they’re prostituting our freedom to a corrupt Government.

 

I agree with you here @FrankVitali, these businesses are prostituting our freedom, I would love for the Government to stop this Furlough, but I can't see this happening any time soon.

Can't these businesses see what they are doing, this makes me so mad :classic_angry:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shadowmoon said:

Sorry if this has already been covered,  but I swear the Captain Sir Tom entity had their vaccination  a couple of weeks ago? Tried to look it up and it's all gone, so I am imagining it or it's been wiped?

He’s definitely had it. They’ve moved into lower age groups now and the darling of the NHS would have been at the front of the queue. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Liberty said:

People don’t respond well to “I told you so” and we do need them to respond 

 

It's never going to happen for many, even when they are being herded off to the health and safety camps in their masks.

"Chairman Boris is right, covid is real."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • lake locked this topic
  • lake unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...